Advertisement

Quantitative, False Positive, and False Negative Issues for Lateral Flow Immunoassays as Exemplified by Onsite Drug Screens

  • Raphael C. WongEmail author
  • Harley Y. Tse
Chapter

Introduction

Lateral flow immunoassay devices offer many advantages including convenience, economical, simplicity, and rapid result. Many lateral flow immunoassays are non-instrumental and rely on visual detection of colored lines for results, enabling easy portability and allowing testing at any time and at any place by non-technical personnel. Hence, many lateral flow immunoassay tests have been developed for use “onsite”, “point-of-care”, or “point-of-test”. However, utilization of this type of device requires the acceptance of some trade-offs. The most important is that the test results are generally qualitative. Moreover, since it is antibody-based, possibility exists that chemicals with similar structures will cause positive result leading to specificity and sensitivity issues. Recognizing such limitations, this technology has been widely utilized for screening tests in which a yes and no answer is sufficient. The initial screen test result can then be confirmed by a quantitative...

Keywords

Test Line Drug Screen False Result Poppy Seed Liquid Front 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Mandatory guidelines and proposed revisions to mandatory guidelines for federal workplace drug testing programs. April 13, 2004 (69 FR 19644).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Peace, M., Tarnai, L. and Poklis, A. (2000) Performance evaluation of four On-site drug-testing devices for detection of drugs of abuse in urine. J. Anal. Toxicol. 24:589–594.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Moody, D.E., Fang, W.B., Andrenyak, D.M. and Monti, C. (2006) A comparative evaluation of the Instant-View 5-panel test card with OnTrak TesTcup Pro 5: comparison with gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. J. Anal. Toxicol. 30:50–56.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Melanson, S.E.F., Lewandrowski, E.L., Griggs, D.A. and Flood, J.G. (2007) Interpreting tricyclic antidepressant measurements in urine in an emergency department setting: comparison of two qualitative point-of-care urine tricyclic antidepressant drug immunoassays with quantitative serum chromatographic analysis. J. Anal. Toxicol. 31:270–275.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kong, T.C. (2008) Clinical false-positive drug test results. In: “Handbook of drug monitoring methods”. Dasgupta, A., ed. Humana Press, Totowa, NJ, pp. 395–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rohrig, T.P. and Moore, C. (2003) The determination of morphine in urine and oral fluid following ingestion of poppy seeds. J. Anal. Toxicol. 27:449–452.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Thevis, M., Opfermann, G. and Schanzer, W. (2003) Case report: urinary concentrations of morphine and codeine after consumption of poppy seeds. J. Anal. Toxicol. 27:53–56.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Practical challenges to positive drug tests for marijuana, Editorial. (2003) Clin. Chem. 49:1037–1038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jenkins, A.J., Llosa, T., Montoya, I. and Cone, E.J. (1996) Identification and quantification of alkaloids in coca tea. Forensic Sci. Int. 77:179–189.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mazor, S.S., Mycyk, M.B., Wills, B.K., Brace, L.D., Gussow, L. and Erickson, T. (2006) Coca tea consumption causes positive urine cocaine assay. Eur. J. Emerg. Med. 13:340–341.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bowen, R., George, D. and Hortin, G. (2005) False-negative results for cocaine metabolites on a lateral-flow drug test slide corrected by dilution. Clin. Chem. 51:790–791.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tomkins, B.A., Van Berkel, G.J., Jenkins, R.A. and Counts, R.W. (2006) Quantitation of cotinine in nonsmoker saliva using chip-based nanoelectrospray tandem mass spectrometry. J. Anal. Toxicol. 30:178–186.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stout, P.R., Hron, C.K., Klette, K.L. and Given, J. (2006) Occupational exposure to methamphetamine in workers preparing training aids for drug detection dogs. J. Anal. Toxicol. 30:551–553.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wong, R.C. and Tse, H.Y. (2005) Adulteration detection by Intect® 7. In: “Drugs of abuse: Body fluid testing”. Wong, R.C. and Tse, H.Y., eds. Humana Press, Totowa, NJ, pp. 233–245.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Peace, M.R. and Tarnai, L.D. (2002) Performance evaluation of three on-site adulterant detection devices for urine specimens. J. Anal. Toxicol. 26:464–470.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
  17. 17.
    Medical Review Officer Manual for Federal Agency Workplace Drug Testing Programs. US Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Division of Workplace Programs. Available at: http://dwp.samhsa.gov/DrugTesting/Level_1_Pages/HHS%20MRO%20Manual%20(Effective%201,%202004. Accessed 5/12/2008.
  18. 18.
    Kraemer, T., Roditis, S., Peters, F. and Maurer, H. (2003) Amphetamine concentrations in human urine following single-dose administration of the calcium antagonist Prenylamine—Studies using fluorescence polarization immunoassay (FPIA) and GC-MS. J. Anal. Toxicol. 27:68–73.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sena, S., Kazimi, S. and Wu A. (2002) False-positive phencyclidine immunoassay results caused by Venlafaxine and O-Desmethylvenlafaxine. Clin. Chem. 48:676–677.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Santos, P.M., Lopez-Garcia, P., Navarro, J.S., Fernandez, A.S., Sadaba, B. and Vidal, J.P. (2007) False positive phencyclidine results caused by Venlafaxine. Am. J. Psychiatry 164:349.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lewis, J.H. (1999) Interference of Gemfibrozil with Roche Testcup. J. Anal. Toxicol. 23:384.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Leino, A., Saarimies, J., Gronholm, M. and Lillsunde, P. (2001) Comparison of eight commercial onsite screening devices for drugs-of-abuse testing. Scand. J. Clin. Lab. Invest. 61:325–331.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Manzi, S., Law, T. and Shannon, M.W. (2002) Methylphenidate produces a false-positive urine amphetamine screen. Pediat. Emerg. Care. 18:401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rossi, S., Yaksh, T., Bentley, H., van den Brande, G., Grant, I. and Ellis, R. (2006) Characterization of interference with 6 commercial Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol immunoassays by Efavirenz (Glucuronide) in urine. Clin. Chem. 52:896–897.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Daher, R., Haidar, J.H. and Al-Amin, H. (2002) Rifampin interference with opiate immunoassays. Clin. Chem. 48:203–204.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
  27. 27.
    Widschwendter, C.G., Zernig, G. and Hofer, A. (2007) Quetiapine cross reactivity with urine methadone immunoassays. Am. J. Psychiatry 164:172.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hendrickson, R.G. and Morocco, A.P. (2003) Quetiapine cross-reactivity among three tricyclic antidepressant immunoassays. J. Anal. Toxicol. 41:105–108.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zacher, J. (2004) False-positive urine opiate screening associated with Fluoroquinolone use. Ann. Pharmacothe. 38:1525–1528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Humana Press, a part of Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Branan Medical CorporationIrvineUSA

Personalised recommendations