Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Real-time near-body drug screening during autopsy I: use of the Randox biochip drugs of abuse DOA I and DOA II immunoassays

  • Short Communication
  • Published:
Forensic Toxicology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Screening for drugs of abuse is widely employed as part of forensic toxicology investigations. The nature of specimens collected at autopsy varies depending on local customs, the case circumstances, and the condition of the cadaver. It is generally accepted that wherever possible specimens of peripheral blood, liver, stomach contents, vitreous humor, and muscle can be useful for toxicological analysis. In some countries, legislation or religious custom may mitigate against the removal of postmortem tissue unless shown to be necessary. The availability of a sensitive and broad ranging near-body screening test may provide a useful tool to assist pathologists in making decisions regarding the retention of tissues for toxicology analysis. We describe the performance of the Randox drugs-of-abuse (DOA) arrays, DOA I and DOA II, for near-body screening using whole blood, urine, vitreous humor, liver, and psoas major muscle. Samples were obtained from 106 autopsies and screened for the presence of amphetamine, barbiturates, benzodiazepines, benzoylecgonine, buprenorphine, cannabinoids, fentanyl, ketamine, lysergic acid diethylamide, methadone, methamphetamine, methaqualone, methylenedioxymethylamphetamine (Ecstasy), opiates, oxycodone, phencyclidine, and propoxyphene in the mortuary whilst the postmortem was being performed. Blood from each case underwent confirmatory analysis using either gas chromatography-mass spectrometry, liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry or diode array detection. Excellent agreement between the near-body screening tests on a variety of tissues and confirmatory analyses in blood was obtained.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Moeller KE, Lee KC, Kissack JC (2008) Urine drug screening: practical guide for clinicians. Mayo Clin Proc 86:66–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bush DM (2007) The U.S. mandatory guidelines for federal workplace drug testing programs: current status and future considerations. Forensic Sci Int 174:111–119

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Manchikanti L, Malla Y, Wargo BW, Cash KA, Pampati V, Damron KS, McCanus CD, Brandon DE (2010) Protocol for accuracy of point of care (POC) or in-office urine drug testing (immunoassay) in chronic pain patients: a prospective analysis of immunoassay and liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS). Pain Phys 13:1–22

    Google Scholar 

  4. Moffat AC, Osselton MD, Widdop B, Watts J (2011) Clarkes analysis of drugs and poisons. Pharmaceutical Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  5. Rutty GN, Rutty JE (2011) Perceptions of near virtual autopsies. J Forensic Leg Med 18:306–309

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Rutty GN (2007) Are autopsies necessary? The role of computed tomography as a possible alternative to invasive autopsies. Rechtsmedizine 17:21–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Fernandez AA, Amigo N, Carbone MT, Mora A, Pinto M, Beltran J, Gasso S (2009) Application of the Cozart DDS system to postmortem screening of drugs of abuse in vitreous humor. Forensic Toxicol 27:90–97

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Elliott SP, Hale KA (1988) Applications of an HPLC-DAD drug screening system based on retention indices and UV spectra. J Anal Toxicol 22:280–290

    Google Scholar 

  9. Gunn J, Kriger S, Terrell AR (2010) Identification and quantitation of amphetamine, methamphetamine, MDMA, pseudophedrine, and ephedrine in blood, plasma, and serum using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC/MS). Clin Appl Mass Spectrom 603:37–43

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Jenkins AJ, Oblock J (2008) Phencyclidine and cannabinoids in vitreous humor. Leg Med 10:201–203

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Scott KS, Oliver JS (2001) The use of vitreous humor as an alternative to whole blood for the analysis of benzodiazepines. J Forensic Sci 46:694–697

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Schutz H, Erdmann F, Magiera ES, Weiler G (1998) Analytical confirmation of error in false positive amphetamine immunoassays and results. Arch Kriminol 201:93–96

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Kupiec T, DeCicco L, Spiehler V, Sneed G, Kemp P (2002) Choice of an ELISA assay for screening postmortem blood for amphetamine and/or methamphetamine. J Anal Toxicol 26:513–518

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Stout PR, Klette KL, Wiegand R (2003) Comparison and evaluation of DRI methamphetamine, DRI ecstasy, Abuscreen ONLINE amphetamine, and a modified Abuscreen ONLINE amphetamine screening immunoassays for the detection of amphetamine (AMP), methamphetamine (MTH), 3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDA), and 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) in human urine. J Anal Toxicol 27:265–269

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Savoca R, Rentsch KM, Hubert AR (2004) Diagnostic efficiency of different amphetamine screening tests—the search for an optimal cutoff. Clin Chem Lab Med 42:1063–1065

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Apollonio LG, Whittall IR, Pianca DJ, Kyd JM, Maher WA (2007) Matrix effect and cross-reactivity of select amphetamine-type substances, designer analogues, and putrefactive amines using the Bio-Quant direct ELISA presumptive assays for amphetamine and methamphetamine. J Anal Toxicol 31:208–213

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Broussard L (2008) Interpretation of amphetamines screening and confirmation testing. Bioanalysis 1:937–952

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hikiji W, Kudo K, Sato S, Usumoto Y, Tsuji A, Ikeda N (2009) False negative result for amphetamines on the Triage® Drug of Abuse Panel: the cause of the unusual phenomenon with experimental analyses. Int J Leg Med 123:247–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Dr. Benedikt Vennemann, Dr. Helen Brownlow, Dr. David Sadler, Dr. Priyanjith Perera, Dr. Clifford Perera, and Dr. Probath Senasinghi for collecting specimens during autopsy, and Giorgia DePaoli and Collin Seneviratne for providing the results of the routine toxicology analysis. Thanks are also expressed to Randox Ltd. for loan of the Evidence Investigator, donation of screening test reagents, and financial support for P. McLaughlin to undertake this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Forensic and Biological Sciences, Bournemouth University, Poole, BH12-5BB, UK

    Poppy McLaughlin & David Osselton

  2. Centre of Forensic and Legal Medicine, Dundee University, Dundee, DD1-4HN, UK

    Derrick Pounder & Peter Maskell

Authors
  1. Poppy McLaughlin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Derrick Pounder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Peter Maskell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. David Osselton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Osselton.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McLaughlin, P., Pounder, D., Maskell, P. et al. Real-time near-body drug screening during autopsy I: use of the Randox biochip drugs of abuse DOA I and DOA II immunoassays. Forensic Toxicol 31, 113–118 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11419-012-0149-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11419-012-0149-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation