Clinical chemistry · 2019
Discovering Cross-Reactivity in Urine Drug Screening Immunoassays through Large-Scale Analysis of Electronic Health Records.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hughey Jacob J, Colby Jennifer M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Exposure to drugs of abuse is frequently assessed using urine drug screening (UDS) immunoassays. Although fast and relatively inexpensive, UDS assays often cross-react with unrelated compounds, which can lead to false-positive results and impair patient care. The current process of identifying cross-reactivity relies largely on case reports, making it sporadic and inefficient, and rendering knowledge of cross-reactivity incomplete. Here, we present a systematic approach to discover cross-reactive substances using data from electronic health records (EHRs).
METHODS: Using our institution's EHR data, we assembled a data set of 698651 UDS results across 10 assays and linked each UDS result to the corresponding individual's previous medication exposures. We hypothesized that exposure to a cross-reactive ingredient would increase the odds of a false-positive screen. For 2201 assay-ingredient pairs, we quantified potential cross-reactivity as an odds ratio from logistic regression. We then evaluated cross-reactivity experimentally by spiking the ingredient or its metabolite into drug-free urine and testing the spiked samples on each assay.
RESULTS: Our approach recovered multiple known cross-reactivities. After accounting for concurrent exposures to multiple ingredients, we selected 18 compounds (13 parent drugs and 5 metabolites) to evaluate experimentally. We validated 12 of 13 tested assay-ingredient pairs expected to show cross-reactivity by our analysis, discovering previously unknown cross-reactivities affecting assays for amphetamines, buprenorphine, cannabinoids, and methadone.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings can help laboratorians and providers interpret presumptive positive UDS results. Our data-driven approach can serve as a model for high-throughput discovery of substances that interfere with laboratory tests.
METHODS: Using our institution's EHR data, we assembled a data set of 698651 UDS results across 10 assays and linked each UDS result to the corresponding individual's previous medication exposures. We hypothesized that exposure to a cross-reactive ingredient would increase the odds of a false-positive screen. For 2201 assay-ingredient pairs, we quantified potential cross-reactivity as an odds ratio from logistic regression. We then evaluated cross-reactivity experimentally by spiking the ingredient or its metabolite into drug-free urine and testing the spiked samples on each assay.
RESULTS: Our approach recovered multiple known cross-reactivities. After accounting for concurrent exposures to multiple ingredients, we selected 18 compounds (13 parent drugs and 5 metabolites) to evaluate experimentally. We validated 12 of 13 tested assay-ingredient pairs expected to show cross-reactivity by our analysis, discovering previously unknown cross-reactivities affecting assays for amphetamines, buprenorphine, cannabinoids, and methadone.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings can help laboratorians and providers interpret presumptive positive UDS results. Our data-driven approach can serve as a model for high-throughput discovery of substances that interfere with laboratory tests.