MDMA and MDEA are hallucinogenic analogs of amphetamine. The need for laboratory monitoring of these substances has developed as a result of their increased recreational use. Since the Abbott TDx and Syva EMIT-d.a.u. immunoassays are commonly used tests for urine monitoring of drugs-of-abuse, the amphetamine assay of each manufacturer was assessed to determine the degree of cross-reactivity with MDMA and MDEA. Cross-reactivity was evaluated using a series of MDMA- and MDEA-spiked urine samples. Testing was performed over a two-day period with 3 runs/day and each sample run in duplicate. The Syva EMIT d.a.u. amphetamine assay was positive only at the highest concentration standard (10.0 micrograms/mL) for both MDMA and MDEA. Consequently, no further testing was performed with this assay. Calibration curves were generated for the TDx runs and percent cross-reactivity determinations were made. Precision for the TDx data was evaluated based on within-day and between-day coefficients of variation (CV). CVs for MDMA runs were below 6% for within-day and below 5% for between-day runs. Values of CV for MDEA were below 16% for both within-day and between runs; CVs were less than 2.5% for positive values. Cross-reactivity for MDMA ranged from 18% (10.00 micrograms/mL) to 118% (0.15 microgram/mL). Cross-reactivity for the MDEA standards ranged from 12% (10.00 micrograms/mL) to 47% (0.15 micrograms/mL). The presence of MDMA and/or MDEA in samples resulting in a negative EMIT-d.a.u. test and a positive TDx test was confirmed by GC/MS analysis.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Although the legitimate clinical use of amphetamine and amphetamine congeners is declining, the illicit use of these drugs remains high. There is a need for a rapid and conclusive method for detecting these compounds in routine urine drug testing, drug screening in drug rehabilitation centers, and as an aid in the diagnosis and treatment of potential overdoses. The Abbott ADx Amphetamine/Methamphetamine II assay (A/M II), a fluorescence polarization Immunoassay (FPIA), was compared to the Abbott TDx Amphetamine/Methamphetamine II assay (FPIA), the Syva enzyme-multiplied immunoassay technique (EMIT) and a gas chromatograph/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) method. Precision of the A/M II assay was evaluated on the ADx analyzer over a 14-day period in each of three modes of operation (batch, combination, and panel) and was based on within-run and between-run coefficients of variation (CVs). Within-run CVs for all three controls (low [L], medium [M], and high [H]) ranged from 0.40% to 10.60% and between run CVs ranged from 3.96% to 7.92%. Data indicated that the calibration curve was stable for 16 days. Each of the six calibrators and three controls were within 10% of their labeled concentrations when analyzed by GC/MS. Fifty routine clinical specimens from our laboratory and 74 specimens screened as positive for amphetamine or related compounds from a rehabilitation center were screened by ADx, TDx, and EMIT. Any specimen yielding a positive result by any of these three methods was confirmed by GC/MS. In-house controls, as well as clinical samples, which contained both amphetamine and methamphetamine in the same sample produced results greater than two times the expected response on the ADx and TDx.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

A modification of two commercially available enzymatic ethanol urine assays for use with the Monarch 2000 Chemistry System (Instrumentation Laboratory) is described. Both the Syva EMIT st Urine Ethyl Alcohol Assay and the Sigma Diagnostics Alcohol in Urine Assay, which utilize the reduction of nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD) to NADH associated with the oxidation of ethanol in the presence of alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH), were adapted to spectrophotometrically determine ethanol concentration. Precision was evaluated over a 3-day period. Within-day (n = 9) and total (n = 27) coefficients of variation (CV) were less than 7% for the controls greater than or equal to 200 mg/L (20 mg/dL). Enzymatic assay results utilizing the Monarch procedure were compared to a gas chromatographic (GC) reference method (n = 100 samples). Regression analysis of assay data with each reagent compared to the reference method resulted in correlation coefficients r = 0.972 (Syva) and 0.948 (Sigma). Both methods exhibited nonlinear results and therefore quantitative applications cannot be made. No false positive or negative results were encountered with either reagent, indicating that the assay is acceptable as a positive/negative screen for urine ethanol for a threshold less than or equal to 20 mg/dL.