Interference agents in the detection of drugs of abuse through immunoassay tests used in clinical and forensic toxicology
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Introduction: The detection of drugs of abuse is of interest in legal and forensic medicine for living subjects or corpses, in the workplace, in patients undergoing detoxification of psychoactive substances and in various legal procedures. The substances to be detected are those psychoactive substances most frequently consumed by the population or their metabolites. Immunoassays are the first line of detection used to determine drugs of abuse in biological samples. However, positive results obtained by immunoassay detection must be confirmed with a second analysis based on chemical or physical principles such as chromatographic techniques. Objective: The objective of this study is to describe and argue the importance of immunoassay tests in the detection of drugs of abuse for clinical and forensic toxicology and the different interfering factors that affect their reliability. Materials and methods: This research work is documentary, retrospective and descriptive based on the systematic search of literature in online databases, according to the items proposed by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), which include the identification, selection, and inclusion of the consulted literature. Results: The search allowed the consultation of scientific articles obtained from thirteen online databases, published between 2015-2023. The studies analyzed demonstrate the proven utility of immunoassay tests in the preliminary detection of drugs of abuse for clinical and forensic toxicology; as well as the analytical limitations derived from its specificity and selectivity in the face of interfering factors. Conclusion: The bibliographic material consulted allowed establishing the practical utility and corroborating the worldwide importance of immunoassay tests in the detection of drugs of abuse and, in turn, determining the main interferers that affect their analytical reliability for clinical and forensic toxicology.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
References
Andrés, J., Díaz, J., Castelló, J., Fabregat, A., & López, P. (2002). Drogas de abuso: evaluación de las unidades de conductas adictivas en un Área Sanitaria. Revista de Diagnóstico Biológico, 51(2), 63-68. http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-79732002000200005&lng=es&tlng=es.
Bonalde, R., Morales, A., Vicuña, N., Colmenares, S., Saravia, M., Losno, R., Valderrama, M., Muñoz, A., Tito, A. (2021). Ketoprofeno como causa de falso positivo en la detección de Δ9- tetrahidrocannabinol en orina. ECIMED. Revista Cubana de Farmacia, 54(4): e716. file:///C:/Users/prato/Downloads/716-3422-1-PB%20(8).pdf
Cadwallader, A., & Murray, B. (2015). Performance-Enhancing Drugs I: Understanding the Basics of Testing for Banned Substances. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab, 25(4),396-404. Doi: 10.1123/ijsnem.2014-0185.
Organización de los Estados Americanos [OEA]. (2019). Comisión Interamericana para el Control del Abuso de Drogas (CICAD). Informe sobre el Consumo de Drogas en las Américas 2019, Washington, D.C., 2019. :http://www.cicad.oas.org/main/pubs/Informe%20sobre%20el%20consumo%20de%20drogas%20en%20las%20Américas%202019.pdf
Connors, N., Kosnett, M., Kulig, K., Nelson, L., Stolbach, A. (2020). ACMT Position Statement: Interpretation of Urine for Tetrahydrocannabinol Metabolites. J Med Toxicol, 16(2):240-242. Doi: 10.1007/s13181-019-00753-8.
Desrosiers, N., & Huestis, M. (2019). Oral Fluid Drug Testing: Analytical Approaches, Issues, and Interpretation of Results. J Anal Toxicol, 43(6),415-443. Doi: 10.1093/jat/bkz048. PMID: 31263897.
Drugs.com. (2022, 17 de abril). Preguntas frecuentes sobre pruebas de detección de drogas. Drugs.com. https://www.drugs.com/article/drug-testing.html
García, P. (2020). Determinación de drogas de abuso en muestras biológicas. [Trabajo de pregrado, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, España.]. http://147.96.70.122/Web/TFG/TFG/Memoria/PATRICIA%20GARCIA%20LOPEZ.pdf
Krotulski, A., Papsun, M., Kacinkon S., & Logan, B. (2020). Cuantificación de isotonitaceno y descubrimiento de metabolitos en casos forenses auténticos. J Anal Toxicol, 44(6),521-530. DOI: 10.1093/jat/bkaa016
Krotulski, A., Papsun, D., Walton, S., & Logan, B. (2021). Metonitazene en los Estados Unidos: evaluación de toxicología forense de un nuevo opiáceo sintético potente mediante espectrometría de masas de cromatografía líquida. Prueba de Drogas Anal. 13 (10),1697–1711. Doi: 10.1002/dta.3115
Martini, M., Batista, T., Henn. I., Souza. P., Vieira, A., Azevedo, L. (2020). Whether drug detection in urine and oral fluid is similar? A systematic review. Crit Rev Toxicon, 50(4), 348-358. DOI: 10.1080/10408444.2020.1751062.
Naciones Unidas. (1999). Programa de las Naciones Unidas para la fiscalización internacional de drogas, 1999. Métodos recomendados para la detección y el análisis de heroína, cannabinoides, cocaína, anfetamina, metanfetamina, y derivados anfetamínicos con anillo sustituido en especímenes biológicos. Manual anual para uso de laboratorios nacionales, New York., 2019. https://www.unodc.org/documents/scientific/ST-NAR-27-S.pdf
Napoletano, S., Basile, G., Lo Faro, A., & Negro F. (2022). New Psychoactive Substances and receding COVID-19 pandemic: really going back to "normal"? Acta Biomed, 93(2): e2022186. Doi: 10.23750/abm. v93i2.13008.
Negro, F., Di Trana, A., & Marinelli, S. (2022). The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the use of the performance-enhancing drugs. Acta Biomed, 92(6), e2021401. Doi: 10.23750/abm. v92i6.12377.
O’Malley, G., & O’Malley, R. (2020). Detección de drogas. Manual Merck [Ìnternet]. https://www.msdmanuals.com/es-ec/professional/temas-especiales/drogas-recreativas-y-t%C3%B3xicas/detecci%C3%B3n-de-drogas
Preuss, C., Kalava, A., & King, K. (2022). Prescription of Controlled Substances: Benefits and Risks. StatPearls [Internet]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30726003/
Rotemberg, E., Picapedra, A., & Kreiner, M. (2022). Detección de drogas en saliva: aspectos metodológicos y legales. Odontol. Sanmarquina, 25(1), e22076. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15381/os.v25i1.22076
Saitman, A., Park., H., & Fitzgerald, R. (2014). False-positive interferences of common urine drug screen immunoassays: a review. J Anal Toxicol, 38(7):387-96. Doi: 10.1093/jat/bku075.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Institutes of Health. (2022). Drug Testing. https://medlineplus.gov/lab-tests/drug-testing
Varì, M., Mannocchi, G., Tittarelli, R., Campanozzi, L., Nittari, G., Feola, A., Umani, F., Ricci. G. (2020). New Psychoactive Substances: Evolution in the Exchange of Information and Innovative Legal Responses in the European Union. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 17(22), 8704. Doi: 10.3390/ijerph17228704.
Wang, J., Yao, W., Meng, F., Wang, P., Wu, Y., & Wang, B. (2019). A surface plasmon resonance immunoassay for the rapid analysis of methamphetamine in forensic oral fluid. J Clin Lab Anal, 33(9), e22993. Doi: 10.1002/jcla.22993.