Evaluation of a direct high-capacity target screening approach for urine drug testing using liquid chromatography–time-of-flight mass spectrometry

Recent Update on Pretreatment and Analysis Methods of Buprenorphine in Different Matrix

Buprenorphine is one of the most commonly used pain-killing drugs due to its lengthy duration of action and high potency. However, excessive usage of buprenorphine can be harmful to one's health and prolonged use might result in addiction. Additionally, an increasing number of cases have been documented involving the illegal use of buprenorphine. Therefore, a variety of effective and reliable methods for pretreatment and determination of buprenorphine and its main metabolite norbuprenorphine have been established. This review aims to update the current state of pretreatment and detection techniques for buprenorphine and norbuprenorphine from January 2010 to March 2022. Pretreatment methods include several traditional extraction methods, solid-phase extraction, QuECHERS, various micro-extraction techniques, etc. while analytical methods include LC-MS, LC coupled with other detectors, GC-MS, capillary electrophoresis, electrochemical sensors, etc. The pros and cons of various techniques were compared and summarized, and the prospects were provided.HIGHLIGHTSProgress in pretreatment and detection methods for buprenorphine is demonstrated.Pros and cons of different pretreatment and analysis methods are compared.New materials (such as nanomaterials and magnetic materials) used in buprenorphine pretreatment are summarized.Newly emerged environmental-friendly methods are discussed.

Lowering the Bar for Mass Spectrometry: A Comparison between Immunoassay and Rapid Time-of-Flight for Presumptive Screening of Drugs in Urine

BACKGROUND

Immunoassay-based techniques and creatinine quantification have historically been the methods of choice for urine drug screening. Positive presumptive drug screen results are reflexed to more specific, confirmatory testing using gas or liquid chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry. False positives and false negatives with immunoassay techniques are common problems that have substantial down-stream consequences for patient care, laboratory operations, and total costs.

METHODS

The final workflow included rapid enzymatic hydrolysis, rapid liquid chromatographic methods, and time-of-flight mass spectrometry for detection. In total, 84 drugs and metabolites were included and reported qualitatively using 11 isotopically labeled internal standards selected to represent compound classes, retention time, and expected abundances to control for method inefficiencies and matrix suppression/enhancement. The method performance validation included 420 individual urine specimens.

RESULTS

Of the 420 samples screened by immunoassay, 117 failed to confirm by mass spectrometry and were immunoassay false positives. None of these 117 samples screened positive on the liquid chromatography time-of-flight mass spectrometry (LC-TOF-MS) assay. The LC-TOF-MS method failed to detect 1 sample in each of the following classes: buprenorphine, ethanol markers, and opiates owing to concentrations below the established cutoffs. Out of 579 samples, 275 (47.4%) screened positive by LC-TOF-MS for nicotine and at least 2 of its metabolites. Quantitative creatinine comparison to an existing Jaffe method yielded a slope of 0.91 and a correlation coefficient of 0.96.

CONCLUSIONS

We investigated whether immunoassay-based drug screening and creatinine quantification could be sufficiently replaced by a rapid LC-TOF-MS screen with higher specificity and accuracy than existing methods. The LC-LC-TOF-MS method is a sensitive and more specific way to screen for drugs, providing creatinine quantification and potential novel specimen validity testing with the inclusion of nicotine metabolites.

Rapid screening for drugs of abuse in biological fluids by ultra high performance liquid chromatography/Orbitrap mass spectrometry

We present a UPLC(®)-High Resolution Mass Spectrometric method to simultaneously screen for nineteen benzodiazepines, twelve opiates, cocaine and three metabolites, and three "Z-drug" hypnotic sedatives in both blood and urine specimens. Sample processing consists of a high-speed, high-temperature enzymatic hydrolysis for urine samples followed by a rapid supported liquid extraction (SLE). The combination of ultra-high resolution chromatography with high resolution mass spectrometry allows all 38 analytes to be uniquely detected with a ten minute analytical run. Limits of detection for all target analytes are 3ng/mL or better, with only 0.3mL of specimen used for analysis. The combination of low sample volume with fast processing and analysis makes this method a suitable replacement for immunoassay screening of the targeted drug classes, while providing far superior specificity and better limits of detection than can routinely be obtained by immunoassay.

Fully automated semi-quantitative toxicological screening in three biological matrices using turbulent flow chromatography/high resolution mass spectrometry

BACKGROUND

In clinical and forensic toxicology, fast and specific methods are needed for the screening of different classes of drugs. A complete general unknown screening procedure was developed using turbulent flow chromatography with electrospray ionization and Orbitrap mass spectrometry.

