Advertisement
Canadian Journal of Cardiology

The Interpretation of Toxicology Screening Tests for Substances With Abuse Potential: A Primer for the Cardiovascular Specialist

  • Emily Austin
    Correspondence
    Corresponding author: Dr Emily Austin, Department of Emergency Medicine, St Michael’s Hospital, 30 Bond Street, Toronto, Ontario M5B 1W8, Canada. Tel.: +1-416-864-5095.
    Affiliations
    Division of Emergency Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

    Division of Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

    Ontario Poison Centre, Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Search for articles by this author
  • Marco L.A. Sivilotti
    Affiliations
    Department of Emergency Medicine, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada

    Department of Biomedical and Molecular Sciences, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada

    Ontario Poison Centre, Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Search for articles by this author
      Urine drug screens (UDS) are widely encountered across medical disciplines, including the cardiovascular subspecialties. The proper interpretation of such a readily available and seemingly simple qualitative test can be more complicated than anticipated. Urine immunoassay tests are limited by false positive and false negative results, which vary by commercial assay and manufacturer. Confirmatory testing can be useful in some specific scenarios but requires specialised toxicology laboratories for sample processing and interpretation. An appreciation for the techniques and limits of UDS will help all clinicians, including cardiovascular specialists, to interpret test results appropriately and steward resources judiciously.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Canadian Journal of Cardiology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Saitman A.
        • Park H.
        • Fitzgerald R.L.
        False-positive interferences of common urine drug screen immunoassays: a review.
        J Anal Toxicol. 2014; 38: 387-396
        • Moeller K.E.
        • Kissack J.C.
        • Atayee R.S.
        • Lee K.C.
        Clinical interpretation of urine drug tests: what clinicians need to know about urine drug screens.
        Mayo Clin Proc. 2017; 92: 774-796
        • Krasowski M.D.
        • McMillin G.A.
        • Melanson S.E.F.
        • et al.
        Interpretation and utility of drug of abuse screening immunoassays: insights from laboratory drug testing proficiency surveys.
        Arch Pathol Lab Med (1976). 2020; 144: 177-184
        • Grafinger K.E.
        • Liechti M.E.
        • Liakoni E.
        Clinical value of analytical testing in patients presenting with new psychoactive substances intoxication.
        Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2020; 86: 429-436
        • Eisen J.S.
        • Sivilotti M.L.A.
        • Collier C.
        Does urine screening for drugs of abuse change the management of ED patients? [abstract 051].
        CJEM. 2002; 4: 139