High-Throughput Comprehensive Quantitative LC-MS/MS Analysis of Common Drugs and Metabolites (62 Compounds) in Human Urine

In recent years a multitude of LC-MS/MS assays have been widely reported in commercial and clinical literature demonstrating the simultaneous analyses of dozens of drugs of abuse in human samples. The utility of such assays is meant to supplant the indirect detection based on the classical spectral library approach. Direct and simultaneous analysis via LC-MS/MS technology is made possible by fast acquisition rates in multiple reaction monitoring, as well as sensitivity and high selectivity of the technology for each individual analyte in a complex mixture. Hence, unlike immunoassays, which are not well-suited for the analyses of mixtures, and which may also be prone to false positives from potential interferences, quantitative LC-MS/MS analyses are feasible for complex patient mixtures of drugs of abuse. We hereby present a robust clinical LC-MS/MS assay for the simultaneous and semi-quantitative analysis of up to 62 drugs of abuse in human urine, representing major classes that include opiates, benzodiazepines, amphetamines, etc. The assay utilizes dilute and shoot, whereby the sample is diluted ten times in internal standard reagent and thereafter submitted to the LC-MS instrument, i.e., reversed-phase liquid chromatography coupled to the electrospray ionization multiple reaction monitoring analysis, via the TSQ Endura triple-quadrupole instrument. The assay employs stable isotope-labeled internal standards with a linear response in the 30-300 ng/mL range, effectively semi-quantitative, since this analytical range is well within typical immunoassay cutoffs for most drugs.

Buprenorphine, Norbuprenorphine, and Naloxone Levels in Adulterated Urine Samples: Can They be Detected When Buprenorphine/Naloxone Film is Dipped into Urine or Water?

Reportedly, various urine manipulations can be performed by opioid use disorder (OUD) patients who are on buprenorphine/naloxone medications to disguise their non-compliance to the treatment. One type of manipulation is known as "spiking" adulteration, directly dipping a buprenorphine/naloxone film into urine. Identifying this type of urine manipulation has been the aim of many previous studies. These studies have revealed urine adulterations through inappropriately high levels of "buprenorphine" and "naloxone" and a very small amount of "norbuprenorphine." So, does the small amount of "norbuprenorphine" in the adulterated urine samples result from dipped buprenorphine/naloxone film, or is it a residual metabolite of buprenorphine in the patient's system? This pilot study utilized 12 urine samples from 12 participants, as well as water samples as a control. The samples were subdivided by the dipping area and time, as well as the temperature and concentration of urine samples, and each sublingual generic buprenorphine/naloxone film was dipped directly into the samples. Then, the levels of "buprenorphine," "norbuprenorphine," "naloxone," "buprenorphine-glucuronide" and "norbuprenorphine-glucuronide" were examined by Liquid Chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). The results of this study showed that high levels of "buprenorphine" and "naloxone" and a small amount of "norbuprenorphine" were detected in both urine and water samples when the buprenorphine/naloxone film was dipped directly into these samples. However, no "buprenorphine-glucuronide" or "norbuprenorphine-glucuronide" were detected in any of the samples. In addition, the area and timing of dipping altered "buprenorphine" and "naloxone" levels, but concentration and temperature did not. This study's findings could help providers interpret their patients' urine drug test results more accurately, which then allows them to monitor patient compliance and help them identify manipulation by examining patient urine test results.

