4.7 Article

Quinolones and false-positive urine screening for opiates by immunoassay technology

Journal

JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
Volume 286, Issue 24, Pages 3115-3119

Publisher

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/jama.286.24.3115

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Context Millions of assays are performed each year to monitor for substance abuse in various settings. When common medications cross-react with frequently used testing assays, false-positive results can lead to invalid conclusions. Objective To evaluate cross-reactivity of quinolone antimicrobials in common opiate screening assays and to assess the in vivo implications of this phenomenon. Design, Setting, and Participants The reactivity of 13 quinolones (levofloxacin, ofloxacin, pefloxacin, enoxacin, moxifloxacin, gatifloxacin, trovafloxacin, sparfloxacin, lomefloxacin, ciprofloxacin, clinafloxacin, norfloxacin, and nalidixic acid) was tested in 5 commercial opiate screening assays from September 1998 to March 1999. In 6 healthy volunteers, we confirmed the cross-reactivity of levofloxacin or ofloxacin with these opiate screening assays. Main Outcome Measure Opiate assay activity (threshold for positive result, 300 ng/mL of morphine). Results Nine of the quinolones caused assay results above the threshold for a positive result in at least 1 of the assays. Four of the assay systems caused false-positive results for at least 1 quinolone. Eleven of the 13 compounds caused some opiate activity by at least 1 assay system. At least 1 compound caused opiate assay activity in all 5 assay systems. Levofloxacin, oflaxacin, and perfloxacin were most likely to lead to a false-positive opiate result. Positive results were obtained in urine from all 6 volunteers. Conclusion Greater attention to the cross-reactivity of quinolones with immunoassays for opiates is needed to minimize the potential for invalid test interpretation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available