Detection of drugs of abuse in urine using the Bruker Toxtyper™: Experiences in a routine clinical laboratory setting

The North American opioid epidemic: opportunities and challenges for clinical laboratories

Since 1999, the opioid epidemic in North America has resulted in over 1 million deaths, and it continues to escalate despite numerous efforts in various arenas to combat the upward trend. Clinical laboratories provide drug testing to support practices such as emergency medicine, substance use disorder treatment, and pain management; increasingly, these laboratories are collaborating in novel partnerships including drug-checking services (DCS) and multidisciplinary treatment teams. This review examines drug testing related to management of licit and illicit opioid use, new technologies and test strategies employed by clinical laboratories, barriers hindering laboratory response to the opioid epidemic, and areas for improvement and standardization within drug testing. Literature search terms included combinations of "opioid," "opiate," "fentanyl," "laboratory," "epidemic," "crisis," "mass spectrometry," "immunoassay," "drug screen," "drug test," "guidelines," plus review of PubMed "similar articles" and references within publications. While immunoassay (IA) and point-of-care (POC) test options for synthetic opioids are increasingly available, mass spectrometry (MS) platforms offer the greatest flexibility and sensitivity for detecting novel, potent opioids. Previously reserved as a second-tier application in most drug test algorithms, MS assays are gaining a larger role in initial screening for specific patients and DCS. However, there are substantial differences among laboratories in terms of updating test menus, algorithms, and technologies to meet changing clinical needs. While some clinical laboratories lack the resources and expertise to implement MS, many are also slow to adopt available IA and POC tests for newer opioids such as fentanyl. MS-based testing also presents challenges, including gaps in available guidance for assay validation and ongoing performance assessment that contribute to a dramatic lack of standardization among laboratories. We identify opportunities for improvement in laboratory operations, reporting, and interpretation of drug test results, including laboratorian and provider education and laboratory-focused guidelines. We also highlight the need for collaboration with providers, assay and instrument manufacturers, and national organizations to increase the effectiveness of clinical laboratory and provider efforts in preventing morbidity and mortality associated with opioid use and misuse.

Urine toxicology screening by liquid chromatography time-of-flight mass spectrometry in a quaternary hospital setting

OBJECTIVE

Validation of a non-targeted method for urine drug screening (UDS) by liquid chromatography quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry (LC-QTOF), and comparison to an established GC-MS method in a hospital setting.

METHODS

217 UDS specimens sent to a quaternary hospital pathology department, were analysed by a CEDIA® immunoassay screen (six drug panels; amphetamines, barbiturates, benzodiazepines, cocaine metabolites, cannabinoids and opiates) on an Abbott Architect instrument. Specimens were subsequently analysed by an established non-targeted qualitative GC-MS method and results compared with a general unknown screening method by LC-QTOF that was under evaluation as a replacement method.

RESULTS

42 selected drugs were evaluated; limits of identification ranged from 2 to 100 µg/L and most drugs (n = 39) were stabile for 24 h after preparation. Matrix effects greater than 25% were observed in seven of the selected drugs. 87% of the specimens tested positive to 1 or more drug panels in a CEDIA® screen. A total of 537 positive drug findings were identified by GC-MS compared to 1,267 positive findings by LC-QTOF. On average, each GC-MS screen identified 2.5 ± 1.8 drugs and the LC-QTOF screen identified 5.8 ± 3.2 drugs. No drugs were identified in 11.3% of the GC-MS screens, whereas drugs were detected in 99% of these by the LC-QTOF. In almost all instances, the LC-QTOF screen could provide mass spectrometric confirmatory results of positive immunoassay screens and was able to identify a wider range of additional drugs and drug metabolites.

CONCLUSIONS

The described general unknown screening (non-targeted, qualitative) LC-QTOF method can detect a larger range of drugs encountered in a hospital setting. The method has been shown to be suitable for comprehensive toxicology screening in a clinical toxicology laboratory.