A High-Throughput Ion Mobility Spectrometry-Mass Spectrometry Screening Method for Opioid Profiling

In 2017, the United States Department of Health and Human Services declared the widespread misuse and abuse of prescription and illicit opioids an epidemic. However, this epidemic dates back to the 1990s when opioids were extensively prescribed for pain management. Currently, opioids are still recommended for pain management, and given their abuse potential, rapid screening is imperative for patient treatment. Of particular importance is assessing pain management patient compliance, where evaluating drug use is crucial for preventing opioid abuse and potential overdoses. In this work, we utilized drift tube ion mobility spectrometry coupled with mass spectrometry (DTIMS-MS) to develop a rapid screening method for 33 target opioids and opioid urinary metabolites. Collision cross section values were determined for all target molecules using a flow-injection DTIMS-MS method, and clear differentiation of 27 out of the 33 opioids without prior chromatographic separation was observed when utilizing a high resolution demultiplexing screening approach. An automated solid phase extraction (SPE) platform was then coupled to DTIMS-MS for 10 s sample-to-sample analyses. This SPE-IMS-MS approach enabled the rapid screening of urine samples for opioids and presents a major improvement in sample throughput compared to traditional chromatographic analyses coupled with MS, which routinely take several minutes per sample. Overall, this vast reduction in analysis time facilitates a faster turn-around for patient samples, providing great benefits to clinical applications.

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.

The analytical performance of six urine drug screens on cobas 6000 and ARCHITECT i2000 compared to LC-MS/MS gold standard

BACKGROUND

Immunoassays provide a rapid tool for the screening of drugs-of-abuse (DOA). However, results are presumptive and confirmatory testing is warranted. To reduce associated cost and delay, laboratories should employ assays with high positive and negative predictive values (PPVs and NPVs). Here, we compared the results of urine drug screens on cobas 6000 (cobas) and ARCHITECTi2000 (ARCHITECT) platforms for six drugs against LC-MS/MS to assess the analytical performance of these assays.

METHODS

Eighty nine residual urine specimens, which tested positive for amphetamine, THC-COOH, benzoylecgonine, EDDP, opiates and/or oxycodone during routine drug testing, were stored frozen until later confirmation by LC-MS/MS. Immunoassays were performed on cobas and ARCHITECT using a split sample. A third aliquot from these samples was tested by LC-MS/MS to assess the percentage of false positive, false negative, true positive and true negative results and calculate the PPVs and NPVs for each immunoassay.

RESULTS

The PPVs of THC-COOH and EDDP assays were 100% on both platforms. Suboptimal PPVs were achieved for oxycodone (cobas, 57.1% vs ARCHITECT, 66.7%), amphetamine (77.8 vs. 100%), opiates (80.0 vs. 84.6%) and benzoylecgonine (88.9 vs. 84.2%) assays. The NPV was 100% for cobas and ARCHITECT oxycodone assays. Lower NPVs were achieved for THC-COOH (cobas, 28.6% vs ARCHITECT, 25.0%), EDDP (72.7% for both assays), benzoylecgonine (74.4% vs 73.8%), amphetamine (83.3% vs 82.8%) and opiates (100% vs 85.3%).

CONCLUSION

Overall, cobas and ARCHITECT urine drug screens have comparable analytical performance. Confirmatory testing is warranted for positive test results especially for oxycodone, amphetamine, opiates and cocaine. Negative drug screen results must be interpreted with caution especially for THC-COOH, EDDP, benzoylecgonine, amphetamine and opiates.

What the lab can and cannot do: clinical interpretation of drug testing results

Urine drug testing is one of the objective tools available to assess adherence. To monitor adherence, quantitative urinary results can assist in differentiating "new" drug use from "previous" (historical) drug use. "Spikes" in urinary concentration can assist in identifying patterns of drug use. Coupled chromatographic-mass spectrometric methods are capable of identifying very small amounts of analyte and can make clinical interpretation rather challenging, specifically for drugs that have a longer half-life. Polypharmacy is common in treatment and rehabilitation programs because of co-morbidities. Medications prescribed for comorbidities can cause drug-drug interaction and phenoconversion of genotypic extensive metabolizers into phenotypic poor metabolizers of the treatment drug. This can have significant impact on both pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic properties of the treatment drug. Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) coupled with PKs can assist in interpreting the effects of phenoconversion. TDM-PKs reflects the cumulative effects of pathophysiological changes in the patient as well as drug-drug interactions and should be considered for treatment medications/drugs used to manage pain and treat substance abuse. Since only a few enzyme immunoassays for TDM are available, this is a unique opportunity for clinical laboratory scientists to develop TDM-PK protocols that can have a significant impact on patient care and personalized medicine. Interpretation of drug screening results should be done with caution while considering pharmacological properties and the presence or absence of the parent drug and its metabolites. The objective of this manuscript is to review and address the variables that influence interpretation of different drugs analyzed from a rehabilitation and treatment programs perspective.

