Amphetamine Assay Research Articles

False positive urine amphetamine immunoassay due to solriamfetol

Solriamfetol is a schedule IV-controlled substance used to treat excessive daytime sleepiness resulting from narcolepsy or obstructive sleep apnea. We present a patient prescribed solriamfetol who tested positive for amphetamines on a routine urinary toxicology screen despite patient denial of illicit drug use, raising the possibility of a false positive amphetamine screen.Spiking studies were performed on negative urine, and different concentrations of solriamfetol drug on 2 different amphetamine assays: the commonly used Beckman Emit® II Plus Amphetamines Assay, and the Citrine™ Triple Quad™ MS/MS Systems.The Beckman yielded positive results for amphetamines at solriamfetol concentrations of 200 μg/mL and 2000 μg/mL and negative results at 0.2 μg/mL and 2 μg/mL. However, the Citrine™ Triple Quad™ MS/MS Systems was negative at all concentrations.The Beckman Emit® II Plus Amphetamine Assay gave false positive results for amphetamines due to solriamfetol drug usage, a finding of relevance to prescribers of solriamfetol.

Modification of the Syva Emit® st® Urine Amphetamine Assay

The Syva Emit® st® Urine Amphetamine Assay qualitatively determines the presence of urine amphetamine, one sample at a time. In each test, one sample and one calibrator are always assayed together to compare the reaction rates. This method is inefficient and expensive. Detailed analysis of the reaction kinetics of the Emit® st® Urine Amphetamine reagents indicated that the reaction kinetics were relatively linear up to 15 minutes after the initiation of the reactions. This makes it possible to assay multiple samples with a single calibrator. A modified protocol is described which analyzed three samples with each calibrator, a modification leading to savings of one-third of the reagents and cost, with no compromise in assay performance. Addition of an extra 2 ml of distilled water to the regular protocol can lead to even more savings.

Determination of designer drug cross-reactivity on five commercial immunoassay screening kits.

The detection of new designer drugs is often a difficult issue in forensic urine drug testing as immunoassays are the primary screening methodology for drugs of abuse in many of these laboratories. Cross-reactivity of compounds with immunoassay kits can either aid or complicate the detection of a variety of drug and drug metabolites. For instance, emerging designer drugs that share structural similarities to amphetamines and phencyclidine (PCP) have the potential to cross-react with assays designed to detect these compounds. This study evaluates the cross-reactivity of five commercially available immunoassay reagent kits for 94 designer drugs on a Roche/Hitachi Modular P automated screening instrument. The compounds used in this study are grouped by structural class as follows: 2,5-dimethoxyamphetamines, 2C (2,5-dimethoxyphenethylamines), β-keto amphetamines, substituted amphetamines, piperazines, α-pyrrolidinopropiophenones, tryptamines and PCP analogs. A drug concentration of 100 µg/mL was used to determine cross-reactivity for each assay and resulted in the following positive rates: Microgenics DRI(®) Ecstasy enzyme assay (19%), Microgenics DRI(®) Phencyclidine enzyme assay (20%), Lin-Zhi Methamphetamine enzyme immunoassay (39%), Siemens/Syva(®) EMIT(®)II Plus Amphetamines assay (43%) and CEDIA(®) DAU Amphetamine/Ecstasy assay (57%). Of the 94 designer drugs tested, 14% produced a negative response for all five kits. No designer drug used in this study generated a positive result for all five immunoassay kits.

Cross-reactivities of 41 new amphetamine designer drugs to EMIT® immunoassays

Amphetamine designer drugs are central nervous system stimulants, and are widely diffused in illegal markets. Monitoring of drugs of abuse in biological fluids is successfully used for clinical and forensic applications. In particular, the urine matrix allows the verification of drug intake in the short and medium term. In a forensic toxicology laboratory, typical analysis for these drugs involves an immunoassay screening method. Here we describe the cross-reactivity profiles of 41 new amphetamine designer drugs to the urine drug tests EMIT® II Plus (Amphetamines assay and Ecstasy assay).

