False-positive and false-negative rates in meconium drug testing.

US Drug Testing Laboratories, Chicago, IL 60612, USA.
Clinical Chemistry (Impact Factor: 7.15). 12/1995; 41(11):1614-6.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To determine the number of false-negative results produced by inefficient extraction of drugs from meconium, three published procedures were compared by using previously confirmed positive and negative meconium specimens. The methods were not equivalent in their ability to extract drugs from the matrix. To determine the number of false positives reported by the use of screen-only (unconfirmed) results, 535 screen-positive meconium specimens were subjects to confirmation by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. Fifty-seven percent of the samples were confirmed positive for one or more of the drugs under investigation, showing that a false-positive rate as high as 43% may exist when unconfirmed screening results are used.

1 Bookmark
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Prenatal methamphetamine (MAMP) exposure is poorly reflected in neonatal meconium. Often, maternal self-reported MAMP use is not corroborated by positive results in amphetamines immunoassays of meconium, and even if initial test results are positive, they frequently are not confirmed for MAMP or amphetamine (AMP) by chromatographic analysis. The presence of the MAMP metabolites p-hydroxymethamphetamine (pOHMAMP), p-hydroxyamphetamine (pOHAMP), and norephedrine (NOREPH) in meconium may improve the identification of MAMP- and AMP-exposed neonates. Immunoassay-positive and -negative meconium samples were subjected to liquid chromatography- tandem mass spectrometric reanalysis for these recently identified metabolites. pOHAMP and NOREPH were detected only when MAMP and/or AMP were present and thus do not appear to be promising biomarkers of prenatal MAMP exposure. pOHMAMP, in contrast, identified 6 additional neonates whose mothers reported MAMP exposure, yet had a meconium sample screened as negative; pOHMAMP was more likely to be present if maternal MAMP use continued into the third trimester. Although the pOHMAMP results for meconium samples corroborated the maternal self-reports, the confirmation rate for positive meconium screening results did not improve with the inclusion of these new biomarkers. pOHMAMP identified additional MAMP- exposed neonates; therefore, MAMP, AMP, and pOHMAMP should be included in meconium chromatographic analyses. Maximizing the identification of MAMP-exposed children requires improvement in immunoassay screening tests to reduce false-negative and false-positive results. Additional research will help clarify which AMP-related compounds, if any, contribute to unconfirmed positive results in screening tests. Furthermore, nonamphetamine compounds endogenous to the complex meconium matrix also may cross-react, making chromatographic confirmation of screening results essential.
    Clinical Chemistry 02/2010; 56(5):856-60. · 7.15 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Forensic toxicology is the study and practice of the application of toxicology to the purposes of the law. The relevance of any finding is determined, in the first instance, by the nature and integrity of the specimen(s) submitted for analysis. This means that there are several specific challenges to select and collect specimens for ante-mortem and post-mortem toxicology investigation. Post-mortem specimens may be numerous and can endow some special difficulties compared to clinical specimens, namely those resulting from autolytic and putrefactive changes. Storage stability is also an important issue to be considered during the pre-analytic phase, since its consideration should facilitate the assessment of sample quality and the analytical result obtained from that sample. The knowledge on degradation mechanisms and methods to increase storage stability may enable the forensic toxicologist to circumvent possible difficulties. Therefore, advantages and limitations of specimen preservation procedures are thoroughfully discussed in this review. Presently, harmonized protocols for sampling in suspected intoxications would have obvious utility. In the present article an overview is given on sampling procedures for routinely collected specimens as well as on alternative specimens that may provide additional information on the route and timing of exposure to a specific xenobiotic. Last, but not least, a discussion on possible bias that can influence the interpretation of toxicological results is provided. This comprehensive review article is intented as a significant help for forensic toxicologists to accomplish their frequently overwhelming mission.
    Toxicology mechanisms and methods 09/2010; 20(7):363-414. · 1.37 Impact Factor
  • Clinical Pharmacokinetics 07/1996; 31(1). · 5.49 Impact Factor


Available from