Data on hydroxychloroquine interference with urine laboratory testing

Hydroxychloroquine is a medication used to treat rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, and other autoimmune disorders. Previous studies have shown that hydroxychloroquine and the structurally related drug chloroquine have the potential to interfere with some common urine chemistry tests, especially at high concentrations. In the related research article, we observed suspected interference with urine drug of abuse testing in a patient who ingested approximately 12 g of hydroxychloroquine in an acute overdose, with urine hydroxychloroquine concentrations exceeding 500 mg/L. This case prompted a more detailed investigation of the effects of hydroxychloroquine spiked into pooled de-identified urine specimens from a hospital clinical laboratory. The data in this article provides the raw data for 24 urine assays that were investigated. The analyzed data is provided in the tables included in this article. The dataset reported is related to the research article entitled “Diagnostic Pitfalls and Laboratory Test Interference After Hydroxychloroquine Intoxication: A Case Report” [1].

Diagnostic pitfalls and laboratory test interference after hydroxychloroquine intoxication: A case report

•

Hydroxychloroquine overdose can cause hypokalemia.

•

Hydroxychloroquine overdose can result in electrocardiographic abnormalities.

•

Hydroxychloroquine can interfere with urine chemistry and drug screening assays.

•

Urine concentrations of hydroxychloroquine can exceed 500 mg/L in acute overdose.

Hydroxychloroquine is a medication used to treat autoimmune conditions. Overdoses of hydroxychloroquine are uncommon, with most recommendations on monitoring drawing from experience with more common overdoses of the related drug chloroquine. We present a case of an adolescent with intentional overdose of approximately 12 g of hydroxychloroquine. The prominent clinical features were hypokalemia and widened QRS and QT intervals on the electrocardiogram. Therapy included epinephrine by intravenous drip and bicarbonate infusions along with supportive care and cardiac monitoring. The patient recovered without sequelae. Urine drug testing showed an absorbance alarm for one of the components of the institution drug of abuse screening panel, an oxycodone screen using an enzyme immunoassay. Analysis of two urine specimens collected during the hospitalization revealed hydroxychloroquine concentrations of greater than 500 mg/L (approximately 7.5 h after ingestion) and 130 mg/L (approximately 14 h after ingestion). Only the urine with greater than 500 mg/L hydroxychloroquine produced absorbance alarms on the drug of abuse testing. We separately analyzed the impact on 24 urine assays of varying concentrations of hydroxychloroquine spiked into de-identified pooled urine samples. For 6 of the assays (buprenorphine, cotinine, oxycodone, and tetrahydrocannabinol qualitative drug screens; microalbumin and urine myoglobin quantitative assays), hydroxychloroquine produced significant bias and/or instrument alarms. Overall, our study demonstrates that urine concentrations of hydroxychloroquine can reach very high concentrations (exceeding 500 mg/L) following overdose, with the potential to interfere with a range of urine assays including drug of abuse screening and microalbumin. Similar to previous reports, hydroxychloroquine overdose can produce hypokalemia and electrocardiographic abnormalities.

