Detection of Nitrobenzodiazepines and Their 7-Amino Metabolites in Oral Fluid

Feasibility of Using Oral Fluid for Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Antiepileptic Drugs

Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of antiepileptic drugs (AED) using blood is well established but limited by its invasiveness, accessibility, cost, interpretation errors, and related disturbances in protein binding. TDM using oral fluid (OF) could overcome these limitations. This paper provides a summary of the current evidence for using OF as a matrix to perform TDM of AEDs, as well as practical considerations. A literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library was conducted on April 9, 2018 (and then updated on May 20, 2020) using all AEDs as keywords along with "oral fluid," "saliva," "salivary," "seizure," "epilepsy," "antiepileptic," and "anticonvulsant." A total of 18 relevant articles were found and included in this review. There is evidence to suggest that AED TDM using OF is feasible and that reference ranges can be calculated for the following drugs: carbamazepine, ethosuximide, lacosamide, lamotrigine, levetiracetam, oxcarbazepine, phenobarbital, phenytoin, primidone, topiramate, and valproic acid. For all other AEDs, there is either a lack of evidence on the feasibility of TDM using OF or the evidence indicates that TDM using OF is not feasible. Practical considerations should include the timing and method of OF collection (stimulated or unstimulated) due to their probable impact on the reliability of AED TDM. Using OF may improve the acceptability and accessibility and reduce the cost of AED TDM. Clinical implementation requires standardized collection protocols, more rigorously defined OF reference ranges, and further studies to determine the relevance to clinically important outcomes.

Development and validation of quantitative analytical method for 50 drugs of antidepressants, benzodiazepines and opioids in oral fluid samples by liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry

Purpose

We developed and validated a method for quantitative analysis of 50 psychoactive substances and metabolites (antidepressants, benzodiazepines and opioids) in oral fluid samples using simple liquid–liquid extraction procedure followed by liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry (LC–MS/MS).

Method

Oral fluid samples were collected using Quantisal™ device and extracted by liquid–liquid extraction with 1.0 mL of methyl tert-butyl ether and then analyzed using LC–MS/MS.

Results

The method attended method validation criteria, with limits of quantification as low as 0.5 and 1.0 ng/mL, and linearity between 0.5–50.0 ng/mL for antidepressants, 0.5–25.0 ng/mL for benzodiazepines and 1.0–50.0 ng/mL to opioids. During method validation, bias and imprecision values were not greater than 16 and 20%, respectively. Ionization suppression/enhancement bias results were not greater than 25%. No evidence of carryover was observed. Sample stability studies showed that almost all analytes were stable at 25 °C for 3 days and at 4 °C for 7 days. Freeze–thaw cycles stability showed that most antidepressants and opioids were stable under these conditions. Autosampler stability study showed that all analytes were stable for 24 h, except for nitrazepam and 7-aminoclonazepam. Thirty-eight authentic oral fluid samples were analyzed; 36.8% of the samples were positive for 2 drugs. Citalopram was the most common drug found, followed by venlafaxine.

Conclusions

The method was validated according to international recommendations for the 50 analytes, showing low limits of quantification, good imprecision and bias values, using simple liquid–liquid extraction, and was successfully applied to authentic oral fluid samples analysis.

Oral Fluid Drug Testing: Analytical Approaches, Issues and Interpretation of Results

With advances in analytical technology and new research informing result interpretation, oral fluid (OF) testing has gained acceptance over the past decades as an alternative biological matrix for detecting drugs in forensic and clinical settings. OF testing offers simple, rapid, non-invasive, observed specimen collection. This article offers a review of the scientific literature covering analytical methods and interpretation published over the past two decades for amphetamines, cannabis, cocaine, opioids, and benzodiazepines. Several analytical methods have been published for individual drug classes and, increasingly, for multiple drug classes. The method of OF collection can have a significant impact on the resultant drug concentration. Drug concentrations for amphetamines, cannabis, cocaine, opioids, and benzodiazepines are reviewed in the context of the dosing condition and the collection method. Time of last detection is evaluated against several agencies' cutoffs, including the proposed Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, European Workplace Drug Testing Society and Driving Under the Influence of Drugs, Alcohol and Medicines cutoffs. A significant correlation was frequently observed between matrices (i.e., between OF and plasma or blood concentrations); however, high intra-subject and inter-subject variability precludes prediction of blood concentrations from OF concentrations. This article will assist individuals in understanding the relative merits and limitations of various methods of OF collection, analysis and interpretation.

Urine and oral fluid drug testing in support of pain management

In recent years, the abuse of opioid drugs has resulted in greater prevalence of addiction, overdose, and deaths attributable to opioid abuse. The epidemic of opioid abuse has prompted professional and government agencies to issue practice guidelines for prescribing opioids to manage chronic pain. An important tool available to providers is the drug test for use in the initial assessment of patients for possible opioid therapy, subsequent monitoring of compliance, and documentation of suspected aberrant drug behaviors. This review discusses the issues that most affect the clinical utility of drug testing in chronic pain management with opioid therapy. It focuses on the two most commonly used specimen matrices in drug testing: urine and oral fluid. The advantages and disadvantages of urine and oral fluid in the entire testing process, from specimen collection and analytical methodologies to result interpretation are reviewed. The analytical sensitivity and specificity limitations of immunoassays used for testing are examined in detail to draw attention to how these shortcomings can affect result interpretation and influence clinical decision-making in pain management. The need for specific identification and quantitative measurement of the drugs and metabolites present to investigate suspected aberrant drug behavior or unexpected positive results is analyzed. Also presented are recent developments in optimization of test menus and testing strategies, such as the modification of the standard screen and reflexed-confirmation testing model by eliminating some of the initial immunoassay-based tests and proceeding directly to definitive testing by mass spectrometry assays.