Simultaneous determination of 137 drugs of abuse, new psychoactive substances, and novel synthetic opioids in meconium by UHPLC-QTOF

Biological Testing and Interpretation of Laboratory Results Associated with Detecting Newborns with Substance Exposure

BACKGROUND

Substance use during pregnancy is common, as is biological testing that is intended to help identify prenatal exposures. However, there is no standardized requirement for biological testing with either maternal or newborn specimens, nor is there standardization related to when testing occurs, how frequently testing occurs, what specimen(s) to test, what substances to test for, or how to perform testing.

CONTENT

We review common specimen types tested to detect maternal and newborn substance exposure with a focus on urine, meconium, and umbilical cord tissue. We also review common analytical methods used to perform testing, including immunoassay, and mass spectrometry platforms. Considerations regarding the utilization of testing relative to the purpose of testing, the drug analyte(s) of interest, the specific testing employed, and the interpretation of results are emphasized to help guide decisions about clinical utilization of testing. We also highlight specific examples of unexpected results that can be used to guide interpretation and appropriate next steps.

SUMMARY

There are strengths and limitations associated with all approaches to detecting substance exposure in pregnant persons as well as biological testing to evaluate a newborn with possible substance exposure. Standardization is needed to better inform decisions surrounding evaluation of substance exposures in pregnant people and newborns. If biological sampling is pursued, testing options and results must be reviewed in clinical context, acknowledging that false-positive and -negative results can and do occur.

New Psychoactive Substances: Which Biological Matrix Is the Best for Clinical Toxicology Screening?

BACKGROUND

Every year, more new psychoactive substances (NPSs) emerge in the market of the drugs of abuse. NPSs belong to various chemical classes, such as synthetic cannabinoids, phenethylamines, opioids, and benzodiazepines. The detection of NPSs intake using different types of biological matrices is challenging for clinical toxicologists because of their structural diversity and the lack of information on their toxicokinetics, including their metabolic fate.

METHODS

PubMed-listed articles reporting mass spectrometry-based bioanalytical approaches for NPSs detection published during the past 5 years were identified and discussed. Furthermore, the pros and cons of using common biological matrices in clinical toxicology (CT) settings to screen for NPSs are highlighted in this review article.

RESULTS

Twenty-six articles presenting multianalyte screening methods for use in the field of CT were considered. The advantages and disadvantages of different biological matrices are discussed with a particular view of the different analytical tasks in CT, especially emergency toxicology. Finally, an outlook introduces the emerging trends in biosamples used in CT, such as the exhaled breath.

CONCLUSIONS

Blood and urine represent the most common biological matrices used in a CT setting; however, reports concerning NPSs detection in alternative matrices are also available. Noteworthy, the selection of the biological matrix must depend on the clinician's enquiry because the individual advantages and disadvantages must be considered.

Determination of Prenatal Substance Exposure Using Meconium and Orbitrap Mass Spectrometry

The aim of this study was to develop and to validate a toxicological untargeted screening relying on LC-HRMS in meconium including the detection of the four main classes of drugs of abuse (DoA; amphetamines, cannabinoids, opioids and cocaine). The method was then applied to 29 real samples. Analyses were performed with a liquid chromatography system coupled to a benchtop Orbitrap operating in a data-dependent analysis. The sample amount was 300 mg of meconium extracted twice by solid phase extraction following two distinct procedures. Raw data were processed using the Compound Discoverer 3.2 software (Thermo). The method was evaluated and validated on 15 compounds (6-MAM, morphine, buprenorphine, norbuprenorphine, methadone, EDDP, amphetamine, MDA, MDMA, methamphetamine, cocaine, benzoylecgonine, THC, 11-OH-THC, THC-COOH). Limits of detection were between 0.5 and 5 pg/mg and limits of identification between 5 and 50 pg/mg. Mean matrix effect was between −79 and −19% (n = 6) and mean overall recovery between 18 and 73% (n = 6) at 100 pg/mg. The application allows the detection of 88 substances, including 47 pharmaceuticals and 15 pharmaceutical metabolites, cocaine and its metabolites, THC and its metabolites, and natural (morphine, codeine) and synthetic (methadone, buprenorphine, tramadol, norfentanyl) opioids. This method is now used routinely for toxicological screening in high-risk pregnancies