2017, Cilt 15, Sayı 1, Sayfa(lar) 016-023 |
|
Comparison of the CEDIA and KIMS Methods in Urine Drug Screen |
Zekiye Çatak1, Esra Kocdemir2, Suleyman Aydin3 |
1Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Health Science Universty Elazığ Training and Research Hospital, Elazığ, Turkey 2Kovancılar Public Hospital, Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Elazig, Türkiye 3Department of Biochemistry and Clinical Biochemistry (Firat Hormones Research Group) School of Medicine, Firat University, Elazig,Turkey |
Keywords: Urine drug screen; method comparison; chromatography; cloned enzyme donor immunoassay; kinetic interaction of microparticles in solution |
Objective: The accurate and reliable measurement of addictive substances is a very serious problem all
over the world because it involves some legal liabilities. This study aims to measure the popular
addictive substances using two common techniques and to reveal against each other their superior
aspects using the gas chromatography/ mass spectrometry technique.
Methods: In accordance with the procedure, 83 urine samples were taken from the substance users.
All samples were worked simultaneously by both techniques. The discordant results obtained were
verified by the gas chromatography/ mass spectrometry technique.
Results: The amphetamine test was evaluated as false negative in 1 and 3 samples respectively by the
techniques “Cloned Enzyme Donor Immunoassay” (CEDIA) and “Kinetic Interaction of Microparticles in
Solution” (KIMS). Both techniques were overall compatible for benzodiazepine results but one sample
was dedected as false positive by KIMS. No discordance was detected for cocaine in two techniques.
When cannabinoid test results examined, one sample was evaluated as false positive by CEDIA, one
sample was evaluated as false negative by KIMS. All of the results for opiate test, obtained by both
techniques, were compatible with each other but there was only one sample that was evaluated as
false negative by KIMS method.
Conclusions: According to above results the KIMS technique was overall compatible with CEDIA
technique. However, it was not valid that particularly for the amphetamine/ecstasy test (3,4 MDMA
metabolite) in terms of the chromatography results. We believe that it will be beneficial for future
studiesto take the results into consideration.
|
|
|