Cross-reactivities of various phenethylamine-type designer drugs to immunoassays for amphetamines, with special attention to the evaluation of the one-step urine drug test Instant-View™, and the Emit® assays for use in drug enforcement

Cross-reactivities of 76 kinds of phenethylamine-type designer drugs and related compounds to the urine drug tests Instant-View ™ (IV) (the Methamphetamine (MA) test, the Amphetamine 300 test, and the MDMA test) have been investigated. An on-site urine test kit consisting of these three IV tests has been evaluated for the on-site screening of MA users, and the kit has been found to have satisfactory specificity for drug enforcement purposes by separately detecting both MA and its metabolite amphetamine. The cross-reactivity profiles of Emit(®) II Plus Amphetamines Assay, Emit(®) II Plus Ecstasy assay, and Emit(®) d.a.u.(®) Amphetamine Class assay have also been investigated and discussed.

Detection of the synthetic drug 4-fluoroamphetamine (4-FA) in serum and urine

4-Fluoroamphetamine (4-FA) was detected in the blood and urine of two individuals suspected for driving under the influence (DUI). The test for amphetamines in urine subjected to immunoassay screening using the CEDIA DAU assay proved positive. Further investigations revealed a 4-FA cross-reactivity of about 6% in the CEDIA amphetamine assay. 4-FA was qualitatively detected in a general unknown screening for drugs using GC/MS in full scan mode. No other drugs or fluorinated phenethylamines were detected. A validated GC/MS method was established in SIM mode for serum analysis of 4-FA with a limit of detection (LOD) of 1 ng/mL and a lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) of 5 ng/mL. Intra-assay precision was approx. 4% and inter-assay precision approx. 8%. Applying this method, the 4-FA serum concentrations of the two subjects were determined to be 350 ng/mL and 475 ng/mL, respectively. Given the pharmacological data of amphetamine, 4-FA psychoactive effects are to be expected at these serum levels. Both subjects exhibited sympathomimetic effects and psychostimulant-like impairment accordingly.

Detection of 9-Tetrahydrocannabinol and Amphetamine-Type Stimulants in Oral Fluid Using the Rapid Stat Point-of-Collection Drug-Testing Device

The Rapid Stat assay, a point-of-collection drug-testing device for detection of amphetamines, cannabinoids, cocaine, opiates, methadone, and benzodiazepines in oral fluid, was evaluated for cannabis and amphetamine-type stimulants. The Rapid Stat tests (n = 134) were applied by police officers in routine traffic checks. Oral fluid and blood samples were analyzed using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) for Delta(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol, amphetamine, methamphetamine, methylenedioxymethamphetamine, methylenedioxyethylamphetamine, and methylenedioxyamphetamine. The comparison of GC-MS analysis of oral fluid with the Rapid Stat results for cannabis showed a sensitivity of 85%, a specificity of 87%, and a total confirmation rate of 87%. When compared with serum, the sensitivity of the cannabis assay decreased to 71%, the specificity to 60%, and the total confirmation rate to 66%. These findings were possibly caused by an incorrect reading of the THC test results. Comparison of the Rapid Stat amphetamine assay with GC-MS in oral fluid showed a sensitivity of 94%, a specificity of 97%, and a total confirmation rate of 97%. Compared with serum, a sensitivity of 100%, a specificity of 90%, and a total confirmation rate of 92% was found. The amphetamine assay must, therefore, be regarded as satisfactory.

Reduced Interference by Phenothiazines in Amphetamine Drug of Abuse Immunoassays

Emergency department physicians frequently request urine drug screens, but many are unaware of their limitations, including the potential for false-positive results. Promethazine, a phenothiazine derivative, is used for the treatment of allergies, agitation, nausea, and vomiting. Many patients taking promethazine are subject to urine drug screens and any potential interferences are important to recognize. During an 11-month period, all patients presenting to the Massachusetts General Hospital emergency department who had a finding of promethazine in their serum drug screen, and who also had a urine drug screen performed, were selected for inclusion in the study. The urine drug screen results (n = 22 patients/samples) were then studied. To determine if promethazine use can cause false-positive urine amphetamine results in widely used drug of abuse immunoassays. Thirty-six percent of patients taking promethazine had false-positive test results for urine amphetamines using the EMIT II Plus Monoclonal Amphetamine/Methamphetamine Immunoassay. Sixty-four percent of patients showed cross-reactivity greater than 20% higher than the blank calibrator rate. In a separate, related study, no promethazine-induced false-positive results were seen with the EMIT II Plus, Triage, and TesTcard 9 amphetamine assays, or the Triage methamphetamine assay. Reduced chlorpromazine interference was also seen with these other assays. False-positive urine amphetamine results can be obtained in patients taking promethazine. Promethazine metabolite(s), and not the parent compound, are the likely cause of these urine false-positive results obtained with EMIT II Plus Monoclonal Amphetamine/Methamphetamine Immunoassay. Immunoassays from different manufacturers can have very different "interference" profiles, which the pathologist and laboratory scientist must understand and relay to clinicians.

