A Liquid-Chromatography High-Resolution Mass Spectrometry Method for Non-FDA Approved Benzodiazepines

A case series evaluation of comprehensive drug testing in the pediatric acute care setting

Introduction

Drug testing typically follows a one-size-fits-all approach that is inadequate in some clinical scenarios, such as child maltreatment, neglect, and unintentional drug exposure. Results from immunoassay-based testing, which are non-specific, insensitive, and far from comprehensive, can lead to unintended consequences for children and their families.

Objectives

The objective of this retrospective case series study is to evaluate the utility of real-time (0-1 day) comprehensive drug testing as an alternative to immunoassay-based testing in the pediatric acute care setting.

Methods

Comprehensive drug testing results obtained by mass spectrometry testing and associated medical data for all pediatric cases (0-12 years) at one institution from 2019 to 2022 were included in the analysis. The final case series (n = 7) included all cases from patients <3 years with comprehensive drug testing results that were inconsistent with medication history and/or toxicology results by immunoassay.

Results

Comprehensive drug testing by mass spectrometry was ordered for 174 urine and blood samples representing 97 patients (0-12 years) from 2019 to 2022. Of these, 76 cases were from patients <3 years old; results were consistent with medication history and confirmatory for immunoassay results (n = 34), consistent with medication history (n = 14), confirmatory for immunoassay results (n = 10), negative (n = 9), or medical history was incomplete (n = 2). The remaining 7 cases were included in the final case series.

Conclusions

The cases highlight the value of real-time comprehensive drug testing in acute pediatric cases. Testing results can rule out toxic exposure from the diagnostic differential when negative, and lead to appropriate medical and social interventions when positive.

Benzodiazepine analysis by an improved LC-MS/MS method illustrates usage patterns in Washington State

BACKGROUND

The standard approach for benzodiazepine detection often includes immunoassay followed by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). The illicit use of non-prescribed benzodiazepines has been trending up nationally.

METHODS

We developed and validated an improved LC-MS/MS assay for benzodiazepine detection in urine. We expanded the testing panel by adding five drugs to the previous panel of ten. We determined the prevalence of individual benzodiazepines in our patient population. Immunoassay results were compared with LC-MS/MS to evaluate assay performance.

RESULTS

Clonazepam and alprazolam were the most common benzodiazepines present. Etizolam and flualprazolam were also prevalent in Washington State. Compared with the LC-MS/MS assay, the immunoassay had variable cross-reactivity, which explained false negative and false positive immunoassay results. The inclusion of new drugs in the LC-MS/MS panel significantly reduced the incidence of immunoassay results interpreted as falsely positive.

CONCLUSION

New illicit benzodiazepines have emerged regionally and nationally. The inclusion of novel drugs in LC-MS/MS assay was helpful in properly characterizing the epidemiology of benzodiazepine use in our patient population. This information will lead to better assay result interpretations and patient care, and our experiences provide a roadmap for other clinical laboratories looking to expand their testing menu or transition to new instrumentation.

Clonazolam Intoxication Case Report: Danger of Designer Benzodiazepines

ABSTRACT

Clonazolam is a derivative of the Xanax active ingredient, alprazolam. Classified as a designer benzodiazepine, clonazolam availability has been rising because of its circulation on illegal internet drug markets and marginal cost in comparison to its parent analogs. Clonazolam's accessibility encourages abuse prevalence and use of designer benzodiazepines. In our case, a 14-year-old male was found unresponsive the morning after ingesting multiple tablets believed to be Xanax. Toxicology testing indicated 140 ng/mL of 8-aminoclonazolam, a clonazolam metabolite, in the decedent's system. Alprazolam was not identified. Pathological analysis determined cerebral and respiratory depression to be the mechanism of death, resulting from acute clonazolam intoxication. This case presents the first death induced by clonazolam alone. Current literature identifies a gap in designer benzodiazepine confirmatory testing and a lack of awareness within the forensic and medical communities. Knowledge of designer benzodiazepines is needed to better understand their potency and to help prevent future intoxications. We present this case to aid in the recognition of novel benzodiazepines by medical examiners and coroners, to encourage their consideration in suspected Xanax and other substance related investigations, and to be aware of the capabilities of toxicological testing to improve novel benzodiazepine identification and subsequent interpretation.

Fast and Sensitive Method for the Determination of 17 Designer Benzodiazepines in Hair by Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry

In recent years, identification and analysis of designer benzodiazepines have become a challenge in forensic toxicology. These substances are analogues of the classic benzodiazepines, but their pharmacology is not well known, and many of them have been associated with overdoses and deaths. As a result, there has been a surge in efforts to develop analytical methods to determine these compounds in different biological samples. Our aim was to develop and validate a fast, sensitive, and specific method for determining 17 designer benzodiazepines (adinazolam, clobazam, clonazolam, delorazepam, deschloroetizolam, diclazepam, etizolam, flualprazolam, flubromazepam, flubromazolam, flunitrazolam, N-desmethylclobazam, nifoxipam, nitrazolam, meclonazepam, pyrazolam and zolazepam) in hair by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS-MS). Hair samples were decontaminated, pulverized, and a 20-mg aliquot was incubated in methanol in an ultrasound bath (1h, 25ºC). The supernatant was evaporated and reconstituted in 200 µL of mobile phase, and the extracts were filtered (nano-filter vials) before injection into LC-MS-MS. All analytes eluted from the chromatographic column in 8 min, and two multiple-reaction monitoring (MRM) transitions were used to identify each compound. The limits of quantification were 5 or 25 pg/mg, depending on the analyte, and calibration functions were linear to 200 pg/mg. Imprecision was <19.2% (n = 15) and bias was from -13.7 up to 18.3% (n = 15). All the analytes yielded high extraction efficiencies >70%, and displayed ion suppression between -62.8% and -23.9% (n = 10). The method was applied to 19 authentic cases. Five samples were positive for flualprazolam (<LOQ - >200 pg/mg) and/or etizolam (47.4-88.5 pg/mg). In conclusion, the present validated method has proven to be fast, sensitive, specific, and capable of determining 17 designer benzodiazepines in hair using LC-MS-MS.

Urine Drug Screening in the Era of Designer Benzodiazepines: Comparison of Three Immunoassay Platforms, LC-QTOF-MS, and LC-MS/MS

This study investigated the presence of designer benzodiazepines in 35 urine specimens obtained from emergency department patients undergoing urine drug screening. All specimens showed apparent false-positive benzodiazepine screening results (i.e., confirmatory testing using a 19-component LC-MS/MS panel showed no prescribed benzodiazepines at detectable levels). The primary aims were to identify the possible presence of designer benzodiazepines, characterize the reactivity of commercially available screening immunoassays with designer benzodiazepines, and evaluate the risk of inappropriately ruling out designer benzodiazepine use when utilizing common urine drug screening and confirmatory tests. Specimens were obtained from emergency departments of a single US Health system. Following clinically ordered drug screening using Abbott ARCHITECT c assays and lab-developed LC-MS/MS confirmatory testing, additional characterization was performed for investigative purposes. Specifically, urine specimens were screened using two additional assays (Roche cobas c502, Siemens Dimension Vista) and LC-QTOF-MS to identify presumptively positive species, including benzodiazepines and non-benzodiazepines. Finally, targeted, qualitative LC-MS/MS was performed to confirm the presence of 12 designer benzodiazepines. Following benzodiazepine detection using the Abbott ARCHITECT, benzodiazepines were subsequently detected in 28/35 and 35/35 urine specimens, respectively, using Siemens and Roche assays. LC-QTOF-MS showed the presumptive presence of at least one non-FDA approved benzodiazepine in 30/35 specimens: flubromazolam (12/35), flualprazolam (11/35), flubromazepam (2/35), clonazolam (4/35), etizolam (9/35), metizolam (5/35), nitrazepam (1/35), and pyrazolam (1/35). Two or three designer benzodiazepines were detected concurrently in 13/35 specimens. Qualitative LC-MS/MS confirmed the presence of at least one designer benzodiazepine or metabolite in 23/35 specimens, with 3 specimens unavailable for confirmatory testing. Urine benzodiazepine screening assays from three manufacturers were cross-reactive with multiple non-US FDA-approved benzodiazepines. Clinical and forensic toxicology laboratories using traditionally designed LC-MS/MS panels may fail to confirm the presence of non-US FDA-approved benzodiazepines detected by screening assays, risking inappropriate interpretation of screening results as false-positives.

Designer Benzodiazepines: A Review of Toxicology and Public Health Risks

The rising use of designer benzodiazepines (DBZD) is a cat-and-mouse game between organized crime and law enforcement. Non-prohibited benzodiazepines are introduced onto the global drug market and scheduled as rapidly as possible by international authorities. In response, DBZD are continuously modified to avoid legal sanctions and drug seizures and generally to increase the abuse potential of the DBZD. This results in an unpredictable fluctuation between the appearance and disappearance of DBZD in the illicit market. Thirty-one DBZD were considered for review after consulting the international early warning database, but only 3-hydroxyphenazepam, adinazolam, clonazolam, etizolam, deschloroetizolam, diclazepam, flualprazolam, flubromazepam, flubromazolam, meclonazepam, phenazepam and pyrazolam had sufficient data to contribute to this scoping review. A total of 49 reports describing 1 drug offense, 2 self-administration studies, 3 outpatient department admissions, 44 emergency department (ED) admissions, 63 driving under the influence of drugs (DUID) and 141 deaths reported between 2008 and 2021 are included in this study. Etizolam, flualprazolam flubromazolam and phenazepam were implicated in the majority of adverse-events, drug offenses and deaths. However, due to a general lack of knowledge of DBZD pharmacokinetics and toxicity, and due to a lack of validated analytical methods, total cases are much likely higher. Between 2019 and April 2020, DBZD were identified in 48% and 83% of postmortem and DUID cases reported to the UNODC, respectively, with flualprazolam, flubromazolam and etizolam as the most frequently detected substances. DBZD toxicology, public health risks and adverse events are reported.

Quantification of 54 Benzodiazepines and Z-Drugs, Including 20 Designer Ones, in Plasma

Benzodiazepines are widely used in the treatment of sleep and anxiety disorders, as well as epileptic seizures and alcohol withdrawal because of their broad therapeutic index and low cost. Due to their central nervous system depressant effects they are also often implicated in traffic accidents and drug-related intoxications. With an increasing number of designer benzodiazepines used in a recreational setting, there is a need for analytical methods to be able to quantify both the prescribed and designer benzodiazepines. A liquid chromatography-triple quadrupole mass spectrometry method was developed for the quantification of 34 prescribed and 20 designer benzodiazepines in plasma. Different sample preparation strategies, including protein precipitation, liquid-liquid extraction, solid-phase extraction and mini-QuEChERS, were tested. The best recoveries for all compounds of interest were obtained with a liquid-liquid extraction using methyl-tertiary-butyl-ether and 500 μL plasma. The method was fully validated according to the European Medicines Agency guidelines for all compounds, except pivoxazepam, which is included for qualitative purposes only. In-sample stability issues were observed for cloxazolam, both at ambient temperature and during long-term storage at -20°C. Due to the large number of compounds included, the simple and time-efficient sample preparation and the relatively inexpensive instrumentation used, the presented method can be readily implemented in both therapeutic drug monitoring and forensic analyses.

Benzodiazepines reported in NFLIS-Drug, 2015 to 2018

The National Forensic Laboratory Information System (NFLIS) is a program of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, Diversion Control Division. The NFLIS-Drug component collects drug identification results and associated information from drug cases submitted to and analyzed by federal, state, and local forensic laboratories. This paper presents national annual estimates and national and regional yearly trend differences for clonazepam, diazepam, flubromazolam, clonazolam, and etizolam using annual report rates per 100,000 persons aged 15 or older between 2015 and 2018. An estimated 263,538 benzodiazepine reports were identified by state and local laboratories between 2015 and 2018. Methamphetamine, cocaine, and heroin accounted for 32% of the drugs reported in the same item as alprazolam. Depressants and tranquilizers and narcotic analgesics were the drug classes most frequently identified in the same item as etizolam. A timeline of some benzodiazepines’ emergence in NFLIS-Drug is shown, as well as state- and county-level data for selected benzodiazepines.

