TRENDS IN DRUG USE BY: BRANDT G. CASSIDY, PH.D., LABORATORY DIRECTOR, DNA SOLUTIONS
Unique DNA Identification from Urine Drug Testing Samples
developed rapidly aſter President Reagan’s 1986 directive on drug abuse and drug- free workplaces. Drug screening is now commonly being used in pre-employment, random screening, sports, and is even mandatory under special circumstances, especially in DOT employment areas. Te most common test is the urine test. Invasive blood tests are less common due to the requirement of drawing blood and fear of infection from bloodborne diseases. In the last 10 years, oral fluids have begun to be used as a less invasive means to detect drug usage in individuals. For economic reasons as well as the vol-
S
umes of data defining its accuracy, urine testing is currently the most common method used for routine drug screening. Generally, urine testing is categorized into two types: instrumental and non-instru- mental. Both methods use some form of immunoassay technology to provide a presumptive determination for the pres- ence of a drug. Te process involves numerous steps
including: collecting the sample, label- ing, transferring to the lab, aliquoting a portion of the sample, testing the aliquot, confirming any positive result, and report- ing the drug screen results. Urine drug testing accuracy can be variable depend- ing on how the testing is done. Drug testing is extremely accurate and reliable when all aspects of the testing process are done properly. On the other hand, the in- formation obtained may be very mislead- ing and inaccurate when poor procedures or testing methods are utilized. Once a positive test is found in the
screening, a confirmatory analytical tech- 32 datia focus
ince the introduction of military drug testing in the 1980’s, workplace drug screening
nique should follow. The confirmation test is performed on the same specimen that the first test was based on. If the laboratory mislabeled or accidentally switched the specimen with another, the confirmation test would not help exoner- ate the innocent. The second test would merely confirm the positive result of the first test. The test would not discover that the lab had mistakenly switched the labels on the specimen when it entered the door or sometime during the process. The end result when failing a drug test
depends on your employer’s or potential employer’s policy about drug abuse and/ or the provisions in municipal or state drug testing laws. The consequences of a positive drug test could lead to imprisonment, loss of employment, loss of custody of children, loss of insurance coverage or expulsion from drug treat- ment programs to name a few. Regard- less, if the final result is reached in error you may have few options to dispute the result. Positive results have been docu- mented from the use of over-the-counter and prescription drugs, supplements and laboratory error. Based on the positive test result it may be possible to deter- mine if an over-the-counter or prescrip- tion drug, or supplement you were taking might be the cause. A laboratory error is more difficult to address. One option to determine if a laboratory error occurred is to prove that the positive sample did not come from the tested party. Te testing to prove there was no
laboratory error is relatively straight forward starting with the original urine sample collected. Urine is comprised of at least 68 chemical constituents the most abundant being urea, chloride, sodium, potassium, and creatinine. Te levels of
winter 2012
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46