Carbamazepine interference with an immune assay for tricyclic antidepressants in plasma

Clinical Interpretation of Urine Drug Tests: What Clinicians Need to Know About Urine Drug Screens

Urine drug testing is frequently used in clinical, employment, educational, and legal settings and misinterpretation of test results can result in significant adverse consequences for the individual who is being tested. Advances in drug testing technology combined with a rise in the number of novel misused substances present challenges to clinicians to appropriately interpret urine drug test results. Authors searched PubMed and Google Scholar to identify published literature written in English between 1946 and 2016, using urine drug test, screen, false-positive, false-negative, abuse, and individual drugs of abuse as key words. Cited references were also used to identify the relevant literature. In this report, we review technical information related to detection methods of urine drug tests that are commonly used and provide an overview of false-positive/false-negative data for commonly misused substances in the following categories: cannabinoids, central nervous system (CNS) depressants, CNS stimulants, hallucinogens, designer drugs, and herbal drugs of abuse. We also present brief discussions of alcohol and tricyclic antidepressants as related to urine drug tests, for completeness. The goal of this review was to provide a useful tool for clinicians when interpreting urine drug test results and making appropriate clinical decisions on the basis of the information presented.

Environmentally oriented models and methods for the evaluation of drug × drug interaction effects

This detailed review compares known and widely used methods for drug interaction estimation, some of which now have historical significance. Pharmaceutical application has been noted as far back as several thousand years ago. Relatively late in the 20th century, however, researchers became aware that their fate and metabolism, which still remain a great challenge for environmental analysts and risk assessors. For the patient's well-being, treatment based on the mixing of drugs has to be effective and should not cause any side effects (or side effects should not have a significant impact on health and mortality). Therefore, it is important to carefully examine drugs both individually and in combinations. It should be also stated that application form/way of entering the living organism is of great importance as well as the age and the place in the trophic system of the organism in order to eliminate harmful dosages in the case of infants' accidental intoxication.

Carbamazepine

This chapter includes the aspects of carbamazepine. The drug is synthesized by the use of 5H-dibenz[b,f]azepine and phosgene followed by subsequent reaction with ammonia. Carbamazepine is generally used for the treatment of seizure disorders and neuropathic pain, it is also important as off-label for a second-line treatment for bipolar disorder and in combination with an antipsychotic in some cases of schizophrenia when treatment with a conventional antipsychotic alone has failed. Other uses may include attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, schizophrenia, phantom limb syndrome, complex regional pain syndrome, borderline personality disorder, and posttraumatic stress disorder. The chapter discusses the drug metabolism and pharmacokinetics and presents various methods of analysis of this drug such electrochemical analysis, spectroscopic analysis, and chromatographic techniques of separation. It also discusses its physical properties such as solubility characteristics, X-ray powder diffraction pattern, and thermal methods of analysis. The chapter is concluded with a discussion on its biological properties such as activity, toxicity, and safety.

What Can a Urine Drug Screening Immunoassay Really Tell Us?

Urine drug screening has become standard of care in many medical practice settings to assess compliance, detect misuse, and/or to provide basis for medical or legal action. The antibody-based enzymatic immunoassays used for qualitative analysis of urine have significant drawbacks that clinicians are often not aware of. Recent literature suggests that there is a lack of understanding of the shortcomings of these assays by clinicians who are ordering and/or interpreting them. This article addresses the state of each of the individual immunoassays that are most commonly used today in order to help the reader become proficient in the interpretation and application of the results. Some literature already exists regarding sources of "false positives" and "false negatives," but none seem to present the material with the practicing clinician in mind. This review aims to avoid overwhelming the reader with structures and analytical chemistry. The reader will be presented relevant clinical knowledge that will facilitate appropriate interpretation of immunoassays regardless of practice settings. Using this review as a learning tool and a reference, clinicians will be able to interpret the results of commonly used immunoassays in an evidence-based, informed manner and minimize the negative impact that misinterpretation has on patient care.

Impact of interferences including metabolite crossreactivity on therapeutic drug monitoring results

Therapeutic drug monitoring is an integral part of services offered by toxicology laboratories because certain drugs require routine monitoring for dosage adjustment to achieve optimal therapeutic response and avoid adverse drug reactions. Immunoassays are widely used for therapeutic drug monitoring. However, immunoassays suffer from interferences from both exogenous and endogenous compounds including metabolites of the parent drug. Digoxin immunoassays are affected more commonly than any other immunoassays used for therapeutic drug monitoring. Digoxin immunoassays are affected by endogenous digoxin-like immunoreactive substances and exogenous compounds such as various drugs, certain herbal supplements, and Digibind. Carbamazepine is metabolized to carbamazepine 10, 11-epoxide, and the crossreactivity of this metabolite with carbamazepine immunoassay may vary from 0% to 94%. Immunoassays used for measuring concentrations of tricyclic antidepressants are affected by tricyclic antidepressant metabolites and by a number of other drugs. Immunoassays for immunosuppressants are also subjected to significant interferences from metabolites, and liquid chromatography combined with mass spectrometry or tandem mass spectrometry is recommended for therapeutic drug monitoring of immunosuppressants. However, liquid chromatography combined with mass spectrometry may also suffer from interferences, for example, due to ion suppression or from isobaric ions.

Urine drug screening: practical guide for clinicians

Drug testing, commonly used in health care, workplace, and criminal settings, has become widespread during the past decade. Urine drug screens have been the most common method for analysis because of ease of sampling. The simplicity of use and access to rapid results have increased demand for and use of immunoassays; however, these assays are not perfect. False-positive results of immunoassays can lead to serious medical or social consequences if results are not confirmed by secondary analysis, such as gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. The Department of Health and Human Services' guidelines for the workplace require testing for the following 5 substances: amphetamines, cannabinoids, cocaine, opiates, and phencyclidine. This article discusses potential false-positive results and false-negative results that occur with immunoassays of these substances and with alcohol, benzodiazepines, and tricyclic antidepressants. Other pitfalls, such as adulteration, substitution, and dilution of urine samples, are discussed. Pragmatic concepts summarized in this article should minimize the potential risks of misinterpreting urine drug screens.

Interference by carbamazepine and oxcarbazepine with serum- and urine-screening assays for tricyclic antidepressants

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this work was to evaluate the potential cross-reactivity of 2 antiepileptic medications containing 3-ringed structures, namely, carbamazepine and oxcarbazepine, with screening assays for tricyclic antidepressants.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study of 52 patients between 3 and 19 years of age who had been prescribed either carbamazepine or oxcarbazepine was conducted. A serum fluorescence-polarized immunoassay and a urine enzyme-linked immunoassay were used. The serum carbamazepine or oxcarbazepine level was measured. Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry, a confirmatory test for tricyclic antidepressant detection, was subsequently performed on the serum specimen.

RESULTS

A linear dependency on medication level was observed with the serum fluorescence-polarized immunoassay assay. This relationship was stronger for carbamazepine (4.2 microg/L tricyclic antidepressant detected per microgram/liter of carbamazepine) than for oxcarbazepine (0.7 microg/L tricyclic antidepressant detected per milligram/liter). At higher carbamazepine levels (8.0-11.6 mg/L), 12 of 13 patients had a positive serum fluorescence-polarized immunoassay result; at lower levels (0.1-7.9 mg/L), only 1 of 20 had a positive result. None of the patients who were receiving oxcarbazepine showed significant tricyclic antidepressant activity on either assay.

CONCLUSIONS

Carbamazepine interferes at a statistically significant level with serum fluorescence-polarized immunoassay assay and in a dose-dependent fashion. Neither carbamazepine nor oxcarbazepine exhibit significant tricyclic antidepressant activity on urine enzyme-linked immunoassay assay.

Anticonvulsant hypersensitivity syndrome: cross-reactivity with tricyclic antidepressant agents

BACKGROUND

Aromatic anticonvulsant agents such as carbamazepine and phenytoin can induce anticonvulsant hypersensitivity syndrome (AHS) at a frequency of 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 1,000 treated patients. The hypersensitivity syndrome is a potentially life-threatening adverse drug reaction with multiorgan involvement, and incidental reexposure must be strictly avoided. Patients and treating physicians must be informed and educated about the causal drug and its potential immunologic or toxicologic cross-reactivity with other compounds. It has been well established that for future antiepileptic drug therapy, carboxamides (carbamazepine and oxcarbazepine), phenytoin, and barbiturates (phenobarbital and primidone) have to be avoided owing to their high degree of cross-reactivity. Other anticonvulsant agents, such as valproic acid, benzodiazepines, and gabapentin, may be prescribed.

OBJECTIVES

To present the clinical data for and to describe the potential cross-reactivity between aromatic anticonvulsant and tricyclic antidepressant agents in patients with carbamazepine- and phenytoin-induced AHS.

METHODS

The knowledge of cross-reactivity among aromatic anticonvulsant agents mainly emerged from clinical experience and observations because diagnostic challenge tests are not advisable. Thirty-six patients with the diagnosis of AHS were instructed to contact our unit if the symptoms relapsed.

RESULTS

Despite better knowledge of AHS, one third of the patients had avoidable recurrences after exposure to cross-reactive drugs. Besides the known cross-reactivity among aromatic anticonvulsant agents, we observed a recurrence of the hypersensitivity syndrome in 5 patients after the administration of tricyclic antidepressant agents.

CONCLUSION

The important potential cross-reactivity between aromatic anticonvulsant and tricyclic antidepressant drugs should be brought to the attention of treating physicians.