Response of CEDIA® Amphetamines Assay After a Single Dose of Bitter Orange

Bitter orange has recently been substituted as an ingredient in many "ephedra-free" dietary supplements used for weight loss. The primary active ingredient in bitter orange is synephrine. Previous reports have documented false-positive results from ephedrine with urine amphetamine assays. Because of the similarity in chemical structure of ephedrine and synephrine, it is hypothesized that ingestion of a bitter orange supplement may have the potential to cause false-positive results with urine amphetamine assays. The purpose of this study was to determine the response of the CEDIA Amphetamines Assay after ingestion of bitter orange. Six healthy adult male volunteers were administered a single oral dose of Nature's Way Bitter Orange, a 900-mg dietary supplement extract standardized to 6% synephrine. Urine specimens were collected at baseline and 3 and 6 hours post-administration. Additional urine specimens were collected from 1 subject at 9, 12, and 15 hours after administration. All specimens were analyzed by the CEDIA Amphetamines Assay. Urine specific gravity and pH also were measured. All urine specimens demonstrated a negative response to the CEDIA Amphetamines Assay. Urine specific gravity ranged from 1.007 to 1.028, and pH ranged from 5.0 to 7.0; thus, reducing the possibility that the negative results were caused by diluted specimens or reduced excretion of synephrine into alkaline urine. This information will be of value when health care providers or those who interpret drug screens are asked to provide consultation regarding the interference of bitter orange supplements with the CEDIA Amphetamines Assay. A single-dose of Nature's Way Bitter Orange was not found to cause a false-positive response to the CEDIA Amphetamines Assay in 6 healthy adult male volunteers.

Évaluation de la spécificité du kit de dépistage EMIT II Plus amphetamines assay (Syva ®) sur V-Twin™ (Dade Behring)

We evaluated and compared the specificity of urinary screening tests for amphetamine/methamphetamine: the new EMIT ®II Plus amphetamines Assay versus the EMIT ®II Plus monoclonal amphetamine/methamphetamine assay. We used the new analyzer V-Twin™ ( Dade-Behring, Netherlands). The results obtained are compared to those of the Syva ® Rapid Tests (d.a.u. ® mAMP and d.a.u. ® 4). We used GC/MS for confirmation of the positive urinary samples for amphetamine/methamphetamine. Out of 2255 samples, 40 were screened positive on the Cobas Mira™ ( ABX, France) with the older kit. 52.5% unconfirmed positives (21 samples) are shown with this kit, 7.5% (3 samples) with the two Rapid Tests, 17.5% (7 samples) with the new kit and only 5% (2 samples) if used simultaneously with the two Rapid Tests. This suggests a greater specificity of the new kit antibodies and a smaller number of unconfirmed positives if used concomitantly with immunochrommatographic tests.

Comparison of the Sensitivity and Specificity of Six Immunoassays for the Detection of Amphetamines in Urine

We analyzed 225 urine samples with FPIA (Abbott Amphetamine/Methamphetamine II on ADx and AxSYM), EMIT (Emit II Plus Monoclonal Amphetamine/Metamphetamine assay and EMIT II Plus Amphetamines assay, EMIT N), and KIMS (standard protocol and MDMA protocol, KIMS and KIMS X, respectively) immunoassays and compared their sensitivity and specificity. All assays were calibrated and used semi-quantitatively. All samples that screened positive by any amphetamine screening method and 15% of the negative samples were confirmed by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS-MS). A sample was considered positive for amphetamines if amphetamine, methamphetamine, methylenedioxymethamphetamine, methylenedio-xyethylamphetamine, or methylenedioxyamphetamine was present at 250 ng/mL. Ninety (40%) of the samples were positive by LC-MS-MS. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve varied between 0.972 (KIMS X) and 1.000 (ADx). The optimal cut-off concentrations varied between 271 ng/mL (EMIT N) and 723 ng/mL (AxSYM). The sensitivity was 100% for ADx and between 93 and 95% for the other assays. The specificity varied between 88% (KIMS) and 100% (EMIT N). Use of a 500 ng/mL screening cut-off would have resulted in identical or very similar results for ADx and KIMS X and large increases in the false positives for AxSYM and EMIT and the false negatives for EMIT N and KIMS.

