Evaluation of the Impact of Expanding ELISA Screening in DUID Investigations. Aileen Lu*, Karen S. Scott, Aya Chan-Hosokawa, and Barry K.

Similar documents
Validation Report for the Neogen Fentanyl Kit for ELISA Screening of Whole Blood and Urine Specimens

3703 Camino del Rio South 100-A San Diego, CA, Phone Fax CLIA# 05D years

Forensic Toxicology Scope of Testing and Detection Limits

1/27/ New Release, Quest Diagnostics Nichols Institute, Valencia

Toxicological Investigation of Drug Impaired Driving Toxicology Laboratory Survey

ORAL FLUID AS A CHEMICAL TEST FOR THE DRE PROGRAM : HISTORY, THE FUTURE, AND PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Validation of a Benzodiazepine and Z-Drug Method Using an Agilent 6430 LC/MS/MS

E XCEL LENCE JUST GOT BETTER UCT FORENSICS CLEAN SCREEN XCEL SPE COLUMNS

A Simple and Accurate Method for the Rapid Quantitation of Drugs of Abuse in Urine Using Liquid Chromatography

Drug Adherence Assessment Report

A Comprehensive Screening of Illicit and Pain Management Drugs from Whole Blood Using SPE and LC/MS/MS

LCMS-8050 Drugs of Abuse: 113 Analytes with Polarity Switching

Your Results are Our Priority.

3703 Camino del Rio South 100-A San Diego, CA, Phone Fax CLIA# 05D Director: David J.

INTOXICATION DEATHS ASSOCIATED WITH DRUGS OF ABUSE OR ALCOHOL BALTIMORE, MARYLAND QUARTERLY REPORT: FOURTH QUARTER, 2008 AND 2008 SUMMARY

INTOXICATION DEATHS ASSOCIATED WITH DRUGS OF ABUSE OR ALCOHOL BALTIMORE CITY

Alcohol. Ethanol Highlands Parkway, Suite 100 Smyrna, GA 30082

Cross-reactivity reactivity in EMIT

Validation of an Automated Method to Remove

Fully Automated Online Sample Preparation and LC-MS/MS Analysis of Drugs of Abuse in Oral Fluids

Drug Profiles of Apprehended Drivers in Victoria

C O P E. Milwaukee County Opioid-Related Overdose Report MILWAUKEE COMMUNITY OPIOID PREVENTION EFFORT

The Drug Testing Process. Employer or Practice

Linking Opioid Treatment in Primary Care. Roxanne Lewin M.D.

3703 Camino del Rio South 100-A San Diego, CA, Phone Fax CLIA# 05D years

September HCMC Toxicology Transition: Additional information and Frequently Asked Questions

LC Application Note. Dangerous driver?

Lyndsey Knoy, D-ABFT-FT Forensic Scientist Washington State Toxicology Laboratory.

Comparison of Different Whole Blood Sample Pretreatment Methods for Targeted Analysis of Basic Drugs

Pain Management and Compliance Toxicology. Greg Jellick, MSFS, D-ABFT-FT Technical Director Quality Toxicology San Antonio, TX

Laboratory Testing to Support Pain Management: Methods, Concepts and Case Studies

What Your Drug Test Really Means. Krista Beiermann, RN, OHS Occupational Health Services, Columbus Hospital

nextgen precision Test Report

Rapid LC/TOF MS for Analytical Screening of Drugs in the Clinical Research Lab

Pinellas County Forensic Laboratory. Annual Report 2006

Test Definition: PCDSO Pain Clinic Drug Screen, Urine

Test Definition: PDSOX Pain Clinic Drug Screen, Chain of Custody, Urine

Laboratory Service Report

Proof of Concept for Automated SPE/HPLC/MS/MS Methods to Replace Traditional Immunoassay with MS Confirmation of Driving Under the Influence Samples

ChemaTox Blood Drug Testing Matrix (Updated May 24th, 2016)

Physician s Reference for Urine and Blood Drug Testing and Interpretation

Schedule of Accreditation issued by United Kingdom Accreditation Service 2 Pine Trees, Chertsey Lane, Staines-upon-Thames, TW18 3HR, UK

Oxymorphone Distribution in Biological Matrices: A Collection of Case Studies

Determination of 78 Banned or Controlled Racing Industry Drugs in Horse Urine Using SPE and LC-MS/MS

[ APPLICATION NOTE ] APPLICATION BENEFITS INTRODUCTION WATERS SOLUTIONS KEYWORDS

Pain Medication Management Program Monitors Patient Compliance

Agilent Clinical LC/MS: Review of Established LC-MS QQQ Clinical Research Applications. dr. Jan Srbek, HPST. Page 1

Schedule of Accreditation

NeoSal Oral Fluid Collection System Solutions for Forensic Drug Detection

METHAMPHETAMINE & AMPHETAMINE

Applications of High Resolution Mass Spectrometry in Forensic Toxicology. Patrick Kyle, PhD.

