Melanson, Stacy E.F.

Abstract Toxicology testing for drugs associated with scenarios such as recreational use or substance use disorder can be performed in support of the emergency department (ED) for specific patient populations such as pediatrics and trauma. These compounds were historically referred to as drugs of abuse (DOA); although the word “abuse” is recognized as potentially stigmatizing, no replacement terminology for DOA has emerged in current guidelines. This document refers to these compounds as drugs or substances of misuse, and acknowledges the need for less-stigmatizing language that more fully encompasses the range of uses for these drugs. This literature-driven, consensus guidance document provides recommendations primarily targeted to US hospital-based laboratories performing urine drug testing (UDT) in support of the ED. Indications for ordering UDT and related testing in both pediatric and adult populations are summarized. Further, recommendations are made for testing that should be available at all facilities with rapid turnaround, and how to perform and report testing. The advantages and disadvantages of immunoassays and mass spectrometry, as well as common challenges, are reviewed. Indications for mass-spectrometry assays and more extensive testing (e.g., novel psychoactive substances) are also provided. Future directions for improvements in laboratory technology to improve the utility of this testing are outlined. All laboratories should collaborate with ED leadership, medical toxicologists and poison control centers to optimize and update test menus to reflect local drug use patterns, ensure test methodologies and results meet clinical needs, and educate clinical staff regarding assay limitations and accurate test interpretation.

Abstract Objectives Urine drug testing (UDT) is a critical tool used in medical, forensic, and occupational settings, but interpreting results can be challenging. We performed a study to assess the ability of health care professionals to interpret UDT results accurately. Methods In total, 911 clinical and laboratory professionals in the United States and Canada responded to a survey with questions gauging expertise in UDT interpretation. Responses were analyzed to identify knowledge gaps. Results Toxicologists and laboratory PhD scientists performed well, with means of 4.82 and 4.63 questions answered correctly (out of 6 possible), respectively. Physicians specializing in pathology, emergency medicine, primary care, and internal medicine, however, displayed concerning knowledge gaps, as did laboratorians with nondoctoral degrees. Experience and training correlated with interpretation accuracy. Identification of simulated compliance as well as understanding opioid exposure, metabolism, and immunoassay cross-reactivity were among the most clinically significant knowledge gaps. More than 30% of survey respondents indicated that they would seek UDT information from the internet or peers rather than clinical or laboratory experts. Conclusions The study highlighted the need for targeted education and better collaboration between clinical and laboratory experts and other health care professionals to ensure that when physicians order UDT, they can accurately interpret results and reduce harm.

This study aimed to evaluate and compare the performance of three anti-S and one anti-N assays that were available to the project in detecting antibody levels after three commonly used SARS-CoV-2 vaccines (Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson). It also aimed to assess the association of age, sex, race, ethnicity, vaccine timing, and vaccine side effects on antibody levels in a cohort of 827 individuals. In September 2021, 698 vaccinated individuals donated blood samples as part of the Association for Diagnostics & Laboratory Medicine (ADLM) COVID-19 Immunity Study. These individuals also participated in a comprehensive survey covering demographic information, vaccination status, and associated side effects. Additionally, 305 age- and gender-matched samples were obtained from the ADLM 2015 sample bank as pre-COVID-19-negative samples. All these samples underwent antibody level analysis using three anti-S assays, namely Beckman Access SARS-CoV-2 IgG (Beckman assay), Ortho Clinical Diagnostics VITROS Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG (Ortho assay), Siemens ADVIA Centaur SARS-CoV-2 IgG (Siemens assay), and one anti-N antibody assay: Bio-Rad Platelia SARS-CoV-2 Total Ab assay (BioRad assay). A total of 827 samples (580 COVID-19 samples and 247 pre-COVID-19 samples) received results for all four assays and underwent further analysis. Beckman, Ortho, and Siemens anti-S assays showed an overall sensitivity of 99.5%, 97.6%, and 96.9%, and specificity of 90%, 100%, and 99.6%, respectively. All three assays indicated 100% sensitivity for individuals who received the Moderna vaccine and boosters, and over 99% sensitivity for the Pfizer vaccine. Sensitivities varied from 70.4% (Siemens), 81.5% (Ortho), and 96.3% (Beckman) for individuals who received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. BioRad anti-N assays demonstrated 46.2% sensitivity and 99.25% specificity based on results from individuals with self-reported infection. The highest median anti-S antibody levels were measured in individuals who received the Moderna vaccine, followed by Pfizer and then Johnson & Johnson vaccines. Higher anti-S antibody levels were significantly associated with younger age and closer proximity to the last vaccine dose but were not associated with gender, race, or ethnicity. Participants with higher anti-S levels experienced significantly more side effects as well as more severe side effects (e.g., muscle pain, chills, fever, and moderate limitations) (p < 0.05). Anti-N antibody levels only indicated a significant correlation with headache. This study indicated performance variations among different anti-S assays, both among themselves and when analyzing individuals with different SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Caution should be exercised when conducting large-scale studies to ensure that the same platform and/or assays are used for the most effective interpretation of the data.

