Geno, K Aaron

Abstract Background Historically, 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25OHD) assays have under- or over-recovered 25-hydroxyvitamin D2 (25OHD2), but assay manufacturers have modified their reagents to address this problem. In this study, we compared the second- and third-generation Roche assays as well as two contemporary offerings from Diasorin and Beckman against liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). Methods We identified 50 remnant serum samples with 25OHD concentrations from across the analytical range of the second-generation Roche assay. To increase 25OHD2 representation, we identified 25 additional samples from individuals prescribed high-dose vitamin D2 supplements. We tested samples on Roche assays and circulated to laboratories performing Beckman and Diasorin 25OHD assays. We tested samples by LC-MS/MS to obtain concentrations for 25OHD2 and 25-hydroxyvitamin D3. Results Mean overall bias for each assay was 5.1 ng/mL or less against the LC-MS/MS measurement; mean proportional bias was 8.7% to 12.1%. Some individual specimens had much larger bias. 25OHD2 was under-recovered on average, but the bias for the third-generation Roche assay represents a significant improvement over the previous assay, and mean bias for current generation assays was no worse than −3.2 ng/mL. In most cases, clinical classification by automated assay values agreed with clinical classification by LC-MS/MS; where present, disagreements occurred near classification thresholds. Conclusions Automated 25OHD assays continue to improve, and 25OHD2 recovery no longer appears to be a significant concern for the assays evaluated here. All assays evaluated were adequate for clinical classification of vitamin D nutritional status and are suitable for routine use, including in patients prescribed high-dose vitamin D2.

Abstract Background Loperamide is a µ-opioid receptor agonist that reduces intestinal peristalsis and is used to treat diarrhea. We previously described significant cross-reactivity of loperamide with 2 fentanyl immunoassays. Since then, new fentanyl immunoassays, including a CLIA-waived point-of-care device, have been approved for clinical use. Methods We evaluated new fentanyl immunoassays for cross-reactivity to loperamide and its major metabolites, N-desmethyl loperamide (dLop) and N-didesmethyl loperamide (ddLop). Previously characterized assays were tested for cross-reactivity to ddLop, which recently became commercially available. Loperamide, dLop, and ddLop were spiked in drug-free urine for analysis by 5 enzyme immunoassays run on automated chemistry analyzers and one lateral flow assay for the detection of fentanyl. Results Loperamide and its metabolites produced positive results in 3 fentanyl immunoassays. The Immunalysis HEIA was previously determined to be reactive to both loperamide and dLop, but it was not reactive to ddLop. The Immunalysis SEFRIA was reactive to loperamide, dLop, and ddLop at minimum concentrations of 14.7 mg/L, 13.1 mg/L, and 17.0 mg/L. The Thermo Fisher DRI was previously determined to be reactive to loperamide and dLop, and it was reactive to ddLop at a minimum concentration of 33.1 mg/L. The Abbott iCassette, ARK Fentanyl II, and Lin-Zhi LZI II fentanyl assays showed no cross-reactivity to loperamide or its metabolites. Conclusions The cross-reactivity of loperamide, dLop, and ddLop in several fentanyl immunoassays has the potential to cause false-positive results during urine drug screening.

Abstract Background Loperamide (Imodium®), a commonly used anti-diarrheal, is a mu opioid receptor agonist that, like all opioids, reduces gastrointestinal tract peristalsis. Loperamide is considered to have low abuse potential as it does not produce an analgesic or euphoric effect due to low bioavailability and first-pass metabolism. However, reports of individuals misusing loperamide through the use of super-therapeutic doses, alone or in combination with P-glycoprotein and/or CYP450 enzyme inhibitors, is increasing. We hypothesized that loperamide could potentially cross-react with laboratory immunoassay drug screens. Methods Drug-free urine was spiked with loperamide or its principal metabolite, N-desmethyl loperamide (dLop), and assayed on multiple fentanyl and buprenorphine assays. Fentanyl immunoassay screen-positive results at one institution were examined by high-resolution mass spectrometry (MS) for the presence of loperamide and quantified by liquid chromatography– tandem MS when positive. Results Loperamide produced positive results on the Thermo DRI Fentanyl and Immunalysis Fentanyl assays at concentrations greater than 5.72 mg/L and 23.7 mg/L. dLop generated positive results for the Thermo DRI and Immunalysis fentanyl assays at concentrations exceeding 6.9 mg/L and 35.7 mg/L. dLop also produced positive buprenorphine results on the Thermo CEDIA buprenorphine assay at concentrations exceeding 12.2 mg/L. High-resolution MS analysis of 225 fentanyl immunoassay positives (Thermo DRI) yielded 5 specimens containing loperamide and/or dLop, 4 of which contained measurable quantities of fentanyl in addition to loperamide/dLop. Conclusions Laboratories using these assays should be aware of the potential for false-positive screening results due to the presence of high concentrations of loperamide and its metabolite dLop.