Effective Date: Approved by: Laboratory Executive Director, Ed Hughes (electronic signature)

Jonathan Rochon, Pier-Luc Plante, Serge Auger, Réal Paquin, Jacques Corbeil, Pierre Picard

Urine Drug Testing Methods 3-5

Drugs of Abuse in Oral Fluids: Automated SPE Extraction and LC/MS/MS Determination using a Robotic Autosampler

2012 DRUG RELATED DEATH STATISTICS JANUARY 1, 2012 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2012

2015 Annual Physician Notice

INTERPATH LABORATORY, INC. TEST UPDATES

Drugs Found in Medical Examiner Cases

Rapid and Sensitive Analysis of a 93-Compound Forensic Panel in Urine using the QTRAP /Triple Quad 4500 LC- MS/MS System

Frequently Asked Questions: Opiate Dependency and Methadone Maintenance Treatment program follow-up

Controlled Substance Monitoring in the Age of the Opioid Epidemic

The Drug Evaluation and Classification Program

Ultra-Fast Forensic Toxicological Screening and Quantitation under 3 Minutes using SCIEX X500R QTOF System and SCIEX OS 1.

Urine Opioid Dependency Panel (UODP) 1

Using Liquid Chromatography Tandem Mass Spectrometry Urine Drug Testing to Identify Licit and Illicit Drug-Use in a Community-based Patient Population

Pain Medication Management Program Supports Patient Outcomes and Adherence

Welcome - SAMHSA s Role. Welcome SAMHSA Key Messages 4. Welcome SAMHSA s Direction

DOF. Scheme Description. Drugs in Oral Fluid Scheme

May Revised Urine Drug Screen Test Menu Effective mid-june Lauren Anthony, MD, MT(ASCP) SBB Medical Director, Allina Health Laboratory

Dynacare Laboratories

PAIN PANEL. Research and Solutions

Urine Drug Testing. Methadone/Buprenorphine 101 Workshop. Ron Joe, MD, DABAM December 10, 2016

POINT OF CARE TESTING

Get Your Specimens in Order: The Importance of Individualized Test Orders and Timely Test Utilization

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO. Opioid Update

10/9/18. Learning Objectives. Get Your Specimens in Order: The Importance of Individualized Test Orders and Timely Test Utilization

VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH OFFICE OF THE CHIEF MEDICAL EXAMINER

Fast and easy separation of 23 drugs of abuse. including high, stable resolution of isobaric opioids from human urine by UHPLC-MS/MS

Achieving Proposed Federal Concentrations using Reduced Specimen Volume for the Extraction of Amphetamines from Oral Fluid

Simultaneous Determination of Prescription and Designer Benzodiazepines in Urine and Blood by SPE and LC-MS/MS

Testing for Controlled Substances

Product Catalog. May We are Toxicology. Tel Toll Free Fax

Welcome! Supreme Court of Ohio Specialized Dockets Conference. October 23-24, 2017

Urine drug testing it s not always crystal clear

European Guidelines for Workplace Drug Testing in UrineandOral fluid

Keep It Clean. Solid Phase Extraction Solutions for Drugs of Abuse Analysis. Neutral Drugs of Abuse Basic Drugs of Abuse

C O P E. Milwaukee County Opioid Related Overdose Report MILWAUKEE COMMUNITY OPIOID PREVENTION EFFORT

PROFESSIONALISM AND COMMENTARY. Optimizing Urine Drug Testing for Monitoring Medication Compliance in Pain Management

Quantitative Determination of Drugs of Abuse in Human Whole Blood by LC/MS/MS Using Agilent Captiva EMR Lipid Cleanup

High-Throughput Quantitative LC-MS/MS Analysis of 6 Opiates and 14 Benzodiazepines in Urine

