Reliability of identification techniques for drugs of abuse in a urine screening program and drug excretion data
✍ Scribed by K. K. Kaistha; Jerome H. Jaffe
- Publisher
- John Wiley and Sons
- Year
- 1972
- Tongue
- English
- Weight
- 355 KB
- Volume
- 61
- Category
- Article
- ISSN
- 0022-3549
No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
✦ Synopsis
Results of a double-blind study regarding the validation of extraction and identification techniques for abuse drugs in 50 control urines t o which were addcd known concentrations of drugs are presented. Data on the excretion of some commonly abused drugs in human urine are also reported. Keyphrases 0 Abuse drugs--reliability of urine screening program. excretion data, validation of extraction and identification tcchniques 0 Screening program, urine-for abuse drugs, reliability and validity of extraction and identification techniques 0 Excretion data -abuse drugs 0 Drugs, abuse-urine screening program identification techniques. validity, excretion data
Recently, extraction and thin-layer identification techniques were reported for the detection of sedativehypnotics, narcotics, and CNS stimulants and of some drugs used in the treatment of narcotic users (1-3). Operating costs of a toxicology laboratory facility i n a Drug Abuse Urine Screening Program were also reported (4). This article discusses the results of a doubleblind study performed to validate the efficacy of the extraction and identification techniques previously reported and also summarizes some data on the excretion of important drugs in human urine.
DOUBLE-BLIND STUDY
Control urines were collected from the staff personnel and pooled together. These staff members were not taking any drugs and were not involved in the analysis of coded samples. The person who chose the drug combinations and designed the study was not himself involved in the analysis or interpretation of results. The drugs chosen for this study were primarily those that arc routinely tested in a drug abuse urine monitoring laboratory. Pentazocine and meperidine were the only drugs not routinely tested. There was no criterion followed in choosing various combinations, except that only one drug belonging to the sedative-hypnotic group was added to a urine specimen.
The combined urine was divided into fifty 120-ml. aliquots. Forty-two of these samples were individually spiked with a mixture of drugs having the concentrations shown in Table . The remaining eight samples were chosen at random and left unspiked. The concentration of each drug added was at the lower limit of detectability for each procedure. (For lower limits of detectability for each procedure, see Refirerices I and 2.) After numbering all 50 bottles and compiling a list of drugs added to each bottle, the bottles and list were given to an impartial party. This party removed the labels and marked the bottles with her own numbers. From then on, this person was responsible for holding and breaking the codes and for the comparison of results. The samples, after coding, were sent back to the laboratory for complete analysis.
(4) K. K. Kaistha and J. H. Jaffe, to be published.
(5) E. G. C. Clarke, "Isolation and Identification of Drugs,"