A Novel Enzyme Immunoassay for the Detection of Buprenorphine, Norbuprenorphine and Their Glucuronides in Urine

Buprenorphine is a commonly used opioid in pain therapy as well as in opiate maintenance therapy. Immunoassays are quick and cost-effective methods for the necessary toxicological urine analysis of maintenance therapy patients. In this study a novel enzymatic immunoassay, the Thermo Fisher Scientific CEDIA Buprenorphine II assay (Bup2) was evaluated for the detection of buprenorphine, norbuprenorphine and their conjugated metabolites in human urine samples. The Bup2 assay has a cut-off of 10 ng/mL with ±25% controls, whereas the existing CEDIA Buprenorphine assay (Bup1) has a cut-off of 5 ng/mL and ±40% controls. Both assays were analyzed on a Thermo Scientific Indiko Plus benchtop analyzer. Seven-day precision studies of Bup2 assay demonstrated excellent precision of 7.2-10.6%. No crossover between control samples and the cut-off level were observed. Urine samples of 120 patients undergoing opiate maintenance therapy were collected. Immunoassay results of Bup1 and Bup2 were confirmed by gas chromatography mass spectrometry (GC/MS) for buprenorphine and norbuprenorphine as well as for their glucuronides. Comparison showed a specificity of 0.99 between the Bup2 assay and GC/MS, whereas the Bup1 assay had a specificity 0.70 due to 21 false positive samples. The reason is a known cross-reactivity of the Bup1 assay to opiate compounds. The Bup2 assay revealed one false positive result close to the cut-off value; no specific candidate possibly causing a cross-reaction was detected by GC/MS and liquid chromatography tandem mass-spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) methods. The data presented demonstrate an excellent correlation of the Bup2 assay to GC/MS, showing improved specificity and sensitivity when compared to the Bup1 assay. Thus, the Bup2 assay is highly suitable for urine testing, even for opiate maintenance patients receiving high doses of morphine.

Newly Emerging Drugs of Abuse and Their Detection Methods: An ACLPS Critical Review

Objectives

Illicit drug abuse has reached an epidemic level in the United States. Drug overdose has become the leading cause of injury-related deaths since 2008 due to the recent surge of opioid overdose by heroin, controlled prescription drugs, and nonmethadone synthetic opioids. Synthetic designer drugs such as synthetic cathinones ("bath salts") and synthetic cannabinoids ("Spice" and "K2") continue to emerge and attract recreational users.

Methods

The emergence of new drugs of abuse poses a steep challenge for clinical toxicology laboratories. Limited information about the emerging drugs and their metabolism, "rebranding" of the illicit drugs, and a lack of Food and Drug Administration-approved screening methods for these drugs contribute to this difficulty. Here we review detection methods that can aid in identifying emerging drugs of abuse.

Results

One promising approach is the utilization of untargeted drug screening by mass spectrometry. Historically, gas chromatography-mass spectrometry has been the gold standard.

Conclusions

Liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry and liquid chromatography-high-resolution mass spectrometry offer improved detection capability of new drugs with simplified sample preparation, making it the new standard.

Clinical Interpretation of Urine Drug Tests: What Clinicians Need to Know About Urine Drug Screens

Urine drug testing is frequently used in clinical, employment, educational, and legal settings and misinterpretation of test results can result in significant adverse consequences for the individual who is being tested. Advances in drug testing technology combined with a rise in the number of novel misused substances present challenges to clinicians to appropriately interpret urine drug test results. Authors searched PubMed and Google Scholar to identify published literature written in English between 1946 and 2016, using urine drug test, screen, false-positive, false-negative, abuse, and individual drugs of abuse as key words. Cited references were also used to identify the relevant literature. In this report, we review technical information related to detection methods of urine drug tests that are commonly used and provide an overview of false-positive/false-negative data for commonly misused substances in the following categories: cannabinoids, central nervous system (CNS) depressants, CNS stimulants, hallucinogens, designer drugs, and herbal drugs of abuse. We also present brief discussions of alcohol and tricyclic antidepressants as related to urine drug tests, for completeness. The goal of this review was to provide a useful tool for clinicians when interpreting urine drug test results and making appropriate clinical decisions on the basis of the information presented.

Do all screening immunoassay positive buprenorphine samples need to be confirmed?

