Dataset Information

High concentrations of illicit stimulants and cutting agents cause false positives on fentanyl test strips

ABSTRACT:

Background

The opioid epidemic has caused an increase in overdose deaths which can be attributed to fentanyl combined with various illicit substances. Drug checking programs have been started by many harm reduction groups to provide tools for users to determine the composition of their street drugs. Immunoassay fentanyl test strips (FTS) allow users to test drugs for fentanyl by either filling a baggie or cooker with water to dissolve the sample and test. The antibody used in FTS is very selective for fentanyl at high dilutions, a characteristic of the traditional use of urine testing. These street sample preparation methods can lead to mg/mL concentrations of several potential interferents. We tested whether these concentrated samples could cause false positive results on a FTS.

Methods

20 ng/mL Rapid Response FTS were obtained from BTNX Inc. and tested against 4 different pharmaceuticals (diphenhydramine, alprazolam, gabapentin, and naloxone buprenorphine) and 3 illicit stimulants [cocaine HCl, methamphetamine, and 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA)] in concentrations from 20 to 0.2 mg/mL. The FTS testing pad is divided into 2 sections: the control area and the test area. Control and test area signal intensities were quantified by ImageJ from photographs of the test strips and compared to a threshold set by fentanyl at the FTS limit of detection.

Results

False positive results indicating the presence of fentanyl were obtained from samples of methamphetamine, MDMA, and diphenhydramine at concentrations at or above 1 mg/mL. Diphenhydramine is a common cutting agent in heroin. The street sample preparation protocols for FTS use suggested by many online resources would produce such concentrations of these materials. Street samples need to be diluted more significantly to avoid interference from potential cutting agents and stimulants.

Conclusions

Fentanyl test strips are commercially available, successful at detecting fentanyl to the specified limit of detection and can be a valuable tool for harm reduction efforts. Users should be aware that when drugs and adulterants are in high concentrations, FTS can give a false positive result.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12954-021-00478-4.

SUBMITTER: Lockwood T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7941948 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundA large number of probabilistic models used in sequence analysis assign non-zero probability values to most input sequences. To decide when a given probability is sufficient the most common way is bayesian binary classification, where the probability of the model characterizing the sequence family of interest is compared to that of an alternative probability model. We can use as alternative model a null model. This is the scoring technique used by sequence analysis tools such as HMMER, SAM and INFERNAL. The most prevalent null models are position-independent residue distributions that include: the uniform distribution, genomic distribution, family-specific distribution and the target sequence distribution. This paper presents a study to evaluate the impact of the choice of a null model in the final result of classifications. In particular, we are interested in minimizing the number of false predictions in a classification. This is a crucial issue to reduce costs of biological validation.ResultsFor all the tests, the target null model presented the lowest number of false positives, when using random sequences as a test. The study was performed in DNA sequences using GC content as the measure of content bias, but the results should be valid also for protein sequences. To broaden the application of the results, the study was performed using randomly generated sequences. Previous studies were performed on aminoacid sequences, using only one probabilistic model (HMM) and on a specific benchmark, and lack more general conclusions about the performance of null models. Finally, a benchmark test with P. falciparum confirmed these results.ConclusionsOf the evaluated models the best suited for classification are the uniform model and the target model. However, the use of the uniform model presents a GC bias that can cause more false positives for candidate sequences with extreme compositional bias, a characteristic not described in previous studies. In these cases the target model is more dependable for biological validation due to its higher specificity.