Performance Evaluation of an Automated Fentanyl Immunoassay

Performance of a Norfentanyl Immunoassay in Specimens with Low Concentrations of Fentanyl and/or Norfentanyl

BACKGROUND

Many fentanyl immunoassays are limited in their ability to detect norfentanyl. Urine specimens collected from individuals who have been exposed to fentanyl frequently have detectable concentrations of norfentanyl (≥2 ng/mL) but low concentrations of fentanyl (<2 ng/mL) by LC-MS/MS. The Lin-Zhi Fentanyl II Immunoassay (Lin-Zhi) claims 100% cross-reactivity with norfentanyl and therefore may detect exposure missed by other assays.

METHODS

In addition to verifying the manufacturer's analytical sensitivity claims, we selected 92 urine specimens with low-positive Lin-Zhi results (1-99 absorbance units, lowest 10%) for analysis by the Immunalysis Health Equity Impact Assessment and ARK II fentanyl methods. The accuracy of the 3 immunoassays was compared to LC-MS/MS as the reference method.

RESULTS

Spiking studies using purified fentanyl and norfentanyl and a set of 100 consecutive specimens confirmed the manufacturer's claims of limit of detection for fentanyl (3.8 ng/mL) and norfentanyl (5.0 ng/mL). However, the 92 low-positive patient specimens demonstrated concentrations of norfentanyl and fentanyl below 2.0 ng/mL by LC-MS/MS, with 47 (51%) having only norfentanyl detected. When comparing Lin-Zhi to the Immunalysis and ARK II immunoassays, only 27 (29%) of the 92 specimens were concordant. Fifty-two (57%) of the specimens were positive by LC-MS/MS and Lin-Zhi but false negative by one or both other immunoassays. Seven specimens (8%) were positive by Lin-Zhi but negative by the other immunoassays and had undetectable concentrations (<2 ng/mL) of fentanyl and norfentanyl by LC-MS/MS.

CONCLUSIONS

The clinical sensitivity of the Lin-Zhi exceeds the manufacturer's claims, providing results comparable to LC-MS/MS methods.

Performance of Fentanyl Immunoassays in an ED Patient Population

BACKGROUND

Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid fueling the current opioid crisis in the United States. While emergency department (ED) visits due to opioid-related overdoses, injection complications, and withdrawals become increasingly more frequent, fentanyl is not detected in routine toxicology testing. We evaluated 2 FDA-approved fentanyl immunoassays in a sampled ED population.

METHODS

De-identified, remnant urine specimens (n = 213) collected from patients presenting to a large ED were analyzed using ARK Fentanyl II (ARK II) and Immunalysis SEFRIA (SEFRIA) fentanyl immunoassays on an Architect c16000 (Abbott) analyzer. All discrepant specimens were evaluated by LC-MS/MS. Additionally, polysubstance abuse patterns and trends were analyzed.

RESULTS

While intra-assay imprecision was comparable for ARK II and SEFRIA, inter-assay imprecision for ARK II and SEFRIA varied from 8.0% to 1.8% and from 37% to 12.5%, respectively. SEFRIA had a marginally higher false-positivity rate (3%) than ARK II (1%). Both assays had equivalent sensitivity of 95%, with ARK II (99%) having greater specificity than SEFRIA (97%). Fentanyl was detected in 13.7% of drug-panel-positive patient samples and most frequently observed in patients also testing positive for amphetamines and cocaine. Notably, fentanyl was detected in 5.3% of patient samples that were negative for all other drugs in our standard toxicology panel.

CONCLUSIONS

A sizable portion of drug-positive samples from our ED were positive for fentanyl, with a subset of patients testing positive for fentanyl alone. Implementation of fentanyl testing into routine toxicology panels can elucidate polysubstance abuse paradigms and capture ED patients that would go undetected in standard panels.

Review of analytical methods for screening and quantification of fentanyl analogs and novel synthetic opioids in biological specimens

Fentanyl, fentanyl analogs, and other novel synthetic opioids (NSO), including nitazene analogs, prevail in forensic toxicology casework. Analytical methods for identifying these drugs in biological specimens need to be robust, sensitive, and specific. Isomers, new analogs, and slight differences in structural modifications necessitate the use of high-resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS), especially as a non-targeted screening method designed to detect newly emerging drugs. Traditional forensic toxicology workflows, such as immunoassay and gas chromatography mass spectrometry (GC-MS), are generally not sensitive enough for detection of NSOs due to observed low (sub-μg/L) concentrations. For this review, the authors tabulated, reviewed, and summarized analytical methods from 2010-2022 for screening and quantification of fentanyl analogs and other NSOs in biological specimens using a variety of different instruments and sample preparation approaches. Limits of detection or quantification for 105 methods were included and compared to published standards and guidelines for suggested scope and sensitivity in forensic toxicology casework. Methods were summarized by instrument for screening and quantitative methods for fentanyl analogs and for nitazenes and other NSO. Toxicological testing for fentanyl analogs and NSOs is increasingly and most commonly being conducted using a variety of liquid chromatography mass spectrometry (LC-MS)-based techniques. Most of the recent analytical methods reviewed exhibited limits of detection well below 1 μg/L to detect low concentrations of increasingly potent drugs. In addition, it was observed that most newly developed methods are now using smaller sample volumes which is achievable due to the sensitivity increase gained by new technology and new instrumentation.

Advances in fentanyl testing

Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid that was approved by the FDA in the late 1960s. In the decades since, non-prescription use of fentanyl, its analogs, and structurally unrelated novel synthetic opioids (NSO) has become a worsening public health crisis. There is a clear need for accessible testing for these substances in biological specimens and in apprehended drugs. Immunoassays for fentanyl in urine are available but their performance is restricted to facilities that hold moderate complexity laboratory licenses. Immunoassays for other matrices such as oral fluid (OF), blood, and meconium have been developed but are not widely available. Point of care tests (POCT), such as lateral flow immunoassays or fentanyl test strips (FTS), are widely available but not approved by the FDA for clinical use. All immunoassays are vulnerable to false positive and false negative results. Immunoassays may or may not be able to detect fentanyl analogs and NSOs. Mass spectrometry (MS) can accurately and reliably measure fentanyl and its major metabolite norfentanyl in urine and oral fluid. MS is available at reference laboratories and large hospitals. Liquid chromatography paired with tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) is the most widely used method and has outstanding specificity and sensitivity for fentanyl and norfentanyl. When compared to immunoassays, MS is more expensive, requires more technical skill, and takes longer to result. Newer mass spectrometry methods can measure fentanyl analogs and NSO. Both mass spectrometry assays and immunoassays [in the form of fentanyl test strips (FTS)] have potential use in harm reduction programs.

Evaluating the Performance of the Roche FEN2 Fentanyl Immunoassay and Its Clinical Implementation: The Role of LDT-Based Mass Spectrometry Testing

Introduction

While laboratory-developed tests (LDTs) using liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) are widely employed to support the development of FDA-cleared drug immunoassays, their significance in the clinical implementation and evaluation of such assays is often overlooked. This paper reports on the important role of LC-MS/MS LDTs in demonstrating improved performance of the Roche FEN2 fentanyl immunoassay compared with the Thermo DRI fentanyl immunoassay.

Methods

The FEN2 assay was implemented according to the manufacturer's instructions and its performance was compared to the existing DRI assay using LC-MS/MS as a reference. Clinical sensitivity and specificity were determined using 250 consecutive random patient specimens. Spiking experiments were conducted to determine cross-reactivity with 31 fentanyl analogs. Select DRI false-positive samples were analyzed by the FEN2 assay via time-of-flight mass spectrometry method (LC-QTOF).

Results

The FEN2 assay showed improved clinical sensitivity compared to the DRI (98% vs 61%) in 250 consecutive patient samples due to its ability to detect norfentanyl. It also showed better clinical specificity by correctly classifying select DRI false-positive results. Upon implementation in clinical practice, the FEN2 resulted in a higher screening positivity rate than the DRI (17.3% vs 13.3%) and a greater LC-MS/MS confirmation rate of immunoassay-positive samples (96.8% vs 88.8%, respectively).