Performance of immunoassays in screening for opiates, cannabinoids and amphetamines in post-mortem blood

Several immunoassay methods for screening of abused drugs in whole blood were evaluated in post-mortem forensic toxicology. Blood samples known to be positive or negative for opiates, cannabinoids or amphetamines by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC–MS) were analysed by EMIT II Plus and EMIT d.a.u., Syva RapidTest and Triage 8 after acetone precipitation. In these experiments, the EMIT immunoassay method was modified by using the Dade Behring VIVA analyser to detect substances more sensitively. Low concentrations of abused drugs were detected in blood samples. The sensitivities of the modified EMIT method for opiates, cannabinoids and amphetamines were 100, 86 and 98%, respectively, whereas the values were below 86% with the other methods. The specificities of all immunoassay methods for opiates and cannabinoids were 83% or above but 51–85% for amphetamines. Sample rejection occurred in a few cases with the EMIT amphetamine assays. The modified EMIT immunoassay system presented here seems to be useful for screening of drugs of abuse in post-mortem blood samples, especially when urine is not available.

Positive predictive values of abused drug immunoassays on the Beckman Synchron in a veteran population.

The pressure to reduce the cost of analytic testing makes it tempting to discontinue routine confirmation of urine specimens positive for drugs of abuse by immunoassay. Beyond the economic motivation, the requirement for confirmation should be driven by the positive predictive value of the screening tests. We have quantitated positive predictive values of our screening immunoassays in a large metropolitan Veterans Affairs Medical Center. We reviewed the confirmatory rate of urine specimens positive for drugs of abuse with Beckman Synchron reagents from June 1998 to June 1999 and tabulated the false-positive screening rate. There were 175 instances of false-positive screens during the 13 months we analyzed. Positive predictive values ranged from 0% (amphetamine) to 100% (THC). We determined that the low positive predictive value of the amphetamine assay in our laboratory was primarily due to the use of ranitidine (Zantac). Urine specimens containing greater than 43 microg/mL ranitidine were positive in our amphetamine assay. This concentration is routinely exceeded in our patients taking ranitidine. In our clinical and analytic setting, the Beckman THC assay did not require confirmation. The positive predictive values of the Beckman opiate, cocaine, barbiturate, propoxyphene, and methadone immunoassays dictate routine confirmatory testing in specimens that screen positive for these substances. Finally, because of its extreme sensitivity to ranitidine, the Beckman amphetamine assay has little utility in our laboratory setting.

Stereospecificity of antibody: quinine, the optical isomer of quinidine and anti-malarial drug chloroquine do not cross-react with quinidine immunoassays.

Quinine is an optical isomer of quinidine. Both quinine and chloroquine (an aminoquinoline derivative) are used in treating malaria. The authors studied cross-reactivity of quinine and chloroquine with the quinidine immunoassays using the TDx and AxSYM analyzers (Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, IL). The authors observed no cross-reactivity of chloroquine with quinidine immunoassays (TDx and AXSYM) even when drug-free serum was supplemented with 1000 microg/mL chloriquine. The authors observed no cross-reactivity of quinine up to a concentration of 250 microg/mL. At higher concentrations, the authors observed a small cross-reactivity. The cross-reactivity of a substance should be studied in the presence of the primary analyte. When serum pools prepared from patients receiving quinidine were supplemented with various concentrations of quinine or chloroquine, the authors observed statistically significant declines in quinidine concentrations with higher concentrations of both quinine and chloroquine. The authors observed significant cross-reactivity of L-amphetamine with the amphetamine immunoassay also marketed by Abbott Laboratories and run on the AxSYM analyzer. The authors conclude that although the antibody used in the quinidine assay is stereospecific, the antibody used in the amphetamine assay by the same manufacturer is not stereospecific.

Development and evaluation of an improved method for screening of amphetamines.