A simple and robust method for broad range screening of hair samples for drugs of abuse using a high-throughput UHPLC-Ion Trap MS instrument

The use of chromatography hyphenated with mass spectrometry is a well-established approach in clinical and forensic toxicology, particularly for the analysis of the so-called alternative matrices (hair, nails, oral fluid, sweat). This procedure for the quantitative determination of targeted analytes has been reported since the early 1980s and today is the golden standard in analytical toxicology. However this technology has not found wide application the broad spectrum preliminarily screening of samples which is still mostly based on immunoassays. The aim of the present work was to test a recent instrumental approach based on UHPLC-Ion Trap-MS (Toxtyper®, Bruker Daltonics) intended to be used in routine contexts for the analysis of drug of abuse applied to hair toxicological analysis. The reported analytical method is based on a simple hair pre-treatment consisting of an overnight acid incubation in 0.1 mol/L HCl, followed by direct injection, after neutralization with equimolar amount of NaOH. The separation was then performed using a reverse phase column with a rapid gradient elution of 11 min (from 1% acetonitrile in 0.1% ammonium formate to 95% acetonitrile in 0.1% ammonium formate). Detection was by a fast ion trap analyzer (32,500 m/z sec^-1) operating in the mass range 70-800 m/z. The chromatographic retention time and MS2/MS3 data were used for compound identification using a proprietary database which allowed to screen for up to 987 compounds. The tested analytical method showed limits of detection in the range between 0.01 and 0.09 ng/mg of hair matrix for a panel of 16 drugs of abuse (except for MDA, morphine, 6-MAM and norketamine, which showed limits of detection of 0.25, 0.15, 0.15 and 0.25 ng/mg, respectively). The method was validated according to international guidelines on a selected panel of drugs of abuse. The analytical performance of the instrument was assessed by analyzing 968 hair samples from forensic cases. A good concordance with a reference confirmatory method based on GC-MS was found in terms of classification of both negative and positive samples. Finally, the method was also successfully tested by analyzing 12 proficiency test samples containing not only common drugs of abuse but also new psychoactive substances, including fentanyls and cathinones.

MASS SPECTROMETRY ANALYSIS OF DRUGS OF ABUSE: CHALLENGES AND EMERGING STRATEGIES

Mass spectrometry has been the "gold standard" for drugs of abuse (DoA) analysis for many decades because of the selectivity and sensitivity it affords. Recent progress in all aspects of mass spectrometry has seen significant developments in the field of DoA analysis. Mass spectrometry is particularly well suited to address the rapidly proliferating number of very high potency, novel psychoactive substances that are causing an alarming number of fatalities worldwide. This review surveys advancements in the areas of sample preparation, gas and liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry, as well as the rapidly emerging field of ambient ionization mass spectrometry. We have predominantly targeted literature progress over the past ten years and present our outlook for the future. © 2020 Periodicals, Inc. Mass Spec Rev.

Toxicological screening in the Amsterdam acute setting becomes more relevant if the standard panel of the drugs-of-abuse point-of-care test is expanded with GHB and ketamine

Objective

For diagnosis and treatment in the acute setting, it is crucial to know whether the clinical status of patients might be explained by the effects of drugs.The objective of this study was to determine how many drugs were detected by comprehensive toxicological screening, that could not be detected with a routine drugs-of-abuse point-of-care test (DOA-POCT) and which drugs of abuse (DOA) were relevant. A secondary objective was to determine in how many patients comprehensive toxicological screening provided additional clinically relevant information.

Methods

In this prospective study, patients were included in whom a DOA-POCT was performed and residual urine and serum samples were available.DOA-POCT were performed using the Triage® TOX Drug Screen. Comprehensive toxicological screening was performed using 1) the Toxtyper™ LC-MS^N method and 2) two GC-FID methods for alcohols and GHB respectively.The clinical relevance of the comprehensive toxicological screening results regarding diagnosis and patient management was quantified.

Results

A total of 100 patients were included. In 91 of these patients, comprehensive toxicological screening identified 234 drugs that were not identified by DOA-POCT. However, DOA-POCT identified 34 DOA that were not identified by comprehensive toxicological screening.Seven percent of comprehensive toxicological screening results were found to be clinically relevant, all with regard to diagnosis. GHB and ketamine were the drugs involved. Another 38 % strengthened confidence in diagnosis and patient care decisions.

Conclusion

GHB and ketamine should be added to the panel of drugs we screen at the point of care in the Amsterdam acute setting.

