Bioanalytical procedures for determination of drugs of abuse in oral fluid

A simple method for daily inspections of gas chromatography-mass spectrometry systems with an instrumental detection limit as an indicator

The purpose of this paper is to propose a simple method for daily inspections of a gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) system with an instrumental detection limit (IDL) as an indicator. A definition of DLs by ISO is 3.3σ where σ denotes the standard deviation (SD) of blank measurements. Estimation of σ is carried out according to the function of mutual information (FUMI) theory and actually with commercial software (TOCO19). An IDL which is a combination of a signal area, width and noise level is concluded to be a good indicator for daily inspections compared with each of its constituents. Methyl stearate is used as a standard material for the daily inspection of a programmed-temperature GC-MS system. A short chromatogram of 1800 data points (1.5 min) containing a target signal and background noise is fit for the IDL prediction by TOCO19. The relative SDs (RSDs) based on the theoretically estimated σ are shown to coincide with statistical results from repeated measurements within 95% confidence intervals. Column temperature is observed to affect IDLs through background fluctuation and then temperature-IDL relationship is examined in a range from 170 to 270 °C. Actual daily inspections over a month are demonstrated.

Ultraviolet resonance Raman spectroscopy for the detection of cocaine in oral fluid

Detecting and quantifying cocaine in oral fluid is of significant importance for practical forensics. Up to date, mainly destructive methods or biochemical tests have been used, while spectroscopic methods were only applied to pretreated samples. In this work, the possibility of using resonance Raman spectroscopy to detect cocaine in oral fluid without pretreating samples was tested. It was found that ultraviolet resonance Raman spectroscopy with 239-nm excitation allows for the detection of cocaine in oral fluid at 10μg/mL level. Further method development will be needed for reaching the practically useful levels of cocaine detection.

The potential role of oral fluid in antidoping testing

BACKGROUND

Currently, urine and blood are the only matrices authorized for antidoping testing by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). Although the usefulness of urine and blood is proven, issues remain for monitoring some drug classes and for drugs prohibited only in competition. The alternative matrix oral fluid (OF) may offer solutions to some of these issues. OF collection is easy, noninvasive, and sex neutral and is directly observed, limiting potential adulteration, a major problem for urine testing. OF is used to monitor drug intake in workplace, clinical toxicology, criminal justice, and driving under the influence of drugs programs and potentially could complement urine and blood for antidoping testing in sports.

CONTENT

This review outlines the present state of knowledge and the advantages and limitations of OF testing for each of the WADA drug classes and the research needed to advance OF testing as a viable alternative for antidoping testing.

SUMMARY

Doping agents are either prohibited at all times or prohibited in competition only. Few OF data from controlled drug administration studies are available for substances banned at all times, whereas for some agents prohibited only in competition, sufficient data may be available to suggest appropriate analytes and cutoffs (analytical threshold concentrations) to identify recent drug use. Additional research is needed to characterize the disposition of many banned substances into OF; OF collection methods and doping agent stability in OF also require investigation to allow the accurate interpretation of OF tests for antidoping monitoring.

Determination of amphetamine-type stimulants in oral fluid by solid-phase microextraction and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry

A method for the simultaneous identification and quantification of amphetamine (AMP), methamphetamine (MET), fenproporex (FEN), diethylpropion (DIE) and methylphenidate (MPH) in oral fluid collected with Quantisal™ device has been developed and validated. Thereunto, in-matrix propylchloroformate derivatization followed by direct immersion solid-phase microextraction and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry were employed. Deuterium labeled AMP was used as internal standard for all the stimulants and analysis was performed using the selected ion monitoring mode. The detector response was linear for the studied drugs in the concentration range of 2-256 ng mL(-1) (neat oral fluid), except for FEN, whereas the linear range was 4-256 ng mL(-1). The detection limits were 0.5 ng mL(-1) (MET), 1 ng mL(-1) (MPH) and 2 ng mL(-1) (DIE, AMP, FEN), respectively. Accuracy of quality control samples remained within 98.2-111.9% of the target concentrations, while precision has not exceeded 15% of the relative standard deviation. Recoveries with Quantisal™ device ranged from 77.2% to 112.1%. Also, the goodness-of-fit concerning the ordinary least squares model in the statistical inference of data has been tested through residual plotting and ANOVA. The validated method can be easily automated and then used for screening and confirmation of amphetamine-type stimulants in drivers' oral fluid.

