Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Drug screening and confirmation by GC-MS: comparison of EMIT II and Online KIMS against 10 drugs between US and England laboratories.
Forensic Sci Int 2006; 157(2-3):106-16FS

Abstract

Drug screening through urinalysis is a widely accepted tool for rapid detection of potential drug use at a relatively low cost. It is, therefore, a potentially useful method for detecting and monitoring drug use in a variety of contexts such as the criminal justice system, pre-employment screening and a variety of treatment centers. This article explores the efficacy of two commercially available drug-screening assays: Online KIMS assay (Roche) and EMIT II assays. First, we evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of two immunoassays. A total of 738 urine samples were collected among adult arrestee populations from Chicago, New Orleans and Seattle through the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) program. Partial samples were split within one laboratory and analyzed by both enzymes multiplied immunoassay technique (EMIT) II and kinetic interaction of microparticle in solution (KIMS) assays for a 10-drug panel (amphetamine, barbiturates, benzodiazepines, marijuana, cocaine, methadone, methaqualone, opiate, phencyclidine and propoxyphene). Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) was used as a confirmation method for all positives from either EMIT II or KIMS for all experiments. Second, the paper examines whether using different testing laboratories plays a role in the final results. The same experiments were repeated at two different testing locations: one in California and one in London and England. Third, the paper studies whether drug testing results vary between two laboratories when each of them had used their own routine screening method: the Forensic Science Service (FSS) at Birmingham, United Kingdom with KIMS assay and Medscreen Limited at London, United Kingdom with EMIT II. In summary, both EMIT II and KIMS assays generate fairly consistent results. The concordance rate against each of the 10 drugs tested is relatively high (97.4-100%). The discrepancies, in most cases, occurred at drug concentrations near the cut-off levels. There were more discrepant results between two laboratories compared to when specimens were analyzed at the same laboratory using two different assays.

Authors+Show Affiliations

National Institute of Justice, Department of Justice, 810 Seventh Street, NW., Washington, DC 20531, USA. Natalie.Lu@usdoj.govNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article
Multicenter Study

Language

eng

PubMed ID

15899564

Citation

Lu, Natalie T., and Bruce G. Taylor. "Drug Screening and Confirmation By GC-MS: Comparison of EMIT II and Online KIMS Against 10 Drugs Between US and England Laboratories." Forensic Science International, vol. 157, no. 2-3, 2006, pp. 106-16.
Lu NT, Taylor BG. Drug screening and confirmation by GC-MS: comparison of EMIT II and Online KIMS against 10 drugs between US and England laboratories. Forensic Sci Int. 2006;157(2-3):106-16.
Lu, N. T., & Taylor, B. G. (2006). Drug screening and confirmation by GC-MS: comparison of EMIT II and Online KIMS against 10 drugs between US and England laboratories. Forensic Science International, 157(2-3), pp. 106-16.
Lu NT, Taylor BG. Drug Screening and Confirmation By GC-MS: Comparison of EMIT II and Online KIMS Against 10 Drugs Between US and England Laboratories. Forensic Sci Int. 2006 Mar 10;157(2-3):106-16. PubMed PMID: 15899564.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Drug screening and confirmation by GC-MS: comparison of EMIT II and Online KIMS against 10 drugs between US and England laboratories. AU - Lu,Natalie T, AU - Taylor,Bruce G, PY - 2004/10/01/received PY - 2005/03/16/revised PY - 2005/03/16/accepted PY - 2005/5/19/pubmed PY - 2006/4/21/medline PY - 2005/5/19/entrez SP - 106 EP - 16 JF - Forensic science international JO - Forensic Sci. Int. VL - 157 IS - 2-3 N2 - Drug screening through urinalysis is a widely accepted tool for rapid detection of potential drug use at a relatively low cost. It is, therefore, a potentially useful method for detecting and monitoring drug use in a variety of contexts such as the criminal justice system, pre-employment screening and a variety of treatment centers. This article explores the efficacy of two commercially available drug-screening assays: Online KIMS assay (Roche) and EMIT II assays. First, we evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of two immunoassays. A total of 738 urine samples were collected among adult arrestee populations from Chicago, New Orleans and Seattle through the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) program. Partial samples were split within one laboratory and analyzed by both enzymes multiplied immunoassay technique (EMIT) II and kinetic interaction of microparticle in solution (KIMS) assays for a 10-drug panel (amphetamine, barbiturates, benzodiazepines, marijuana, cocaine, methadone, methaqualone, opiate, phencyclidine and propoxyphene). Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) was used as a confirmation method for all positives from either EMIT II or KIMS for all experiments. Second, the paper examines whether using different testing laboratories plays a role in the final results. The same experiments were repeated at two different testing locations: one in California and one in London and England. Third, the paper studies whether drug testing results vary between two laboratories when each of them had used their own routine screening method: the Forensic Science Service (FSS) at Birmingham, United Kingdom with KIMS assay and Medscreen Limited at London, United Kingdom with EMIT II. In summary, both EMIT II and KIMS assays generate fairly consistent results. The concordance rate against each of the 10 drugs tested is relatively high (97.4-100%). The discrepancies, in most cases, occurred at drug concentrations near the cut-off levels. There were more discrepant results between two laboratories compared to when specimens were analyzed at the same laboratory using two different assays. SN - 0379-0738 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/15899564/Drug_screening_and_confirmation_by_GC_MS:_comparison_of_EMIT_II_and_Online_KIMS_against_10_drugs_between_US_and_England_laboratories_ L2 - https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0379-0738(05)00178-7 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -