Detection of gamma hydroxybutyrate in emergency department: Nice to have or a valuable diagnostic tool?

Gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB), 1,4-butanediol (1,4BD), and gamma-butyrolactone (GBL) intoxication: A state-of-the-art review

γ-hydroxybutyrate (GHB) is synthesized endogenously from γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) or exogenously from 1,4-butanediol (butane-1,4-diol; 1,4-BD) or γ-butyrolactone (GBL). GBL, and 1,4-BD are rapidly converted to GHB. The gastric absorption time, volume of distribution, and half-life of GHB are between 5 and 45 min, 0.49 ± 0.9 L/kg, and between 20 and 60 min, respectively. GHB and its analogues have a dose-dependent effect on the activation of GHB receptor, GABA-B, and GABA localized to the central nervous system. After ingestion, most patients present transient neurological disorders (lethal dose: 60 mg/kg). Chronic GHB consumption is associated with disorders of use and a withdrawal syndrome when the consumption is discontinued. GHB, GBL, and 1,4-BD are classified as narcotics but only the use of GHB is controlled internationally. They are used for drug facilitated (sexual) assault, recreational purposes, slamsex, and chemsex. To confirm an exogenous intake or administration of GHB, GBL, or 1-4-BD, the pre-analytical conservation is crucial. The antemortem cutoff doses for detection are 5 and 5-15 mg/L, with detection windows of 6 and 10 h in the blood and urine, respectively Control of GHB is essential to limit the number of users, abuse, associated risks, and death related to their consumption.

A False-Positive Gamma-Hydroxy Butyric Acid Urine Screening in a Patient with High Anion Gap Metabolic Acidosis Due to Ethylene Glycol Poisoning

A young woman with a history of several suicide attempts was admitted to the hospital after suspicion of a new intoxication without definite identification of the causing agent. The patient had a high anion gap metabolic acidosis (HAGMA) with respiratory compensation, a lactate gap and an osmolar gap at admission. Initial toxicological screening showed no abnormalities except for a weak positive gamma-hydroxy butyric acid (GHB) enzymatic screen in urine. This finding could not be confirmed using chromatographic analysis nor be explained by the presence of known cross-reacting substances like ethanol. In this case, falsely elevated urinary GHB screening was caused by the ingestion of ethylene glycol. To confirm that the interference was due to ethylene glycol or its metabolites, we performed a spiking experiment. Cross reactivity was linked to ethylene glycol and was low in our experiments (0.1-0.2%). Substantial amounts of ethylene glycol are required to slightly elevated GHB results, depending on the endogenous cutoff used. We can conclude that ethylene glycol can give rise to falsely elevated urinary GHB levels at ethylene glycol concentrations that are typically found in intoxications.

Can emergency department clinicians diagnose gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB) intoxication based on clinical observations alone?

OBJECTIVES

Gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB) is a drug of abuse with central depressing effects, which may cause coma with a GCS score as low as 3. A rapid diagnosis 'GHB intoxication' may prevent unnecessary diagnostic work-up and may lead to guided, less invasive, treatment. The aim of this study was to evaluate if ED physicians' clinical evaluation were sufficient for diagnosis in patients with suspected GHB-intoxication.

METHODS

Patients presenting at the ED with a GCS<15 and a potential intoxication with drugs of abuse for whom urine toxicology screen was performed were included consecutively. After a first assessment, the ED physician registered the most likely initial diagnosis in the hospital information system. Urine of these patients was tested with a validated gas chromatography analytical method for GHB (confirmation test). The initial diagnoses were compared for agreement with the results of the confirmation test.

RESULTS

A total of 506 patients were included, 100 patients tested positive for GHB and 406 patients tested negative for GHB. Sensitivity and specificity of the ED physicians compared with the confirmation test to diagnose GHB intoxications were 63% (95% CI 52 to 73) and 93% (95% CI 90 to 95), respectively. The positive predictive value was 67% (95% CI 60 to 77) and the negative predictive value was 92% (95% CI 88 to 94).

CONCLUSION

Physicians underestimate the presence of GHB intoxication and can fail to diagnose GHB intoxication based on clinical observations alone. In the future, a rapid reliable initial analytical GHB test in addition to clinical judgement could be valuable to reduce false negative diagnosis.

Prospective Investigation of the Performance of 2 Gamma-Hydroxybutyric Acid Tests: DrugCheck GHB Single Test and Viva-E GHB Immunoassay

BACKGROUND

Gamma-hydroxybutyric acid (GHB) is a recreational drug with central nervous system depressing effects that is often abused. A urine GHB point-of-care test can be of great diagnostic value. The objective of this prospective study was to determine the performance of the new DrugCheck GHB Single Test and the Viva-E GHB immunoassay for urine samples in emergency department patients.

METHODS

Patients presented to the emergency department of the OLVG hospital in Amsterdam with a Glasgow Coma Scale score <15 and potential drug of abuse intoxication were included in the study. Between June 2016 and October 2017, 375 patients were included. Using the DrugCheck GHB Single Test (Express Diagnostics Int'l, Blue Earth, MN) and the Viva-E GHB immunoassay (Siemens Healthineers, The Hague, the Netherlands), patients' urine samples were tested for GHB (cutoff for a positive result, 10 or 50 mcg/mL GHB). To ensure quality, the results obtained were compared with those generated using a validated gas chromatography method. The tests were considered reliable if specificity and sensitivity were both >90%. Possible cross-reactivity with ethanol was investigated by analyzing ethanol concentrations in patients' samples.

RESULTS

Seventy percentage of the included patients was men, and the median age was 34 years old. The DrugCheck GHB Single Test's specificity and sensitivity were 90.0% and 72.9%, respectively, and using 50 mcg/mL as a cutoff value, its specificity and sensitivity improved to 96.7% and 75.0%, respectively. Serum and urine ethanol levels in the false-positive group were significantly higher compared with those in the true-negative group. The specificity and sensitivity of the Viva-E GHB immunoassay (cutoff value of 50 mcg/mL and excluding samples with ethanol levels ≥2.0 g/L) were 99.4% and 93.5%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The DrugCheck GHB Single Test's specificity was sufficient, whereas its sensitivity was poor, making it unsuitable for use at point-of-care. Contrarily, using 50 mcg/mL as the cutoff value and excluding samples with ethanol levels ≥2.0 g/L, the Viva-E GHB immunoassay showed acceptable results to detect clinically relevant GHB intoxications.