2014
DOI: 10.1002/dta.1644
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Utility of ELISA screening for the monitoring of abstinence from illegal and legal drugs in hair and urine

Abstract: Amphetamines, cannabinoids, cocaine, opiates, methadone, and benzodiazepines in authentic hair samples with drug concentrations around the medical and psychological assessment (MPA) guidelines cut-offs were screened by LUCIO-direct ELISA kits. Following confirmation of all positive and a significant number of negatively screened samples with gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) or liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) methods accredited for forensic purposes. Receiver operating char… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
12
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

2
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 38 publications
2
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The LODs using the recommended sample treatments were 0.36 ng mL −1 (urine), 0.09 ng mL −1 (saliva), and 0.63 ng mL −1 (serum) of COC con‐centrations at the microplate wells. These LODs compare favourably to 0.95 ng mL −1 reported for the detection of COC metabolites in oral fluids 37, to 5 ng mL −1 (blood) and 19 ng mL −1 (urine) in commercial ELISA immunoassays (BZE) 38, or to 1.2 ng mL −1 in urine matrix 6. Other reported LODs for COC metabolites detection in urine and sweat samples are 81 ng mL −1 (CEDIA’s ELISA), 4 ng mL −1 (Cozart ELISA), and 1.5 ng mL −1 (OraSure ELISA) 39.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 63%
“…The LODs using the recommended sample treatments were 0.36 ng mL −1 (urine), 0.09 ng mL −1 (saliva), and 0.63 ng mL −1 (serum) of COC con‐centrations at the microplate wells. These LODs compare favourably to 0.95 ng mL −1 reported for the detection of COC metabolites in oral fluids 37, to 5 ng mL −1 (blood) and 19 ng mL −1 (urine) in commercial ELISA immunoassays (BZE) 38, or to 1.2 ng mL −1 in urine matrix 6. Other reported LODs for COC metabolites detection in urine and sweat samples are 81 ng mL −1 (CEDIA’s ELISA), 4 ng mL −1 (Cozart ELISA), and 1.5 ng mL −1 (OraSure ELISA) 39.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 63%
“…Two analytically different methods were used as required by international forensic guidelines namely ELISA screening followed by confirmation using gas chromatography‐mass spectrometry (GC‐MS), gas chromatography‐tandem mass spectrometry (GC‐MS/MS), or liquid chromatography‐tandem mass spectrometry (LC‐MS/MS) for the detection of drugs and EtG. Both analytical methods are presented in previous publications . The lower limits of quantification (LLOQs) were all below the recommended MPA cut‐offs shown in Table ; As previously published 17 the LLOQ of EtG in hair was 2.8 pg/mg and the lower limit of detection (LLOD) detection was 0.6 pg/mg using linear regression at 99% significance level, hence well below the ‘abstinence’ cut‐off at 7 pg/mg hair.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 84%
“…However, it took until the groundbreaking efforts of Baumgartner's group in the late 1970s before hair analysis for drugs was introduced on a broader scale using radioimmunoassay [23,25]. ELISA has been successfully used for the preliminary analysis of amphetamines [22,47À49], cocaine, opiates [47,49À52], cannabinoids [47,49], and benzodiazepines [47,49,53]. Today, the dominating immunoassay for screening is enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA).…”
Section: Immunoassaysmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Recommended thresholds for the most common drug groups have been published by the SoHT [4]. Another approach is to use receiver operating curves (ROCs) to establish the screening threshold that provides the best sensitivity and specificity [47,52]. In order to do this one needs to analyze both positive and negative samples with both methods and calculate the true positives, true negatives, false positives, and false negatives for each analyte or analyte group.…”
Section: Immunoassaysmentioning
confidence: 99%