Identification of Specific Drugs and Drug Diversion in Drug Overdose Fatalities

Community Drug Early Warning System (CDEWS-3): Washington, DC - Site 3 of 4

Powerful Sample Prep and LC Column Solutions for Forensic Toxicology Applications

Robert F. Borkenstein Center for Studies of Law in Action. The Effects of Drugs on Human Performance and Behavior October 9 th 13 th, 2017

WELCOME! 12/13/2018. Today s Topic: Urine Drug Screens in OUD Treatment UW PACC

9/5/2011. Outline. 1. Past and Current Trends re: RX Abuse 2. Diversion Methods 3. Regulatory Reporting Requirements 4. Q/A

Development of a Screening Analysis by LC Time-Of-Flight MS for Drugs of Abuse Application

Oral Fluid Drugs of Abuse Testing

Toxicology Practice and Procedure Handbook

Transcription:

Evaluation of the Impact of Expanding ELISA Screening in DUID Investigations Aileen Lu*, Karen S. Scott, Aya Chan-Hosokawa, and Barry K. Logan

FSF Emerging Forensic Scientist Award Oral Presentation

Disclosure This presentation will mention the following commercial products and companies: Neogen Agilent Titertek-Berthold NMS Labs UCT Clean Screen No financial support was provided by any of the above mentioned entities

Outline Background Aims and Objectives ELISA Validation Testing on case samples Conclusions

Background In 2013, Logan et al. published a set of recommendations for screening in DUID cases. Added carisoprodol and zolpidem to screen due to prevalence in laboratories across the United States and their confirmed impairing effects on driving.

Carisoprodol and Meprobamate CNS Depressant Centrally-acting muscle relaxant, treatment for anxiety Often prescribed with narcotic analgesics or benzodiazepines Therapeutic range 1-5 mg/l Duration 4-6 h (longer for meprobamate)

Carisoprodol and Meprobamate Impairing effects: Slowed movements/reflexes Confusion/disorientation Impaired coordination Slurred speech Dazed/groggy appearance Horizontal gaze nystagmus

Zolpidem CNS Depressant Used therapeutically to treat insomnia Therapeutic range 60-230 µg/l Duration 4-6 h, impairing for additional 8-16 h

Zolpidem Impairing effects: Slowed reactions Slurred speech Poor coordination Lack of balance Flaccid muscle tone Horizontal/vertical gaze nystagmus Sleep driving

2007 Top Drugs in DUID Labs Drug In top 10 Cannabis 39 Benzodiazepines 37 Cocaine 37 Hydrocodone 30 Morphine/Codeine 28 Methamphetamine 26 Carisoprodol/Meprobamate 26 Oxycodone 16 Methadone 12 Antidepressants 11 Zolpidem 10 Survey of 40 toxicology labs, asked to list their top 10 most frequentlyencountered drugs. (Farrell et al., 2007)

2012 Top Drugs in DUID Labs Compound In Top 20 Drugs THC and metabolites 13 Alprazolam/Met. 13 Diazepam/Nordiazepam 13 Cocaine and metabolites 13 Morphine 13 Oxycodone 12 Hydrocodone 12 Carisoprodol/Meprobamate 11 Zolpidem 11 Methamphetamine 9 Clonazepam/ Met. 9 Amphetamine 9 Methadone 9 Lorazepam 9 Codeine 7 Diphenhydramine 6 Tramadol 6 PCP 5 Hydromorphone 5 Compound In Top 20 Drugs Citalopram 4 Temazepam 3 Oxazepam 2 Trazodone 2 Oxymorphone 2 Butalbital 2 Dihydrocodeine 2 Pseudoephedrine 2 6-acetylmorphine 2 Fentanyl 2 MDMA 2 Fluoxetine/ Met. 1 Venlafaxine/ Met. 1 Gabapentin 1 Cyclobenzaprine 1 Amitriptyline 1 Topiramate 1 (Logan et al., 2013)

C/M/Z Positivity Rates DUID Cases (n=11,621) ELISA Screen for Drugs of Abuse: -Amphetamines -Barbiturates -Benzodiazepines -Cannabinoids -Cocaine -Methadone -Opiates -Phencyclidine -Propoxyphene ±Ethanol Data from NMS Labs (06/2013 06/2014)

C/M/Z Positivity Rates DUID Cases (n=11,621) TOF Screening (n=1672) Additional 300+ compounds Data from NMS Labs (06/2013 06/2014)

C/M/Z Positivity Rates DUID Cases (n=11,621) TOF Screening (n=1672) Carisoprodol/ Meprobamate 5.9% (n=99) Both (n=6) Zolpidem 5.3% (n=89) Data from NMS Labs (06/2013 06/2014)

C/M/Z Positivity Rates DUID Cases (n=11,621)??