Blood Concentrations of Designer Benzodiazepines: Relation to Impairment and Findings in Forensic Cases

The use of designer benzodiazepines appears to be increasing in many countries, but data concerning blood concentrations are scarce, making interpretation of concentrations difficult. The aim of this study was to report blood concentrations of clonazolam, diclazepam, etizolam, flualprazolam, flubromazepam, flubromazolam and phenazepam and to investigate the relationship between blood concentrations and impairment. The concentration data are from blood samples collected from living cases (apprehended drivers and other drug offences) and medico-legal autopsies. The blood samples were analysed for the seven designer benzodiazepines mentioned above by ultra high performance liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry. Positive cases from between 1 June 2016 and 30 September 2019 were included. Blood concentrations and the conclusion from a clinical test of impairment (when available) are reported. The presented seven benzodiazepines were detected in a total of 575 cases, where 554 of these cases concerned apprehended drivers or other criminal offenders. The number of findings and the median (range) concentrations were as follows: clonazolam, n = 22, 0.0041 mg/L (0.0017–0.053 mg/L); diclazepam, n = 334, 0.0096 mg/L (0.0016–0.25 mg/L); etizolam, n = 40, 0.054 mg/L (0.015–0.30 mg/L); flualprazolam, n = 10, 0.0080 mg/L (0.0033–0.056 mg/L); flubromazepam, n = 5, 0.037 mg/L (0.0070–0.70 mg/L); flubromazolam, n = 20, 0.0056 mg/L (0.0004–0.036 mg/L); and phenazepam, n = 138, 0.022 mg/L (0.0018–0.85 mg/L). A designer benzodiazepine was the only drug detected with relevance for impairment in 25 of the 554 living cases. The physician concluded with impairment in 19 of the 25 cases. Most of the concentrations in these cases were relatively similar to or higher than the median reported concentrations. The most frequent other drugs detected were amphetamine, tetrahydrocannabinol, clonazepam and methamphetamine. The presented blood concentrations can be helpful with the interpretation of cases involving one or more of these seven benzodiazepines. The results indicate that concentrations commonly observed in forensic cases are associated with impairment.

Recent bionalytical methods for the determination of new psychoactive substances in biological specimens

One of the problems associated with the consumption of new psychoactive substances is that in most scenarios of acute toxicity the possibility of quick clinical action may be impaired because many screening methods are not responsive to them, and laboratories are not able to keep pace with the appearance of new substances. For these reasons, developing and validating new analytical methods is mandatory in order to efficiently face those problems, allowing laboratories to be one step ahead. The goal of this work is to perform a critical review regarding bionalytical methods that can be used for the determination of new psychoactive substances (phenylethylamines, cathinones, synthetic cannabinoids, opioids, benzodiazepines, etc), particularly concerning sample preparation techniques and associated analytical methods.

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.

Newly Emerging Drugs of Abuse

Drug use and the associated overdose deaths have been a serious public health threat in the United States and the world. While traditional drugs of abuse such as cocaine remain popular, recreational use of newer synthetic drugs has continued to increase, but the prevalence of use is likely underestimated. In this review, epidemiology, chemistry, pharmacophysiology, clinical effects, laboratory detection, and clinical treatment are discussed for newly emerging drugs of abuse in the following classes: (1) opioids (e.g., fentanyl, fentanyl analogues, and mitragynine), (2) cannabinoids [THC and its analogues, alkylindole (e.g., JWH-018, JWH-073), cyclohexylphenol (e.g., CP-47,497), and indazole carboxamide (e.g., FUB-AMB, ADB-FUBINACA)], (3) stimulants and hallucinogens [β-keto amphetamines (e.g., methcathinone, methylone), pyrrolidinophenones (e.g., α-PVP, MDPV), and dimethoxyphenethylamine ("2C" and "NBOMe")], (4) dissociative agents (e.g., 3-MeO-PCP, methoxetamine, 2-oxo-PCE), and (5) sedative-hypnotics (e.g., gabapentin, baclofen, clonazolam, etizolam). It is critically important to coordinate hospital, medical examiner, and law enforcement personnel with laboratory services to respond to these emerging threats.