Quantification of Drugs in Plasma Without Primary Reference Standards by Liquid Chromatography-Chemiluminescence Nitrogen Detection: Application to Tramadol Metabolite Ratios

Quantitative Estimation of 38 Illicit Psychostimulants in Blood by GC-APCI-QTOFMS with Nitrogen Chemiluminescence Detection Based on Three External Calibrators

A method was developed for quantitative estimation of illicit psychostimulants in blood, with an emphasis on new psychoactive substances, based on gas chromatography nitrogen chemiluminescence detection coupled with atmospheric pressure chemical ionization quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry (GC-NCD-APCI-QTOFMS). Quantitative estimation relied on the NCD’s N-equimolar response to nitrogen, using amphetamine, 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) and methylenedioxypyrovalerone as external calibrators for prim-, sec- and tert- amines, respectively. After spiking with 38 stimulants at 3 concentration levels, the donor blood samples were submitted to liquid–liquid extraction at a basic pH followed by acylation with trifluoroacetic anhydride. All but 3 psychostimulants could be analyzed with a limit of quantification (LOQ) of 0.05 mg/L. At LOQ, the coefficient of variation (CV) values for between-day accuracy was 62.3–143.3% (mean, 93.5%; median, 88.5%) and precision 6.6–22.4% (mean, 15.8%; median, 16.1%). In addition, 11 post-mortem blood samples, containing 0.08–2.4 mg/L of amphetamine (n = 5), methamphetamine (n = 4) or MDMA (n = 4), were analyzed by the GC-NCD-APCI-QTOFMS method, and the results were compared with an established electron ionization GC–MS method with appropriate calibration. The agreement between the 2 methods was 62.5–117.3%. Regarding identification, the APCI source permitted detection of the intact precursor ion, or the respective acylation product, for all of the measured compounds. The GC-NCD-APCI-QTOFMS method developed here enables instant quantitative estimation of illicit psychostimulants in blood at reasonable accuracy, without the necessity of possessing the true reference standards for each analyte.

Poisoning: fact or fiction?

Analytical toxicology is a complex discipline. Simply detecting a poison in a biological sample does not necessarily mean that the individual from whom the sample was obtained had been poisoned. An analysis can prove exposure and perhaps give an indication of the magnitude of exposure, but the results have to be placed in proper context. Even if sampling was ante-mortem an analysis does not necessarily prove the effects that the drug or poison had on the victim immediately before or at the time of sampling. Tolerance is one big issue, the mechanism of exposure (how the drug got into the body) is another, and of course with post-mortem work there are always additional considerations such as site of sample collection and the possibility of post-mortem change in analyte concentration. There are also questions of quality and reliability, and whether a particular analysis and the interpretation placed upon the result are appropriate in a particular case.

Metabolite quantitation: detector technology and MIST implications

HPLC detector technology has advanced dramatically over the past 20 years, with a range of highly sensitive and specific detectors becoming available. What is still missing from the bioanalyst’s armoury, however, is a highly sensitive detector that gives an equimolar response independent of the compound. This would allow for quantification of compounds without the requirement for a synthetic standard or a radiolabeled analogue. In particular, such a detector applied to metabolism studies would establish the relative significance of the various metabolic routes. The recently issued US FDA guidelines on metabolites in safety testing (MIST) focus on the relative quantitation of human metabolites being obtained as soon as feasible in the drug-development process. In this article, current detector technology is reviewed with respect to its potential for quantitation without authentic standards or a radiolabel and put in the context of the MIST guidelines. The potential for future developments are explored.

Which human metabolites have we MIST? Retrospective analysis, practical aspects, and perspectives for metabolite identification and quantification in pharmaceutical development

With the recent publication of the FDA guidance on metabolites in safety testing (MIST), a reflection is provided that describes the impact of this guidance on the processes of drug metabolite identification and quantification at various stages of drug development. First, a retrospective analysis is described that was conducted on 12 human absorption, metabolism, and excretion (AME) trials with the application of these MIST criteria. This analysis showed that the number of metabolites requiring identification, (semi)-quantification, and coverage in the toxicology species would substantially increase. However, a significant proportion of these metabolites were direct or indirect conjugates, a class of metabolites that was specifically addressed in the guidance as being largely innocuous. The nonconjugated metabolites were all covered in at least one toxicology animal species, with no need for additional safety evaluation. Second, analytical considerations pertaining to the efficient identification of metabolites are discussed. Topics include software-assisted detection and structural identification of metabolites, the emerging hyphenation of ultraperformance liquid chromatography (UPLC) with radioactivity detection, and the various ways to estimate metabolite abundance in the absence of an authentic standard. Technical aspects around the analysis of metabolite profiles are also presented, focusing on precautions to be taken in order not to introduce artifacts. Finally, a tiered approach for metabolite quantification is proposed, starting with quantification of metabolites prior to the multiple ascending dose study (MAD) in humans in only specific cases (Tier A). The following step is the identification and quantification of metabolites expected to be of pharmacological or toxicological relevance (based on MIST and other complementary criteria) in selected samples from the MAD study and preclinical studies in order to assess metabolite exposure coverage (Tier B). Finally, a metabolite quantification strategy for the studies after the MAD phase (Tier C) is proposed.