% Incidence Incidence of Drugs of Abuse in C/M/Z-positive Cases Carisoprodol/Meprobamate (n=99) All DUID Cases (n=11621) Zolpidem (n=89) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Data from NMS Labs (06/2013 06/2014)

Aims and Objectives To evaluate the addition of carisoprodol/ meprobamate and zolpidem to the initial DUID screening procedure Validate an ELISA platform in order to gather data on the incidence of carisoprodol/ meprobamate and zolpidem in blood in DUID cases

ELISA Validation Titertek-Berthold Crocodile miniworkstation Dispenser Shaker Incubator Washer Reader Neogen Carisoprodol, Meprobamate, and Zolpidem Forensic (RTU) ELISA kits

OD ELISA Validation - Linearity 3 Meprobamate 0 2.5 Carisoprodol 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0.025 0.05 0.1 0.375 0.2 0.5 0.75 1 2 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.025 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.375 0.5 0.75 1 1.5 0 0 1 2 Conc (mg/l) 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 Conc (mg/l)

OD ELISA Validation - Linearity 3 Meprobamate 0 2.5 Carisoprodol 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0.025 0.05 0.1 0.375 0.2 0.5 0.75 1 2 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.025 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.375 0.5 0.75 1 1.5 0 0 1 2 Conc (mg/l) 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 Conc (mg/l)

OD ELISA Validation - Linearity 3 Meprobamate 0 2.5 Carisoprodol 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0.025 0.05 0.1 0.375 0.2 0.5 0.75 1 2 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.025 0.05 0.1 0.2 0.375 0.5 0.75 1 1.5 0 0 1 2 Conc (mg/l) 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 Conc (mg/l)

OD ELISA Validation - Linearity 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Zolpidem 012 3 5 7.5 10 15 25 40 0 10 20 30 40 50 Conc (µg/l)

OD ELISA Validation - Linearity 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Zolpidem 012 3 5 7.5 10 15 25 40 0 10 20 30 40 50 Conc (µg/l)

OD ELISA Validation - Linearity 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Zolpidem 012 3 5 7.5 10 15 25 40 0 10 20 30 40 50 Conc (µg/l)

ELISA Validation - Precision Carisoprodol Conc Mean SD 75 0.790 0.036 100 0.746 0.035 125 0.737 0.037 Meprobamate Conc Mean SD 75 0.689 0.042 100 0.648 0.043 125 0.602 0.048 Zolpidem Conc Mean SD 3.75 0.824 0.048 5 0.797 0.050 6.25 0.725 0.053 Intra-array %CV 4.2% Intra-array %CV 6.4% Intra-array %CV 6.4% Inter-array %CV 2.4% Inter-array %CV 2.6% Inter-array %CV 1.5% n = 12

ELISA Validation - Precision Carisoprodol Conc Mean SD 75 0.790 0.036 100 0.746 0.035 125 0.737 0.037 Meprobamate Conc Mean SD 75 0.689 0.042 100 0.648 0.043 125 0.602 0.048 Zolpidem Conc Mean SD 3.75 0.824 0.048 5 0.797 0.050 6.25 0.725 0.053 Intra-array %CV 4.2% Intra-array %CV 6.4% Intra-array %CV 6.4% Inter-array %CV 2.4% Inter-array %CV 2.6% Inter-array %CV 1.5% n = 12

ELISA Validation - Precision Carisoprodol Conc Mean SD 75 0.790 0.036 100 0.746 0.035 125 0.737 0.037 Meprobamate Conc Mean SD 75 0.689 0.042 100 0.648 0.043 125 0.602 0.048 Zolpidem Conc Mean SD 3.75 0.824 0.048 5 0.797 0.050 6.25 0.725 0.053 Intra-array %CV 4.2% Intra-array %CV 6.4% Intra-array %CV 6.4% Inter-array %CV 2.4% Inter-array %CV 2.6% Inter-array %CV 1.5%