Toxicology: Then and now

Toxicology is "the science of poisons"; more specifically the chemical and physical properties of poisons, their physiological or behavioral effects on living organisms, qualitative, and quantitative methods for their analysis and the development of procedures for the treatment of poisoning. Although the history of poisons dates to the earliest times, the study and the science of toxicology can be traced to Paracelsus (1493-1541) and Orfila (1757-1853). Modern toxicology is characterized by sophisticated scientific investigation and evaluation of toxic exposures. The 20th century is marked by an advanced level of understanding of toxicology. DNA and various biochemicals that maintain cellular functions were discovered. Our level of knowledge of toxic effects on organs and cells is now being revealed at the molecular level. This paper will review the historical progress of clinical and forensic toxicology by exploring analytical techniques in drug analysis, differing biological matrices, clinical toxicology, therapeutic drug management, workplace drug testing, and pharmacodynamic monitoring and pharmacogenetics.

Quetiapine cross-reactivity with plasma tricyclic antidepressant immunoassays

BACKGROUND

Toxicology screens obtained on patients who have overdosed on drugs frequently include tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) as part of the evaluation. Quetiapine is an antipsychotic agent with structural similarity to the TCAs.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether quetiapine may cross-react with plasma TCA immunoassays in vitro using commonly available autoanalyzers.

METHODS

Quetiapine stock solution was added to 9 separate samples of pooled drug-free human plasma to produce concentrations ranging from 1 to 640 ng/mL that were verified by gas chromatography. No quetiapine metabolites were present. Each spiked plasma sample was tested in a blinded fashion using the Abbott Tricyclic Antidepressant TDx Assay on the TDxFLx autoanalyzer in 2 separate laboratories, the Syva Emit tox Serum Tricyclic Antidepressant Assay on the AU400 autoanalyzer and the S TAD Serum Tricyclic Antidepressant Screen on the ACA-Star 300 autoanalyzer. The TDx assay is quantitative, while Emit and S TAD are qualitative screening assays with a threshold of 300 ng/mL for TCA positivity. The outcome of interest was a positive TCA result.

RESULTS

The quantitative assay showed concentration-related TCA cross-reactivity beginning at quetiapine concentrations of 5 ng/mL. The 640-ng/mL spiked sample produced TCA results of 379 and 385 ng/mL in labs 1 and 2, respectively. The qualitative assays were screened as TCA positive at quetiapine concentrations of 160 and 320 ng/mL for the S TAD and Emit assays, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Quetiapine cross-reacts with quantitative and qualitative plasma TCA immunoassays in a concentration-dependent fashion. Therapeutic use or overdose of quetiapine may result in a false-positive TCA immunoassay result.

Quetiapine cross-reactivity among three tricyclic antidepressant immunoassays

Quetiapine is an atypical antipsychotic agent with structural similarities to the tricyclic antidepressants (TCA). We report a case of quetiapine overdose that was initially clinically similar to that of a TCA overdose and caused a false-positive TCA immunoassay. We then analyzed three common TCA immunoassays [Microgenics (formerly Diagnostic Reagents, Inc.) Tricyclics Serum Tox EIA Assay, Syva RapidTest d.a.u., and Biosite Triage Panel for Drugs of Abuse] with quetiapine in solution as well as urine from both an overdose patient and a therapeutic patient. There was significant variation of the cutoff of false-positivity in all three immunoassays. Both the Syva and Microgenics immunoassays tested positive in both the overdose and therapeutic samples and were positive at urine levels of 100 microg/mL and 10 microg/mL, respectively. The Triage immunoassay was negative in solutions up to 1000 microg/mL and negative in both the therapeutic and overdose urine samples. Quetiapine may cause false-positive TCA immunoassay with both therapeutic use and in overdose. Significant variation exists between immunoassays to detect quetiapine as a false-positive test.

Carbamazepine overdose recognized by a tricyclic antidepressant assay

Altered mental status in an adolescent presents a diagnostic challenge, and the clinician depends on clinical evaluation and laboratory studies to determine therapy and prognosis. We report the case of an adolescent with altered consciousness caused by carbamazepine overdose with a positive tricyclic antidepressant level to alert clinicians to the cross-reactivity of carbamazepine with a toxicology screen for tricyclic antidepressants.

False-positive tricyclic antidepressant drug screen results leading to the diagnosis of carbamazepine intoxication

Ingestion of toxic substances is a common problem in pediatrics. When presented with the limited history of an unknown ingestion in a patient with altered mental status, a clinician depends on the physical examination and a toxic screen to determine the ingested substance(s). Some toxic screens yield false-positive or false-negative results that confound identification of ingested toxins. Three cases are presented in which carbamazepine ingestions were identified because of the false-positive tricyclic antidepressant serum toxic screen result in each case. Carbamazepine ingestion is one of the most common pediatric overdoses. Side effects include altered mental status, tachycardia, mydriasis, seizures, coma, and death. Several other substances also cause false-positive tricyclic antidepressant toxic screen results, including certain antipsychotic medications, antihistamines, and the muscle relaxant cyclobenzaprine. Specific tests and drugs causing false-positive results are presented in table form. More modern methods, specifically gas chromatographic-mass spectrometric, are more reliable in distinguishing these drugs. Knowledge of which substances commonly cause false-positive results on a given toxic screen can still lead the clinician to the correct diagnosis. tricyclic, carbamazepine, ingestion, intoxication, drug screen.