Cross-reactivities of various phenethylamine-type designer drugs to immunoassays for amphetamines, with special attention to the evaluation of the one-step urine drug test Instant-View™, and the Emit® assays for use in drug enforcement

Nakanishi, Kotoyoshi; Miki, Akihiro; Zaitsu, Kei; Kamata, Hiroe; Shima, Noriaki; Kamata, Toshihide; Katagi, Munehiro; Tatsuno, Michiaki; Tsuchihashi, Hitoshi; Suzuki, Koichi

doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2011.11.003

Cited by 28 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The risk for poor performance in drug testing service when not including all relevant analytes in the confirmation method has been pointed out. A study of phenethylamine-type designer drugs in different EMIT amphetamine class tests [14] reported rather high cross-reactivity values for 2-and 4-FA (35% and 44%, respectively) in the EMIT d.a.u. Authentic case samples were used to demonstrate the capability of several The following substances showed cross reactivity (>0.005%) above detection limit but below cut-off when studied at concentration 30000 ng/mL: The following substances showed cross reactivity (>0.03%) above detection limit but below cut-off when studied at concentration 30000 ng/mL: MXE All other substances gave blank readings.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[8] Ever since the abuse of ecstasy started to evolve, there has been an interest in documenting the cross-reactivity of NPS in established immunochemical screening methods. [14,15] This work aimed to confirm and further extend the number of NPS and immunochemical tests evaluated for cross-reactivity. [14,15] This work aimed to confirm and further extend the number of NPS and immunochemical tests evaluated for cross-reactivity.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Detectability of new psychoactive substances, ‘legal highs’, in CEDIA, EMIT, and KIMS immunochemical screening assays for drugs of abuse

Beck

Rausberg

Al-Saffar

et al. 2014

Drug Testing and Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The increasing number of new psychoactive substances made available for recreational drug use has created a challenge for clinical toxicology and drug testing laboratories. As a consequence, the routine immunoassay drug testing may become less effective due to an increased occurrence of false negative and false positive screening results. This work aimed to extend the knowledge about analytical cross-reactivity of new substances in selected CEDIA, EMIT, and KIMS immunoassays for drugs-of-abuse screening. Urine standards were prepared by spiking blank urine with 45 new substances. Authentic urine samples from intoxication cases identified by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) were also studied. Several new psychoactive substances were demonstrated to display cross-reactivity in the immunoassays. CEDIA Amphetamine/Ecstasy and EMIT d.a.u. Amphetamine Class tests showed the highest reactivity towards the new drugs, which was expected since many have amphetamine-like structure and activity. In the samples from authentic cases, five new substances displayed 100% detection rate in the CEDIA Amphetamine/Ecstasy test. In conclusion, cross-reactivity data in routine urine drug screening immunoassays for a number of new psychoactive substances not studied before were reported. In both spiked and authentic urine samples, some new substances showed significant cross-reactivity and are thus detectable in the routine screening methods.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Detectability of new psychoactive substances, ‘legal highs’, in CEDIA, EMIT, and KIMS immunochemical screening assays for drugs of abuse

Beck

Rausberg

Al-Saffar

et al. 2014

Drug Testing and Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[26] High cross-reactivity was reported for MDA, MDMA, MDEA, and 4-hydroxymethamphetamine for both kits but many compounds still were either undetected or detected as positives with only one set of reagents, indicating that a negative immunoassay result does not mean an amphetamine analog is not present. 2C-B, 2C-I, DOB, DOI), [28] while cross-reactivities for additional phenethylamines were reported by Nakanishi et al [29] However, these studies have incorporated relatively few designer drug compounds or synthetic cathinones, and some drugs only demonstrate minimal cross-reactivity, indicating that abuse of these substances may not be detected. [27] Using a PBS (phosphate buffered saline) matrix, high cross-reactivity at 50 ng/ml was reported for MDA, PMA, 4-methylthioamphetamine, and phentermine with the amphetamine kit.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Cross‐reactivity of designer drugs, including cathinone derivatives, in commercial enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assays

Swortwood

Hearn

DeCaprio

2013

Drug Testing and Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the introduction of synthetic heroin, designer drugs have been increasing in prevalence in the United States drug market over the past few decades. Recently, 'legal highs' sold as 'bath salts' have become a household term for one such class of designer drugs. While a number of federal and state bans have been enacted, the abuse of these designer drugs still continues. Few assays have been developed for the comprehensive detection of such compounds, so it is important to investigate how they may or may not react in presumptive screens, i.e. pre-existing commercial immunoassays. In this experiment, 16 different ELISA reagents were evaluated to determine the cross-reactivity of 30 designer drugs, including 24 phenylethylamines (including 8 cathinone derivatives), 3 piperazines, and 3 tryptamines. Cross-reactivity towards most drugs was <4% in assays targeting amphetamine or methamphetamine. Compounds such as MDA, MDMA, ethylamphetamine, and α-methyltryptamine demonstrated cross-reactivities in the range of 30-250%, but data were consistent with both manufacturer's inserts and published literature. When tested against the Randox Mephedrone/Methcathinone kit, cathinone derivatives demonstrated cross-reactivity at concentrations as low as 150 ng/ml. Since this same reagent did not cross-react with other amphetamine-like compounds, it opens the possibility to screen post-mortem specimens without the interference of putrefactive amines. All other assays demonstrated essentially no cross-reactivity towards any of the analytes evaluated. Given these results, a great need exists for more broad-range screening techniques to be applied when analyzing biological specimens by immunoassays for drugs of abuse, specifically the more recent designer drugs.

show abstract

“…Concernant plus particulièrement les tests « amphétamines », de nombreuses substances telles que les « bath salts », les stimulants « amphetamine-like », le fénofibrate, peuvent induire des résultats faussement positifs pour certains tests immunochimiques [2][3][4][5][6]. Curtin et al rapportent, par exemple, un cas de réaction croisée entre la phényléphrine et la métamphétamine : les urines d'une patiente ayant reçu une dose intraveineuse de phényléphrine ont généré un dépistage positif à la recherche immunochimique de métamphétamine [7].…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Une interférence analytique peut en cacher une autre : l’exemple de l’urapidil, du dépistage de MDMA et de l’identification d’un stimulant de synthèse, la 2-MeOPP

Allibe

Eysseric-Guerin

Fonrose

et al. 2014

Toxicologie Analytique et Clinique

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cross-reactivities of various phenethylamine-type designer drugs to immunoassays for amphetamines, with special attention to the evaluation of the one-step urine drug test Instant-View™, and the Emit® assays for use in drug enforcement

Cited by 28 publications

References 23 publications

Detectability of new psychoactive substances, ‘legal highs’, in CEDIA, EMIT, and KIMS immunochemical screening assays for drugs of abuse

Detectability of new psychoactive substances, ‘legal highs’, in CEDIA, EMIT, and KIMS immunochemical screening assays for drugs of abuse

Cross‐reactivity of designer drugs, including cathinone derivatives, in commercial enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assays

Une interférence analytique peut en cacher une autre : l’exemple de l’urapidil, du dépistage de MDMA et de l’identification d’un stimulant de synthèse, la 2-MeOPP

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About