After another decade: LC-MS/MS became routine in clinical diagnostics

Tandem mass spectrometry - especially in combination with liquid chromatography (LC-MS/MS) - is applied in a multitude of important diagnostic niches of laboratory medicine. It is unquestioned in its routine use and is often unreplaceable by alternative technologies. This overview illustrates the development in the past decade (2009-2019) and intends to provide insight into the current standing and future directions of the field. The instrumentation matured significantly, the applications are well understood, and the in vitro diagnostics (IVD) industry is shaping the market by providing assay kits, certified instruments, and the first laboratory automated LC-MS/MS instruments as an analytical core. In many settings the application of LC-MS/MS is still burdensome with locally lab developed test (LDT) designs relying on highly specialized staff. The current routine applications cover a wide range of analytes in therapeutic drug monitoring, endocrinology including newborn screening, and toxicology. The tasks that remain to be mastered are, for example, the quantification of proteins by means of LC-MS/MS and the transition from targeted to untargeted omics approaches relying on pattern recognition/pattern discrimination as a key technology for the establishment of diagnostic decisions.

Liquid chromatography-high resolution mass spectrometry for broad-spectrum drug screening of dried blood spot as microsampling procedure

BACKGROUND

Hyphenation of liquid chromatography (LC) with high-resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS) offers the potential to develop broad-spectrum screening procedures from low volumes of biological matrices. In parallel, dried blood spot (DBS) has become a valuable tool in the bioanalysis landscape to overcome conventional blood collection issues. Herein, we demonstrated the applicability of DBS as micro-sampling procedure for broad-spectrum toxicological screening.

METHODS

A method was developed on a HRMS system in data dependant acquisition (DDA) mode using an extensive inclusion list to promote collection of relevant data. 104 real toxicology cases were analysed, and the results were cross-validated with one published and one commercial screening procedures. Quantitative MRM analyses were also performed on identified substances on a triple quadrupole instrument as a complementary confirmation procedure.

RESULTS

The method showed limits of identification (LOIs) in appropriateness with therapeutic ranges for all the classes of interest. Applying the three screening approaches on 104 real cases, 271 identifications were performed including 14 and 6 classes of prescribed and illicit drugs, respectively. Among the detected substances, 23% were only detected by the proposed method. Based on confirmatory analyses, we demonstrated that the use of blood micro-samples did not impair the sensitivity allowing more identifications in the low concentration ranges.

CONCLUSION

A LC-HRMS assay was successfully developed for toxicological screening of blood microsamples demonstrating a high identification power at low concentration ranges. The validation procedure and the analysis of real cases demonstrated the potential of this assay by supplementing screening approaches of reference.

An Insight into Z-Drug Abuse and Dependence: An Examination of Reports to the European Medicines Agency Database of Suspected Adverse Drug Reactions

BACKGROUND

Although originally marketed as safe alternatives to the habit-forming benzodiazepines, growing numbers of zaleplon, zolpidem, and zopiclone ("Z-drugs") clinical concerns relating to their potential of abuse, dependence, and withdrawal have been reported over time. We aimed here at assessing these issues analyzing datasets of adverse drug reactions provided by the European Medicines Agency through the EudraVigilance system.

METHODS

Analyzing the adverse drug reactions databases of each Z-drug, descriptive analyses have been performed on cases and proportional reporting ratios (PRRs) computed.

RESULTS

An overall number of 33 240 (e.g., 23 420 zolpidem; 9283 zopiclone; and 537 zaleplon) misuse-, abuse-, dependence-, and withdrawal-related adverse drug reactions, corresponding to some 6246 unique patients given Z-drugs, were here identified. Cases were studied and described, including demographic characteristics and clinical data such as concomitant drugs, doses, routes of administration, and outcomes of the reactions (being fatalities recorded). Considering PRR values and in comparison with zopiclone, zolpidem was more frequently involved in both misuse/abuse and withdrawal issues. Zolpidem and zopiclone presented with the same dependence risk, but zopiclone was most involved in overdose adverse drug reactions. Compared with zaleplon, zopiclone presented higher dependence and overdose-related issues but slightly lower misuse/abuse and withdrawal PRR values.

CONCLUSION

Current data may only represent a gross underestimate of the real prevalence of Z-drug misuse. Caution should be exercised when prescribing those molecules, especially for patients with psychiatric illnesses and/or history of drug abuse. We recommend the need to invest in proactive pharmacovigilance activities to better and promptly detect, understand, and prevent any possible misuse potential of prescribed medications.