Skip to main content

Types of Urine Drug Testing

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
  • 3469 Accesses

Abstract

Urine drug screening is typically a two-step procedure. The first step uses commercially available immunoassay to detect the presence of a drug or metabolite in the urine. Once specimens are identified as positive they have to be confirmed using gas chromatography/mass spectrometry [33]. The first stage analysis is known as a screening method performed by the “Enzyme Linked Immuno Sorbant Assay” (ELISA) that detects not only traces of drugs but also their metabolites. It is important to note, that the time-span where drugs can be detected as positive varies in regard to the specimen being used for screening (Fig. 10). The specificity and sensitivity of immunoassays vary depending on the type of assay and on the specific test being performed. The primary disadvantage of immunoassays is that the antibodies are seldom specific to one single drug or one drug metabolite. Therefore, the antibodies may bind with other substances. It is because of an immunoassay based positive result the term “presumptive positive” is being used since other factors such as cross-reactivity and difference in sensitivity and specificity among immunoassays does exist. Such results must be confirmed by a more specific method.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Schmidt WJ, Mayerhofer A, Meyera A, Kovar KA. Ecstasy counteracts catalepsy in rats, an anti-parkinsonian effect? Neurosci Lett. 2002;330:251–254.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Ricaurte GA, Matello AL, Katz JL, Martello MB. Long lasting effects of (±)-3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDMA) on central serotonergic neurons in nonhuman primates: neurochemical observations. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1992;261:616–622.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Reneman L, Booij J, den Heeten GJ, van den Brin W. Effects of MDMA (ecstasy) use and abstention on serotonin neurons. Lancet. 2002;359:1617–1618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ricaurte GA, Yuan J, Hatzidimitriou G, Cord BJ, McCann UD. Severe dopaminergic neurotoxicity in primates after a common recreational dose regimen of MDMA (“Ecstasy”). Science. 2002;297:2260–2263.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Grob CS. Decontructing ecstasy: the epolitics of MDMA research. Addict Res. 2000;6:549–588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Reneman L, Booij J, Lavalaye J, de Bruin K, Reitsma J, Gunning B, et al. Use of amphetamine by recreational users of ecstasy (MDMA) is associated with reduced striatal dopamine transporter densities: a [123I]beta-CIT SPECT study - preliminary report. Psychopharmacology. 2002;159:335–340.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Sotnikova TD, Beaulieu JM, Barak LS, Wetsel WC, Caron MG. Dopamine-independent locomotor actions of amphetamines in a novel acute mouse model of parkinson disease. PLoS Biol. 2005;3:e271.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Morris K. Concern over research reawakens ecstasy neurotoxicity debate. Lancet. 2003;2:650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Buchert R, Thomasius R, Nebeling B, Petersen K, Obrocki J, Jenicke L, et al. Long-term effects of “Ecstasy” use on serotonin transporters of the brain investigated by PET. J Nucl Med. 2003;44:375–384.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Hatzidimitriou G, McCann UD, Ricaurte GA. Altered serotonin innervation patterns in the forebrain of monkeys treated with MDMA seven years previously: factors influencing abnormal recovery. J Neurosci. 1999;19:5096–5107.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Hiramatsu M, Kumagai Y, Unger SE, Cho AK. Metabolism of methylenedioxymethamphetamine: formation of dihydroxy-methamphetamine and a quinone identified as its glutathione adduct. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1990;25:521–527.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Tucker GT, Lennard MS, Ellis SW, et al. The demethylenation of methylenedioxymethamphetamine (“Ecstasy”) by debrisoquine hydroxylase (CYP2D6). Biochem Pharmacol. 1994;47:1151–1156.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Zhao ZY, Castagnoli NJ, Ricaurte GA, Steele T, Martello M. Synthesis and neurotoxicological evaluation of putative metabolites of the serotonergic neurotoxin 2-(methylamino)-1-[3,4-(methylenedioxy)phenyl] propane [(methylenedioxy)-methamphetamine]. Chem Res Toxocol. 1992;5:89–94.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Lim HK, Foltz RL. In vivo and in vitro metabolism of 3,4-(methylenedioxy)methamphetamine in the rat: identification of metabolites using an ion trap detector. Chem Res Toxicol. 1988;1:370–378.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Wagner GC, Carelli RM, Jarvis MF. Ascorbic acid reduces the dopamine depletion induced by methamphetamine and the 1-methyl-4-phenyl pyridinium ion. Neuropharmacology. 1086;25:559–561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Bindoli A, Rigobello MP, Deeble DJ. Biochemical and toxicological properties of the oxidation products of catecholamines. Free Radical Biol Med. 1992;13:391–405.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Wagner G, Carelli R, Jarvis M. Pretreatment with ascorbic acid attenuates the neurotoxic effects of methamphetamine in rats. Res Commun Chem Path Pharm. 1985;47:221–228.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Leibovitz B. Phenethylamines, free radicals, and antioxidants. Multidiscip Ass Psychodel Stud. 1993;4:1–3.

    Google Scholar 

  19. McCann UD, Ricaurte CA. Reinforcing subjective effects of (±) 3,4-methylenedioxymetha­niphetamine (“ecstasy”) may be separable from its neurotoxic actions: clinical evidence. J Clin Psychopharm. 1993;13:214–217.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Enno Freye MD, PhD .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer Science + Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Freye, E. (2009). Types of Urine Drug Testing. In: Pharmacology and Abuse of Cocaine, Amphetamines, Ecstasy and Related Designer Drugs. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2448-0_43

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics