Premium
Comparison between drug screening by immunoassay and ultra‐high performance liquid chromatography/high‐resolution time‐of‐flight mass spectrometry in post‐mortem urine
Author(s) -
Sundström Mira,
Pelander Anna,
Ojanperä Ilkka
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
drug testing and analysis
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.065
H-Index - 54
eISSN - 1942-7611
pISSN - 1942-7603
DOI - 10.1002/dta.1683
Subject(s) - immunoassay , chromatography , mass spectrometry , urine , drugs of abuse , drug , ion suppression in liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry , chemistry , liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry , medicine , pharmacology , antibody , biochemistry , immunology
Immunoassay is currently the most common approach for urine drug screening. However, the continuous emergence of new psychoactive substances (NPS) and their low urinary concentrations have challenged the scope and sensitivity of immunoassays. Consequently, specialized toxicology laboratories rely more and more on mass spectrometry (MS) based techniques. Ultra‐high performance liquid chromatography/high‐resolution time‐of‐flight mass spectrometry (UHPLC‐HR‐TOF‐MS) is an especially attractive technique for comprehensive drug screening. The objective was to compare the performances of immunoassay and UHPLC‐HR‐TOF‐MS in terms of scope, flexibility, sensitivity, and reliability of substance identification. A total of 279 post‐mortem urine samples were analyzed using a method representative of each technique. The immunoassay method was an Emit II Plus enzyme immunoassay for the following drug groups: amphetamines, benzodiazepines, buprenorphine, cannabis, and opiates. The UHPLC‐HR‐TOF‐MS method was a recently published method covering hundreds of drugs: conventional drugs of abuse, abused prescription drugs, and NPS of various classes. UHPLC‐HR‐TOF‐MS produced a lower number of false positive (FP) results for the drug groups covered by immunoassay. Many of the false negative (FN, n = 40) and FP (n = 22) immunoassay results were obviously due to the higher cut‐off concentrations and interfering matrix, respectively. Moreover, the wider scope of UHPLC‐HR‐TOF‐MS allowed detection of NPS and prescription drugs. UHPLC‐HR‐TOF‐MS gave FP results related to a few particular substances. The future option of adjusting all compound‐specific reporting parameters individually would allow the method's sensitivity and specificity to be fully exploited. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.