Background Interference from opiates in the Microgenics CEDIA® Buprenorphine assay is known to produce false-positive buprenorphine screening immunoassay results necessitating confirmatory buprenorphine testing by chromatography/mass spectrometry methods. Method We reviewed data on falsely positive buprenorphine immunoassay screen (cut-off ≥ 5  µg/L) but negative for buprenorphine by gas chromatography mass spectrometry (cut-off ≥ 5  µg/L) and had a positive opiate immunoassay result (cut-off ≥ 300  µg/L). The results were collected over three months, and the data were evaluated to determine whether there is an opiate immunoassay screen concentration below which a false-positive buprenorphine result will not occur. Results We found that cross-reactivity in the CEDIA® buprenorphine immunoassay by opiates at concentrations <2000  µg/L will not cause a false-positive buprenorphine result. After changing our practice to not proceed with confirmatory buprenorphine gas chromatography mass spectrometry assay when the opiate screening concentration is below an even more conservative cut-off of <1500  µg/L, we estimate a potential cost-saving of AU$ 17,810 per year without compromising clinical care. Conclusion Samples with CEDIA® opiate immunoassay result <2000  µg/L and a positive CEDIA® buprenorphine immunoassay screen do not require confirmatory testing for buprenorphine.

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.

Optimizing urine drug testing for monitoring medication compliance in pain management

BACKGROUND

It can be challenging to successfully monitor medication compliance in pain management. Clinicians and laboratorians need to collaborate to optimize patient care and maximize operational efficiency. The test menu, assay cutoffs, and testing algorithms utilized in the urine drug testing panels should be periodically reviewed and tailored to the patient population to effectively assess compliance and avoid unnecessary testing and cost to the patient.

OBJECTIVE

Pain management and pathology collaborated on an important quality improvement initiative to optimize urine drug testing for monitoring medication compliance in pain management.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 18 months of data from our pain management center. We gathered data on test volumes, positivity rates, and the frequency of false positive results. We also reviewed the clinical utility of our testing algorithms, assay cutoffs, and adulterant panel. In addition, the cost of each component was calculated.

RESULTS

The positivity rate for ethanol and 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine were <1% so we eliminated this testing from our panel. We also lowered the screening cutoff for cocaine to meet the clinical needs of the pain management center. In addition, we changed our testing algorithm for 6-acetylmorphine, benzodiazepines, and methadone. For example, due the high rate of false negative results using our immunoassay-based benzodiazepine screen, we removed the screening portion of the algorithm and now perform benzodiazepine confirmation up front in all specimens by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry.

CONCLUSION

Conducting an interdisciplinary quality improvement project allowed us to optimize our testing panel for monitoring medication compliance in pain management and reduce cost.

Laboratory testing for prescription opioids

Opioid analgesic misuse has risen significantly over the past two decades, and these drugs now represent the most commonly abused class of prescription medications. They are a major cause of poisoning deaths in the USA exceeding heroin and cocaine. Laboratory testing plays a role in the detection of opioid misuse and the evaluation of patients with opioid intoxication. Laboratories use both immunoassay and chromatographic methods (e.g., liquid chromatography with mass spectrometry detection), often in combination, to yield high detection sensitivity and drug specificity. Testing methods for opioids originated in the workplace-testing arena and focused on detection of illicit heroin use. Analysis for a wide range of opioids is now required in the context of the prescription opioid epidemic. Testing methods have also been primarily based upon urine screening; however, methods for analyzing alternative samples such as saliva, sweat, and hair are available. Application of testing to monitor prescription opioid drug therapy is an increasingly important use of drug testing, and this area of testing introduces new interpretative challenges. In particular, drug metabolism may transform one clinically available opioid into another. The sensitivity of testing methods also varies considerably across the spectrum of opioid drugs. An understanding of opioid metabolism and method sensitivity towards different opioid drugs is therefore essential to effective use of these tests. Improved testing algorithms and more research into the effective use of drug testing in the clinical setting, particularly in pain medicine and substance abuse, are needed.