We developed a homogeneous immunoassay method to eliminate false-positive amphetamine results caused by cross-reactive substances, including over-the-counter allergy and cold medications. This method uses a neutralizing antibody that binds to amphetamines but does not bind to the labeled amphetamine conjugate used in the assay. The amount of neutralizing antibody is sufficient to reduce the assay signal resulting from authentic amphetamine and methamphetamine, but not the signal resulting from cross-reactants. This concept was implemented using the CEDIA DAU Amphetamines assay on Hitachi 747 and 717 clinical chemistry analyzers. Urine samples were tested using the standard, unmodified reagents in one channel and reagents containing the neutralizing antibody in a second channel. The difference in rate between the two tests was calculated by the analyzer; true-positive samples showed a significantly greater decrease in assay signal in response to neutralizing antibody as compared with false-positive samples. The neutralization method was evaluated in two studies using 448 samples that tested positive in the initial CEDIA DAU Amphetamines screening test. The samples were separated into categories of 154 true-positive samples and 294 false-positive samples based upon a secondary screen with the Abbott FPIA Amphetamines assay followed by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) testing using the HHS (SAMHSA) cutoff criteria. The CEDIA neutralization test successfully identified all 154 of the GC-MS confirmed positive samples. The test successfully identified as false positive 251 out of the 294 (85.4%) samples that failed to confirm by GC-MS.

Adulteration of Urine by “Urine Luck”

In vitro adulterants are used to invalidate assays for urine drugs of abuse. The present study examined the effect of pyridinium chlorochromate (PCC) found in the product "Urine Luck". PCC was prepared and added to positive urine controls at concentrations of 0, 10, 50, and 100 g/L. The controls were assayed for methamphetamine, benzoylecgonine (BE), codeine and morphine, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), and phencyclidine (PCP) with the Emit II (Syva) and Abuscreen Online (Roche) immunoassays, and by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS). Two tests were also developed to detect PCC in urine: a spot test to detect chromate ions using 10 g/L 1,5-diphenylcarbazide as the indicator, and a GC/MS assay for pyridine. We tested 150 samples submitted for routine urinalysis, compliance, and workplace drug testing for PCC, using these assays. Response rates decreased at 100 g/L PCC for all Emit II drug assays and for the Abuscreen morphine and THC assays. In contrast, the Abuscreen amphetamine assay produced apparently higher results, and no effect was seen on the results for BE or PCP. The PCC did not affect the GC/MS recovery of methamphetamine, BE, PCP, or their deuterated internal standards, but decreased GC/MS recovery of the opiates at both intermediate (50 g/L) and high (100 g/L) PCC concentrations and apparent concentrations of THC and THC-d3 at all PCC concentrations. Two of 50 samples submitted for workplace drug testing under chain-of-custody conditions were positive for PCC, whereas none of the remaining 100 specimens submitted for routine urinalysis or compliance drug testing were positive. PCC is an effective adulterant for urine drug testing of THC and opiates. Identification of PCC use can be accomplished with use of a spot test for the oxidant.

Buflomedil Interference with the Monoclonal EMIT d. a. u. Amphetamine/ Methamphetamine Immunoassay

The interference of buflomedil with the monoclonal and polyclonal EMIT d.a.u. amphetamine immunoassays was investigated. Urine samples collected from 20 patients taking 600 mg of buflomedil daily gave false positive results with the monoclonal EMIT d.a.u. assay, as did urine specimens collected 2 hours after the first oral dose of buflomedil. Conversely, no false positive results occurred with the polyclonal EMIT d.a.u. amphetamine assay. Urine samples with buflomedil added at concentrations greater than 100 mg/l gave false positive results with the monoclonal immunoassay. Buflomedil concentrations found in the patient urines (56-400 mg/l) failed to correlate to EMIT assay responses: this result suggests that one or more buflomedil metabolites, besides the unchanged drug, probably interfere in the monoclonal EMIT d.a.u. assay.

