Application of the Syva EMIT and Abbott TDx Amphetamine Immunoassays to the Detection of 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) and 3,4-Methylenedioxyethamphetamine (MDEA) in Urine

Abstract

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)

Screening for and validated quantification of amphetamines and of amphetamine‐ and piperazine‐derived designer drugs in human blood plasma by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry

“…For both reasons, screening procedures are needed in forensic and clinical toxicology, which allow reliable detection of these substances in biological matrices. Immunoassays (IA) of various types have often been used for this purpose 45–49. However, not all amphetamine IAs were suitable for detection of the amphetamine‐derived designer drugs46, 49–52 and especially not for the new piperazine‐derived substances 29, 53.…”

Evaluation of Bionike One-Step Tests for the Detection of Drugs of Abuse in Urine

“…A 'false negative' result for 3,4-methylendioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) by the EMIT amphetamines assay could be explained by poor crossreactivity of the assay for MDMA. 13 A comparison of results for methadone by the Bionike and EMIT tests indicated 88% agreement. Of the five urines which tested There was 91 % agreement between the Bionike and EMIT tests for opiates but two samples tested positive by the Bionike method and negative by EMIT (see Table 2).…”

The Neuropsychopharmacology and Toxicology of 3,4‐methylenedioxy‐N‐ethyl‐amphetamine (MDEA)

“…Reliable methods are needed for the legal prosecution of the use of these illicit substances and the clinical management of the growing number of intoxications (97,183). The analytical procedures can be separated into two groups: 1) different types of immunoassays (85,92,142,183), and 2) chromatographic and spectroscopic methods like high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) (105), liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) (11), and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) (97,170).…”

“…For screening purposes and routine sample testing, simple, cost-effective, but rather sensitive methods, like immunoassays, are used (85,139). In contrast, for confirmatory testing, forensic issues and quantitative analyses, GC-MS is considered to be the reference method (107,183).…”