Augsburger M, Rivier L, Mangin P
Institut Universitaire de Médecine Légale, Lausanne, Switzerland.
J Pharm Biomed Anal. 1998 Dec;18(4-5):681-7. doi: 10.1016/s0731-7085(98)00266-0.
A total of 53 urine samples were tested by different immunoassay methods and by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry to determine repeatability of the different methods and to assess whether the immunoassays performed on samples obtained from elderly patients of the emergency section could be considered as reliable enough for identifying a benzodiazepine consumption. Repeatability was excellent for GC/MS and good for immunoassays. The specificity was not different for the three immunoassays (96%). The sensitivity varied from 36, 64 to 75% for OnLine, RIA Immunalysis and RIA DPC, respectively. An other difference between immunoassays and GC/MS was the ability of GC/MS to detect lorazepam and low concentrations of benzodiazepines whereas immunoassays did not.
总共53份尿液样本通过不同的免疫分析方法和气相色谱/质谱法进行检测,以确定不同方法的重复性,并评估对急诊科老年患者样本进行的免疫分析是否足以可靠地识别苯二氮䓬类药物的使用情况。气相色谱/质谱法的重复性极佳,免疫分析的重复性良好。三种免疫分析的特异性无差异(96%)。在线免疫分析、放射免疫分析(Immunalysis)和放射免疫分析(RIA DPC)的灵敏度分别为36%、64%和75%。免疫分析和气相色谱/质谱法的另一个差异在于,气相色谱/质谱法能够检测劳拉西泮和低浓度的苯二氮䓬类药物,而免疫分析则不能。