ELISA Validation Carryover Row of a high concentration, followed by 2 rows of blanks 10 & 50 mg/l for carisoprodol and meprobamate 200 & 1000 µg/l for zolpidem Determined no significant carryover Cross-reactivity Kits came with extensive list of cross-reactivity Confirmed that meprobamate kit had some crossreactivity with carisoprodol

Testing on case samples 322 DUID samples from NMS Labs Whole blood Gray-top tubes except one lavender-top Time period: May-Aug 2014 All screened for ELISA DUID panel (no C/M/Z) 48 TOF-screened (included C/M/Z) Representative subset of DUID population

Testing on case samples ELISA Screen for M & Z SPE GC/MS Confirmatory testing on the 9 positives + 9 random negatives Neat and 1+9 dilution Calibration range C/M: 0.5-20 mg/l Z: 10-400 µg/l 3 low QCs, 3 high QCs

Testing on case samples Solid Phase Extraction 130 mg Clean Screen mixed mode cartridges Conditioned with methanol, water, ph6 phosphate buffer Added sample, buffered to ph6 Washed with water, acetic acid, hexane Eluted with 78/20/2 (DCM/IPA/NH 4 OH) Dried and reconstituted in 50 µl ethyl acetate

Testing on case samples GC/MS confirmation Methadone-D9 as internal standard (250 µg/l) Agilent 5975 GC/MS SIM/SCAN method SIM Ions (m/z) Methadone-D9 78, 232, 303 Carisoprodol 55, 104, 158 Meprobamate 83, 114, 144 Zolpidem 219, 235, 307

Testing on case samples My results: 5/322 (1.6%) positive for zolpidem 4/322 (1.2%) positive for carisoprodol/meprobamate The 9 random samples were negative for both

Testing on case samples My results: 5/322 (1.6%) positive for zolpidem 4/322 (1.2%) positive for carisoprodol/meprobamate TOF Screening (n=1672) Carisoprodol/ Meprobamate 5.9% (n=99) Zolpidem 5.3% (n=89)

Comparison with NMS Results Drug Occurrence Drug Occurrence Ethanol 48% Lorazepam 6% THC 27% Nordiazepam 6% Alprazolam 19% Quetlapine 6% Clonazepam 17% Topiramate 6% Oxycodone 13% Trazodone 6% Diazepam 10% Zolpidem 6% Morphine 10% Cocaine 4% Amphetamine 8% Cyclobenzaprine 4% Buprenorphine 8% Diphenhydramine 4% Tramadol 8% Lamotrigine 4% Bupropion 6% Paroxetine 4% Fentanyl 6% Venlafaxine 4% Hydrocodone 6% Other 2% Other drugs found in the 48 TOFscreened cases Data from NMS Labs (05/2014 08/2014)

# of Occurrences Other Drugs found in 9 Positives 4 Carisoprodol/Meprobamate (n=4) Zolpidem (n=5) 3 2 1 0 Data from NMS Labs (05/2014 08/2014)

Conclusions Of 322 DUID cases that were initially not screened for zolpidem or meprobamate: 1.6% subsequently tested positive for zolpidem 1.2% subsequently tested positive for carisoprodol/meprobamate 274 of the cases received only ELISA screening When zolpidem and carisoprodol were added to the ELISA scope: Zolpidem was found in 1 case (0.4%) Carisoprodol/meprobamate was found in 4 cases (1.5%)

Conclusions 2007 NHTSA National Roadside Survey (Randomly selected drivers) This Study (DUID population) NMS Labs (Expanded drug screen)

Conclusions 2007 National Roadside Survey (Randomly selected drivers) This study (DUID population) NMS Labs (Expanded screen requested) C/M: 0.05% Z: 0.12% C/M: 1.2% Z: 1.6% C/M: 5.9% Z: 5.4%

Acknowledgements Arcadia University Center for Forensic Science Research and Education NMS Labs Amanda Mohr Warren Korn Jaron Quinlan Dr. Sherri Kacinko

FSF Emerging Forensic Scientist Award Oral Presentation

Comparison with NMS Results NMS Labs TOFscreened DUID samples (June 2013 June 2014) n = 1672 This study s 322 DUID samples (Feb 2014 Aug 2014) n = 322 NMS Labs TOFscreened DUID samples (Feb 2014 Aug 2014) n = 1158 C/M: 5.9% Z: 5.3% C/M: 1.2% Z: 1.6% C: 4.3% M: 4.6% Z: 4.7%