Comparison of EMIT II, CEDIA, and DPC RIA assays for the detection of XXXX in forensic urine samples.

@entity1 @entity10105
In an effort to determine a practical, efficient, and economical alternative for the use of a radioimmunoassay (RIA) for the detection of @entity10105 ( @entity10105 ) in @entity1 urine, the performance of two photometric immunoassays (Dade Behring EMIT II and Microgenics CEDIA) and the Diagnostics Products Corp. (DPC) RIA were compared. Precision, accuracy, and linearity of the 3 assays were determined by testing 60 replicates (10 for RIA) at 5 different concentrations below and above the 500-pg/mL LSD cut-off. The CEDIA and RIA exhibited better accuracy and precision than the EMIT II immunoassay. In contrast, the EMIT II and CEDIA demonstrated superior linearity r2 = 0.9809 and 0.9540, respectively, as compared with the RIA (r2 = 0.9062). The specificity of the three assays was assessed using compounds that have structural and chemical properties similar to LSD, common over-the-counter products, prescription drugs and some of their metabolites, and other drugs of abuse. Of the 144 compounds studied, the EMIT II cross-reacted with twice as many compounds as did the CEDIA and RIA. Specificity was also assessed in 221 forensic @entity1 urine specimens that previously screened positive for LSD by the EMIT II assay. Of these, only 11 tested positive by CEDIA, and 3 were positive by RIA. This indicated a comparable specificity performance between CEDIA and RIA. This also was consistent with a previously reported high false-positive rate of EMIT II (low specificity). Each of the immunoassays correctly identified LSD in 23 out of 24 @entity1 urine specimens that had previously been found to contain LSD by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry at a cut-off concentration of 200 pg/mL. The CEDIA exhibited superior precision, accuracy, and decreased cross-reactivity to compounds other than LSD as compared with the EMIT II assay and does not necessitate the handling of radioactive materials.