Abstract In 2021, the Association for Diagnostics & Laboratory Medicine (ADLM) (formerly the American Association for Clinical Chemistry [AACC]) developed a scientific study that aimed to contribute to the understanding of SARS-CoV-2 immunity during the evolving course of the pandemic. This study was led by a group of expert member volunteers and resulted in survey data from 975 individuals and blood collection from 698 of those participants. This paper describes the formulation and execution of this large-scale scientific study, encompassing best practices and insights gained throughout the endeavor.

Objectives: The objective of this prospective study was to investigate the role of adaptive immunity in response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Design and Methods: A cohort of 677 vaccinated individuals participated in a comprehensive survey of their vaccination status and associated side effects, and donated blood to evaluate their adaptive immune responses by neutralizing antibody (NAb) and T cell responses. The cohort then completed a follow-up survey to investigate the occurrence of breakthrough infections. Results: NAb levels were the highest in participants vaccinated with Moderna, followed by Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson. NAb levels decreased with time after vaccination with Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson. T cell responses showed no significant difference among the different vaccines and remained stable up to 10 months after the study period for all vaccine types. In multivariate analyses, NAb responses (<95 U/mL) predicted breakthrough infection, whereas previous infection, the type of vaccine, and T cell responses did not. T cell responses to viral epitopes (<0.120 IU/mL) showed a significant association with the self-reported severity of COVID-19 disease. Conclusion: This study provides evidence that NAb responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination correlate with protection against infection, whereas the T cell memory responses may contribute to protection against severe disease but not against infection.

Context.— Therapeutic drug monitoring has traditionally been widely used for first-generation antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) such as carbamazepine and phenytoin. The last 2 decades have seen the introduction of second- and third-generation AEDs (eg, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, and topiramate) into clinical practice. Objective.— To use data from the College of American Pathologists Therapeutic Drug Monitoring, Extended Proficiency Testing Survey to determine the performance of assays used for therapeutic drug monitoring of newer AEDs, including comparison of enzyme immunoassay and chromatographic techniques. Design.— Six years of proficiency testing surveys were reviewed (2013–2018). Results.— Steady growth was seen in participant volumes for newer AEDs. The analytical performance of automated enzyme immunoassays for lamotrigine, levetiracetam, and topiramate was similar to that of chromatographic methods, consistent with published literature using patient samples for comparisons. The majority of participating laboratories now use enzyme immunoassays to measure levetiracetam. Conclusions.— Survey results reflect steadily growing interest in therapeutic drug monitoring of newer AEDs. The increasing availability of robust immunoassays for new AEDs should facilitate their clinical utility, especially for clinical laboratories that do not perform chromatographic assays for therapeutic drug monitoring.