METHODS

After protein precipitation, samples were injected directly into the turbulent flow chromatographic system and analyzed with an Orbitrap mass spectrometer. The Exactive® operated in positive and negative modes with alternated high collision dissociation in order to obtain characteristic fragments. We built a library containing 616 compounds by analyzing a reference standard for all the molecules.

RESULTS

Identification was based on retention time, accurate measured mass, isotopic pattern and presence of specific fragments. For each substance, we set a calibration range encompassing infra-therapeutic, therapeutic, supra-therapeutic and toxic concentrations in order to generate semi-quantitative result. For 65% of the components, the limit of detection was below 5 ng/mL. The validation process showed the approach to be selective, sensitive, accurate and precise.

CONCLUSION

The method has been accredited by COFRAC (French Accreditation Committee) according to the ISO 15189 standard. Applicability was successfully tested by analyzing authentic serum, urine and whole blood samples.

Compound identification in forensic toxicological analysis with untargeted LC-MS-based techniques

Untargeted LC-MS/MS techniques have become indispensable tools for systematic toxicological analysis. Compound identification is based on the mass spectrometric information obtained, and this may include m/z, isotopic pattern, retention time and fragmentation information. All these different kinds of analytical features can be stored in libraries and databases. Currently, the most competent approach for compound identification involves tandem mass spectral library search. State-of-the-art databases were shown to be sensitive, specific, robust and instrument-independent. Low- and high-resolution instruments can both be used to develop efficient screening workflows. For automated and unattended acquisition of tandem mass spectral data, data-dependent acquisition control is the method of choice. Due to their impressive detection sensitivity, data-independent acquisition techniques are finding increased applicability.

Cross-reactivity of the CEDIA buprenorphine assay in drugs-of-abuse screening: influence of dose and metabolites of opioids

PURPOSE

The cloned enzyme donor immunoassay (CEDIA) for buprenorphine is applied for both urine drugs-of-abuse screening and compliance monitoring. Sensitivity, specificity, and optimal cutoff of this assay have differed between studies. This may indicate that cross-reactivity has to be taken into account during assay evaluation. We therefore investigated the performance of the CEDIA buprenorphine assay for use in our patient population and explored the impact of cross-reactivity on assay accuracy.

METHODS

The CEDIA buprenorphine assay and high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry were employed to analyze drugs-of-abuse in urine samples from a healthy drug-naïve male volunteer after intake of two tablets of a prescription drug containing 400 mg paracetamol +30 mg codeine phosphate, and in urine samples (n=2,272) from drug-addicted patients. Receiver operating characteristic analyses were performed to express the diagnostic accuracy of the CEDIA buprenorphine assay.

RESULTS

CEDIA buprenorphine was positive in one urine sample from the drug-naïve person after intake of the prescription drug. Twenty-five (1.1%) of the patient urine samples were positive for buprenorphine by CEDIA, but negative by high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Codeine, morphine, and their respective metabolites were prevalent in samples that were false positive for buprenorphine. The specificity of the CEDIA buprenorphine assay increased to 99.7% when the cutoff was increased from 5 ng/mL to 10 ng/mL.

CONCLUSION

Intake of a therapeutic dose of codeine can yield a false-positive CEDIA buprenorphine result. Additive effects from metabolites of codeine contribute to cross-reactivity in concentrations much lower than listed in the manufacturer's cross-reactivity guide. Raising the cutoff from 5 ng/mL to 10 ng/mL increased the diagnostic accuracy. Clinicians should be informed about the risk of false-positive results with the CEDIA buprenorphine assay.

Development of an analytical method for the targeted screening and multi-residue quantification of environmental contaminants in urine by liquid chromatography coupled to high resolution mass spectrometry for evaluation of human exposures

The aim of this study was to develop an analytical method and contribute to the assessment of the Exposome. Thus, a targeted analysis of a wide range of contaminants in contact with humans on daily routines in urine was developed. The method focused on a list of 38 contaminants, including 12 pesticides, one metabolite of pesticide, seven veterinary drugs, five parabens, one UV filter, one plastic additive, two surfactants and nine substances found in different products present in the everyday human environment. These contaminants were analyzed by high performance liquid chromatography coupled to high resolution mass spectrometry (HPLC-HRMS) with a quadrupole-time-of-flight (QqToF) instrument from a raw urinary matrix. A validation according to the FDA guidelines was employed to evaluate the specificity, linear or quadratic curve fitting, inter- and intra-day precision, accuracy and limits of detection and quantification (LOQ). The developed analysis allows for the quantification of 23 contaminants in the urine samples, with the LOQs ranging between 4.3 ng.mL(-1) and 113.2 ng.mL(-1). This method was applied to 17 urine samples. Among the targeted contaminants, four compounds were detected in samples. One of the contaminants (tributyl phosphate) was detected below the LOQ. The three others (4-hydroxybenzoic acid, sodium dodecylbenzenesulfonate and O,O-diethyl thiophosphate potassium) were detected but did not fulfill the validation criteria for quantification. Among these four compounds, two of them were found in all samples: tributyl phosphate and the surfactant sodium dodecylbenzenesulfonate.

Patterns of drug abuse among drug users with regular and irregular attendance for treatment as detected by comprehensive UHPLC-HR-TOF-MS

The most severe consequences of drug abuse include infectious diseases, overdoses, and drug-related deaths. As the range of toxicologically relevant compounds is continually changing due to the emergence of new psychoactive substances (NPS), laboratories are encountering analytical challenges. Current immunoassays are insufficient for determining the whole range of the drugs abused, and a broad-spectrum screening method is therefore needed. Here, the patterns of drug abuse in two groups of drug users were studied from urine samples using a comprehensive screening method based on high-resolution time-of-flight mass spectrometry. The two groups comprised drug abusers undergoing opioid maintenance treatment (OMT) or drug withdrawal therapy and routinely visiting a rehabilitation clinic, and drug abusers with irregular attendance at a harm reduction unit (HRU) and suspected of potential NPS abuse. Polydrug abuse was observed in both groups, but was more pronounced among the HRU subjects with a mean number of concurrent drugs per sample of 3.9, whereas among the regularly treated subjects the corresponding number was 2.1. NPS and pregabalin were more frequent among HRU subjects, and their abuse was always related to drug co-use. The most common drug combination for an HRU subject included amphetamine, cannabis, buprenorphine, benzodiazepine, and alpha-pyrrolidinovalerophenone. A typical set of drugs for treated subjects was buprenorphine, benzodiazepine, and occasionally amphetamine. Abuse of several concurrent drugs poses a higher risk of drug intoxication and a threat of premature termination of OMT. Since the subjects attending treatment used fewer concurrent drugs, this treatment could be valuable in reducing polydrug abuse.

Future applications of high-resolution MS to meet the demands for pain management drug testing

Urine specimens submitted for pain management drug testing often contain multiple psychotherapeutic drugs, in addition to opioids. Immunoassay-based screen-and-confirm approaches typically used for clinical drug testing have limited sensitivity to detect therapeutic concentrations of many drugs prescribed in pain management and do not differentiate between drugs in the same class. In addition, screening for all the various illicit and prescription drugs that may be present in the pain management population requires as many as 10–20 individual immunoassays. High-resolution MS approaches have the potential to transform the way clinical drug testing is performed for pain management.

Methods for urine drug testing using one-step dilution and direct injection in combination with LC–MS/MS and LC–HRMS

The advent of LC combined with MS made it possible to design analytical methods for urine drug testing based on the very simple concept of diluting urine with an internal standard as the sole preparation procedure prior to instrumental analysis. The number of publications using this method design increased after the development of high-efficiency LC based on sub-2 μm particles. The success of this method design for drug testing, doping control and toxicological investigations of urine is now well documented and comprise both screening and confirmation methods. The nondiscriminating nature of this method design makes it even more attractive in combination with high-resolution MS for multicomponent target and general unknown analysis applications.

Screening and confirmation of 62 drugs of abuse and metabolites in urine by ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography-quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry

An ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography--quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry (UHPLC-QTOF-MS) method for the screening and confirmation of 62 drugs of abuse and their metabolites in urine was developed in this study. The most commonly abused drugs, including amphetamines, opioids, cocaine, benzodiazepines (BZDs) and barbiturates, and many other new and emerging abused drugs, were selected as the analytes for this study. Urine samples were diluted 5-fold with deionized water before analysis. Using a superficially porous micro-particulate column and an acetic acid-based mobile phase, 54 basic and 8 acidic analytes could be detected within 15 and 12 min in positive and negative ionization modes, respectively. The MS collision energies for the 62 analytes were optimized, and their respective fragmentation patterns were constructed in the in-house library for confirmatory analysis. The coefficients of variation of the intra- and inter-day precision of the analyte responses all were <17.39%. All analytes, except barbital, showed matrix effects of 77-121%. The limits of detection of the 62 analytes were between 2.8 and 187.5 ng/mL, which were lower than their respective cut-off concentrations (20-500 ng/mL). Ten urine samples from patients undergoing methadone treatment were analyzed by the developed UHPLC-QTOF-MS method, and the results were compared with the immunoassay method.