Oral fluid results compared to self reports of recent cocaine and heroin use by methadone maintenance patients

INTRODUCTION

Although self reports of illicit drug use may not be reliable, this information is frequently collected and relied upon by national drug surveys and by counselors in drug treatment programs. The addition of oral fluid testing to these programs would provide objective information on recent drug use.

AIM

The goal of this study was to compare oral fluid tests for cocaine, benzoylecgonine, 6-acetylmorphine, morphine, codeine and 6-acetylcodeine to self reports of recent cocaine and heroin use by patients in an outpatient methadone treatment program.

METHODS

Patients (n=400) provided an oral fluid specimen and completed a short questionnaire on illicit drug use over the last seven days. Oral fluid was collected with the Intercept Oral Fluid Collection device. Oral fluid was analyzed by a validated assay using liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry. The presence of an analyte was confirmed if all identification criteria were met and its concentration (ng/mL) was ≥ LOQ (cocaine, 0.4; benzoylecgonine, 0.4; morphine, 2; codeine, 2; 6-acetylmorphine, 0.4; and 6-acetylcodeine, 1).

RESULTS

Analyses of oral fluid specimens collected from the 400 methadone maintained patients revealed that a majority (95%) of subjects who admitted to recent cocaine use were confirmed positive, whereas slightly more than 50% were confirmed positive who admitted to heroin over the last seven days. For those patients who denied recent cocaine and heroin use, approximately 30% were positive for cocaine and 14% were positive for heroin.

CONCLUSION

Oral fluid testing provides an objective means of verifying recent drug use and for assessment of patients in treatment for substance use disorders.

Micro-solid phase extraction coupled with high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry for the determination of stimulants, hallucinogens, ketamine and phencyclidine in oral fluids

A confirmatory method for the determination of illicit drugs based on micro-solid phase extraction with modified tips, made of a functionalized fiberglass with apolar chains of octadecylsilane into monolithic structure, has been developed in this study. Drugs belonging to different chemical classes, such as amphetamine, methamphetamine, methylenedioxyamphetamine, methylenedioxyethylamphetamine, methylenedioxymethylamphetamine, cocaine, benzoylecgonine, ketamine, mescaline, phencyclidine and psilocybine were analyzed. The quantitation was performed by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry and the analytes were detected in positive ionization by means of an electrospray source. The limits of quantification ranged between 0.3 ng mL(-1) for cocaine and 4.9 ng mL(-1) for psilocybine, with coefficients of determination (r(2)) >0.99 for all the analytes as recommended in the guidelines of Society of Forensic Toxicologists-American Association Forensic Sciences.

Conventional and alternative matrices for driving under the influence of cannabis: recent progress and remaining challenges

In the past decade much research concerning the impact of cannabis use on road safety has been conducted. More specifically, studies on effects of cannabis smoking on driving performance, as well as epidemiological studies and cannabis-detection techniques have been published. As a result, several countries have adopted driving under the influence of drugs (DUID) legislations, with varying approaches worldwide. A wide variety of bodily fluids have been utilized to determine the presence of cannabis. Urine and blood are the most widely used matrices for DUID legislations. However, more and more publications focus on the usability of oral fluid testing for this purpose. Each matrix provides different information about time and extent of use and likelihood of impairment. This review will focus on the practical aspects of implying a DUID legislation. The pros and cons of the different biological matrices used for Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol screening and quantification will be discussed. In addition, a literature overview concerning (roadside) cannabinoid detection, as well as laboratory confirmation techniques is given. Finally, we will discuss important issues influencing interpretation of these data, such as oral fluid collection, choice of cut-offs, stability and proficiency testing.

