Salivary Analysis of Drugs—Potential and Difficulties

Analysis of 2,5-dimethoxy-amphetamines and 2,5-dimethoxy-phenethylamines aiming their determination in biological matrices: a review

PURPOSE

The present review aims to provide an overview of methods for the quantification of 2,5-dimethoxy-amphetamines and -phenethylamines in different biological matrices, both traditional and alternative ones.

METHODS

A complete literature search was carried out with PubMed, Scopus and the World Wide Web using relevant keywords, e.g., designer drugs, amphetamines, phenethylamines, and biological matrices.

RESULTS

Synthetic phenethylamines represent one of the largest classes of "designer drugs", obtained through chemical structure modifications of psychoactive substances to increase their pharmacological activities. This practice is also favored by the fact that every new synthetic compound is not considered illegal by existing legislation. Generally, in a toxicological laboratory, the first monitoring of drugs of abuse is made by rapid screening tests that sometimes can occur in false positive or false negative results. To reduce evaluation errors, it is mandatory to submit the positive samples to confirmatory methods, such as gas chromatography or liquid chromatography combined to mass spectrometry, for a more specific qualitative and quantitative analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

This review highlights the great need for updated comprehensive analytical methods, particularly when analyzing biological matrices, both traditional and alternative ones, for the search of newly emerging designer drugs.

Analytical Methods Used for the Detection and Quantification of Benzodiazepines

The prescription of psychotropic drugs, especially benzodiazepines (BZDs), occupies a preponderant place in the management of mental illnesses. Indeed, the BZDs have been used in different therapeutic areas including insomnia, anxiety, seizure disorders, or general anesthesia. Unfortunately, these drugs are present in the illegal street market, leading to a lot of drug abuse amongst some addicted users, road insecurity, and suicide. Hence, it has become essential to analyze the BZDs drugs in human biological specimens for drug abuse in forensic sciences. The present review provides a summary of sample preparation techniques (solid-phase extraction and Liquid-liquid phase extraction) and the methods for the detection and quantification of BZDs molecules in the commonly used biological specimens over the ten last years which may potentially lead to better and accurate evaluation of the physiological state of a given person. The commonly used methods for the detection and quantification of BZDs include nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), chromatography (GC-MS, HPLC, and TLC), immunoassay (ELISA, RIA, LFA, CEDEA, FPIA, and KIMS), and electroanalytical methods (voltammetry and potentiometry).

Comparison of drug concentrations between whole blood and oral fluid

The relationship of drug concentrations between oral fluid and whole blood was evaluated by studying the linear correlation of concentrations and calculating the oral fluid to blood concentration ratios (OF/B) for different substances. Paired oral fluid and whole blood samples were collected from volunteers and persons suspected of drug use in four European countries. Oral fluid samples were collected with the Saliva∙Sampler™ device. All samples were analyzed for drugs of abuse and psychoactive medicines with validated gas and liquid chromatography-mass spectrometric methods. The median OF/B ratios were, for amphetamines 19-22, for opioids 1.8-11, for cocaine and metabolites 1.7-17, for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) 14, for benzodiazepines 0.035-0.33, and for other psychoactive medicines 0.24-3.7. Most of the these results were close to theoretical values based on the physicochemical properties of the drugs and to values presented earlier, but there was a lot of inter-individual variation in the OF/B ratios. For all substances, except for lorazepam (R(2)  = 0.031) and THC (R(2)  = 0.030), a correlation between the oral fluid and whole blood concentrations was observed. Due to large variation seen here, drug findings in oral fluid should not be used to estimate the corresponding concentrations in whole blood (or vice versa). However, detection of drugs in oral fluid is a sign of recent drug use and oral fluid can be used for qualitative detection of several drugs, e.g. in epidemiological prevalence studies. By optimizing the sampling and the analytical cut-offs, the potential of oral fluid as a confirmation matrix could be enhanced.

Sample collection and handling considerations for peptidomic studies in whole saliva; implications for biomarker discovery

BACKGROUND

Proteomic studies in saliva have demonstrated its potential as a diagnostic biofluid, however the salivary peptidome is less studied. Here we study the effects of several sample collection and handling factors on salivary peptide abundance levels.

METHODS

Salivary peptides were isolated using an ultrafiltration device and analyzed by tandem mass spectrometry. A panel of 41 peptides common after various treatments were quantified and normalized. We evaluated the effects of freezing rate of the samples, nutritional status of the donors (fed vs. fasted), and room-temperature sample degradation on peptide abundance levels. Repeatability of our sample processing method and our instrumental analysis method were investigated.

RESULTS

Increased sample freezing rate produced higher levels of peptides. Donor nutritional status had no influence on the levels of measured peptides. No significant difference was detected in donors' saliva following 5, 10 and 15 min of room-temperature degradation. Sample processing and instrumental variability were relatively small, with median CVs of 9.6 and 6.6.

CONCLUSIONS

Peptide abundance levels in saliva are rather forgiving towards variations in sample handling and donor nutritional status. Differences in freezing methods may affect peptide abundance, so consistency in freezing samples is preferred. Our results are valuable for standardizing sample collection and handling methods for peptidomic-based biomarker studies in saliva.

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.