125I Radioimmunoassay for the Dual Detection of Amphetamine and Methamphetamine

A radioimmunoassay that exhibits a nearly equivalent response to D-amphetamine and D-methamphetamine in urine over the assay range of 0 to 1000 ng/mL while displaying low cross-reactivity to L-amphetamine and L-methamphetamine (4.6% and 2.4%, respectively) has been developed. In addition, methylenedioxy-amphetamine (MDA) and methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) were detectable in the assay with cross-reactivity levels of > 100% and 77% respectively. Little cross-reactivity was observed with the commonly encountered over-the-counter (OTC) drugs and this cross-reactivity was further reduced by the addition of sodium periodate into the reaction mixture to oxidize the beta-hydroxylamines. The double (second) antibody assay uses 125I-radiolabeled derivatives of both D-amphetamine and D-methamphetamine as tracers in combination with two highly specific sheep antisera directed against D-amphetamine and D-methamphetamine. The assay exhibits a dose-response of approximately 90,000 dpm from 0 to 1000 ng/mL of D-amphetamine or D-methamphetamine with a minimum detectable dose for either drug of approximately 25 ng/mL. With a cut-off level of 500 ng/mL, the assay gave a positive result for 100% of the 111 clinical samples containing GC/MS confirmed (at or above the NIDA GC/MS cut-off values) levels of amphetamine and/or methamphetamine. Eighty-eight samples that screened negative in a clinical laboratory were all negative in the assay. Nineteen samples which were incorrectly identified as positive by other commercially available amphetamine assays were negative in this RIA.

Skilled reaching deficits in unilateral dopamine-depleted rats: impairments in movement and posture and compensatory adjustments

Rats receiving unilateral dopamine (DA) depletions have bilateral deficits in using the forelimbs for skilled reaching. These impairments were investigated using end-point, video, and kinematic measures. Control rats and groups of rats with > 98% unilateral depletions (confirmed by tissue, apomorphine, and amphetamine assay), produced by 6-hydroxydopamine (6-OHDA) injected into the nigrostriatal bundle, were tested for 100 d on two reaching tasks. One depleted group used the contralateral-to-lesion (bad), and the other the ipsilateral-to-lesion (good), limb. Rats using their bad limb made few successful reaches and had dysfunctions in aiming, pronating, and supinating, and in using the digits to grasp and release food. Rats using the good limb were initially impaired, but improved, and could make these movements. Neither depleted group was able to use their bad limbs to assist actively the postural changes required for reaching. Thus, they did not use the diagonal supporting pattern (the nonreaching forelimb and diagonal hind limb) from which control rats initiated reaching. The group using their bad limb initiated reaching from a base of support distributed on the ipsilateral-to-lesion limbs, while the group using their good limb initiated reaching from a base of support centered on the ipsilateral rear limb. The impairments in making voluntary movements and postural adjustments with the bad limbs and the behavioral changes introduced by the compensatory dependency on good limbs account for the bilateral deficits in skilled movements. The results show that DA is required for skilled movements and postural adjustments and demonstrate that behavioral compensation can contribute to recovery.

EMIT-d.a.u. monoclonal amphetamine/methamphetamine assay. I. Stereoselectivity and clinical evaluation

The stereoselectivity, cross-reactivity and clinical performance of the EMIT-d.a.u. monoclonal amphetamine(A)/ methamphetamine (MA) immunoassay (EM) were evaluated. The cut-off calibrator of the assay was 1000 ng/ml S(+)MA. Analysis of drug-added urines and 72 clinical specimens demonstrated a cut-off for S(+)-amphetamine of approximately 400 ng/ml. The stereoisomeric selectivity of the assay was determined in a concentration vs. response manner by adding pure S(+) or R(−) isomers of A and MA, to drug free urine. The EM assay demonstrated a high selectivity for S(+)-isomers with only one of 16 urine specimens collected following excessive use of nasal inhalers yielding a positive result. This specimen contained 6000 ng/ml R(−) MA. Five-hundred clinical urine specimens were simultaneously analyzed for A or MA by the EM and EMIT-d.a.u. polyclonal (EP) amphetamine assay with 131 positive results confirmed by GC/MS. In five speciments negative by EM while positive by EP, MA was present at concentrations below the 1000 ng/ml cut-off. Two ME false positive results were apparently caused by chlorpromazine (CPZ) metabolites. A study of other phenothiazines or their metabolites gave no false positive results. The possible cross reactivity of the EM assay was further studied for phenylisopropylamine analogs or drugs previously reported to react with the EP assay. The EM assay showed much less cross-reactivity than EP to all drugs tested.