Abstract
Background Point-of-care (POC) urine drug screening (UDS) assays provide immediate information for patient management. However, POC UDS assays can produce false positive results, which may not be recognized until confirmatory testing is completed several days later. To minimize the potential for patient harm, it is critical to identify sources of interference. Here we applied an approach based on statistical analysis of electronic health record (EHR) data to identify medications that may cause false positives on POC UDS assays.
Methods From our institution’s EHR data, we extracted 120,670 POC UDS and confirmation results, covering 12 classes of target drugs, along with each individual’s prior medication exposures. For a given assay and medication ingredient, we quantified potential interference as an odds ratio from logistic regression. We evaluated interference experimentally by spiking compounds into drug-free urine and testing the spiked samples on the POC device (Integrated E-Z Split Key Cup II, Alere).
Results Our dataset included 446 false positive UDS results (presumptive positive screen followed by negative confirmation). We quantified potential interference for 528 assay-ingredient pairs. Of the six assay-ingredient pairs we evaluated experimentally, two showed interference capable of producing a presumptive positive: labetalol on the MDMA assay (at 200 μg/mL) and ranitidine on the methamphetamine assay (at 50 μg/mL). Ranitidine also produced a presumptive positive for opiates at 1600 μg/mL and for propoxyphene at 800 μg/mL.
Conclusions These findings support the generalizability of our approach to use EHR data to identify medications that interfere with clinical immunoassays.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported in part by CTSA award UL1TR002243 from NCATS/NIH and the Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research (VICTR) grant VR54098. The Vanderbilt Synthetic Derivative is supported by institutional funding and by CTSA award UL1TR002243 from NCATS/NIH.
Author Declarations
All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.
Yes
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Code and summary results for this study are available at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.12067401.