Oral fluid testing for drugs of abuse

BACKGROUND

Oral fluid (OF) is an exciting alternative matrix for monitoring drugs of abuse in workplace, clinical toxicology, criminal justice, and driving under the influence of drugs (DUID) programs. During the last 5 years, scientific and technological advances in OF collection, point-of-collection testing devices, and screening and confirmation methods were achieved. Guidelines were proposed for workplace OF testing by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, DUID testing by the European Union's Driving under the Influence of Drugs, Alcohol and Medicines (DRUID) program, and standardization of DUID research. Although OF testing is now commonplace in many monitoring programs, the greatest current limitation is the scarcity of controlled drug administration studies available to guide interpretation.

CONTENT

This review outlines OF testing advantages and limitations, and the progress in OF that has occurred during the last 5 years in collection, screening, confirmation, and interpretation of cannabinoids, opioids, amphetamines, cocaine, and benzodiazepines. We examine controlled drug administration studies, immunoassay and chromatographic methods, collection devices, point-of-collection testing device performance, and recent applications of OF testing.

SUMMARY

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration approval of OF testing was delayed because questions about drug OF disposition were not yet resolved, and collection device performance and testing assays required improvement. Here, we document the many advances achieved in the use of OF. Additional research is needed to identify new biomarkers, determine drug detection windows, characterize OF adulteration techniques, and evaluate analyte stability. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that OF offers multiple advantages as an alternative matrix for drug monitoring and has an important role in DUID, treatment, workplace, and criminal justice programs.

Rapid drug detection in oral samples by porous silicon assisted laser desorption/ionization mass spectrometry

The demand for analysis of oral fluid for illicit drugs has arisen with the increased adoption of roadside testing, particularly in countries where changes in legislation allow random roadside testing of drivers for the presence of a palette of illicit drugs such as methamphetamine (MA), 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) and Delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). Oral samples are currently tested for such drugs at the roadside using an immunoassay-based commercial test kit. Positive roadside tests are sent for confirmatory laboratory analysis, traditionally by means of gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS). We present here an alternative rapid analysis technique, porous silicon assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (pSi LDI-MS), for the high-throughput analysis of oral fluids. This technique alleviates the need for sample derivatization, requires only sub-microliter sample volumes and allows fast analysis (of the order of seconds). In this study, the application of the technique is demonstrated with real samples from actual roadside testing. The analysis of oral samples resulted in detection of MA and MDMA with no extraction and analysis of THC after ethyl acetate extraction. We propose that, subject to miniaturization of a suitable mass spectrometer, this technique is well suited to underpin the deployment of oral fluid testing in the clinic, workplace and on the roadside.

Current technologies and considerations for drug bioanalysis in oral fluid

Drug oral fluid analysis was first used almost 30 years ago for the purpose of therapeutic drug monitoring. Since then, oral fluid bioanalysis has become more popular, mainly in the fields of pharmacokinetics, workplace drug testing, criminal justice, driving under the influence testing and therapeutic drug monitoring. In fact, oral fluid can provide a readily available and noninvasive medium, without any privacy loss by the examinee, which occurs, for instance, during the collection of urine samples. It is believed that drug concentrations in oral fluid may parallel those measured in blood. This feature makes oral fluid an alternative analytical specimen to blood, which assumes particular importance in roadside testing, the most published application of this sample. Great improvements in the development of accurate and reliable methods for sample collection, in situ detection devices (on-site drug detection kits), and highly sensitive and specific analytical methods for oral fluid testing of drugs have been observed in the last few years. However, without mass spectrometry-based analytical methods, such as liquid chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry (LC–MS) or tandem mass spectrometry (LC–MS/MS), the desired sensitivity would not be met, due to the low amounts of sample usually available for analysis. This review will discuss a series of published papers on the applicability of oral fluid in the field of analytical, clinical and forensic toxicology, with a special focus on its advantages and drawbacks over the normally used biological specimens and the main technological advances over the last decade, which have made oral fluid analysis of drugs possible.

Forensic chemistry

Forensic chemistry is unique among chemical sciences in that its research, practice, and presentation must meet the needs of both the scientific and the legal communities. As such, forensic chemistry research is applied and derivative by nature and design, and it emphasizes metrology (the science of measurement) and validation. Forensic chemistry has moved away from its analytical roots and is incorporating a broader spectrum of chemical sciences. Existing forensic practices are being revisited as the purview of forensic chemistry extends outward from drug analysis and toxicology into such diverse areas as combustion chemistry, materials science, and pattern evidence.

Analytical techniques for drug detection in oral fluid

Analytical techniques for detection of drugs in oral fluid (OF) are reviewed with emphasis on applications used in European Union (EU) roadside testing projects. Oral fluid is readily accessible and collectible. It has become an interesting material because no medical personnel are needed for sampling. This matrix is especially applicable for preliminary drug testing in driving under the influence controls and for monitoring illicit drug use in drug treatment. Oral fluid is also an increasingly used specimen in epidemiologic studies and in workplace drug testing. Drugs are present at lower levels in OF than in urine. The window of detection of drugs in OF reflects the corresponding window in blood, suggesting OF as a specimen of choice for roadside testing. Saliva/blood ratios vary from drug to drug, from person to person, and even intraindividually making therapeutic drug monitoring in OF challenging. Several sensitive methods for drug testing in OF have been developed during the last years.

Current developments in drug testing in oral fluid

In the last few years, significant developments have occurred on the key issues involved in oral fluid drug testing. New pharmacokinetic studies have been conducted, optimal cutoffs have been proposed, and new studies have examined the correlation between oral fluid drug concentrations and impairment. Recent studies (eg, the discovery of the presence of THC-COOH in oral fluid) can contribute to solve the issue of false-positive results caused by passive exposure to marijuana. Reliable point-of-care drug testing is still problematic, especially for cannabinoids and benzodiazepines. To date, there is no device that allows both reliable and practical point-of-care testing. The importance of liquid chromatography- tandem mass spectrometry in confirmation analysis has increased over the last several years. It can be expected that this trend will continue because the low sample volumes make simultaneous detection of different drug classes with limited sample preparation necessary. Literature on proficiency testing to ensure reliability and comparability of results is limited. Oral fluid has become an important sample type in driving under the influence research, and the first legal random drug testing program in oral fluid since 2004 has been organized in Victoria. It can be expected that the role of oral fluid as an alternative matrix will keep increasing in the future.

Stability of analytes in biosamples - an important issue in clinical and forensic toxicology?

Knowledge of the stability of drugs in biological samples is important for the interpretation of toxicological findings. This paper reviews data on the stability of drugs in blood, plasma, or serum. Since such data have already been reviewed for classic drugs of abuse, the focus here is on newer drugs of abuse and on therapeutic drugs. Key information about the conditions of the stability experiments will be provided and the following drugs or drug classes are covered: amphetamines, amphetamine-derived, piperazine-derived, and phenethylamine-derived designer drugs, antidepressants, neuroleptics, anti-HIV drugs, antiepileptics, cardiovascular drugs, and others. In addition, aspects of stability experiments and their evaluations are discussed. The data presented show that the majority of drugs are stable in blood, plasma, or serum samples under the conditions usually encountered in a clinical or forensic toxicology laboratory. Instability usually only occurs for drugs carrying ester moieties, sulfur atoms, or other easily oxidized or reduced structures. Nevertheless, clinical or forensic specimens should always be stored at least in the refrigerator and preferably at -20 degrees C or lower to avoid any degradation. Finally, results obtained from biosamples that have been stored at room temperature for a longer time should be interpreted with great care and partial degradation should always be considered.