Conclusion

The use of LC-MS/MS LDTs demonstrated that the FEN2 assay has greater clinical sensitivity and is less prone to false-positives than the DRI assay. These findings support the use of FEN2 in routine clinical practice and emphasize the role of mass spectrometry-based LDTs in clinical toxicology testing.

Detection of 58 fentanyl analogs using ARK fentanyl II and Immunalysis fentanyl immunoassays

OBJECTIVES

The ability to detect fentanyl analogs in urine aids in patient management. Little is published about the new ARK™ Fentanyl II Assay formulation's ability to detect fentanyl analogs. Norfentanyl (fentanyl metabolite) cross-reactivity with the ARK II assays is 7%, while the Immunalysis SEFRIA assay norfentanyl cross-reactivity is approximately 0.005%. The purpose of this study was to determine the new ARK II and SEFRIA fentanyl assays' detection of 58 fentanyl analogs.

DESIGN & METHODS

Drug-free urine was fortified with 0-100 ng/mL (0-0.297 µmol/L) of the fentanyl analog and analyzed using the previously evaluated immunoassays. Results were compared to molecular structure. Of the 58 analogs tested at ≤ 100 ng/mL (0-0.297 µmol/L), the ARK II and SEFRIA assays produced 51 and 57 positive results respectively. The cross-reactivity of the assay was predominantly determined by the location of the modification. Most modifications to the aniline ring and/or amide group did not affect the ARK II or SEFRIA assay. Modifications to the piperidine ring decreased detection by ARK II assay. Of the 7 compounds which were undetected by the ARK II assay, all had modifications to the N-alkyl chain. Norsufentanil was not detected by either assay and was the only analog not detected by the SEFRIA assay.

CONCLUSIONS

The ARK II and Immunalysis fentanyl immunoassays can detect a range of fentanyl analogs with acryl, butyryl, or furanyl modifications to the amide group or aniline ring of the molecule. N-alkyl chain and piperidine ring modifications significantly affect the ARK II assay's ability to detect the analogs, while the SEFRIA assay appeared less affected and detected all analogs tested except for norsufentanil, which was also not detected by the ARK II assay.

The North American opioid epidemic: opportunities and challenges for clinical laboratories

Since 1999, the opioid epidemic in North America has resulted in over 1 million deaths, and it continues to escalate despite numerous efforts in various arenas to combat the upward trend. Clinical laboratories provide drug testing to support practices such as emergency medicine, substance use disorder treatment, and pain management; increasingly, these laboratories are collaborating in novel partnerships including drug-checking services (DCS) and multidisciplinary treatment teams. This review examines drug testing related to management of licit and illicit opioid use, new technologies and test strategies employed by clinical laboratories, barriers hindering laboratory response to the opioid epidemic, and areas for improvement and standardization within drug testing. Literature search terms included combinations of "opioid," "opiate," "fentanyl," "laboratory," "epidemic," "crisis," "mass spectrometry," "immunoassay," "drug screen," "drug test," "guidelines," plus review of PubMed "similar articles" and references within publications. While immunoassay (IA) and point-of-care (POC) test options for synthetic opioids are increasingly available, mass spectrometry (MS) platforms offer the greatest flexibility and sensitivity for detecting novel, potent opioids. Previously reserved as a second-tier application in most drug test algorithms, MS assays are gaining a larger role in initial screening for specific patients and DCS. However, there are substantial differences among laboratories in terms of updating test menus, algorithms, and technologies to meet changing clinical needs. While some clinical laboratories lack the resources and expertise to implement MS, many are also slow to adopt available IA and POC tests for newer opioids such as fentanyl. MS-based testing also presents challenges, including gaps in available guidance for assay validation and ongoing performance assessment that contribute to a dramatic lack of standardization among laboratories. We identify opportunities for improvement in laboratory operations, reporting, and interpretation of drug test results, including laboratorian and provider education and laboratory-focused guidelines. We also highlight the need for collaboration with providers, assay and instrument manufacturers, and national organizations to increase the effectiveness of clinical laboratory and provider efforts in preventing morbidity and mortality associated with opioid use and misuse.