Search

Hair drug testing can be used for the evaluation of cannabis use with a large detection window, and is required for professional driving license granting in Brazil. A positive hair result for cannabis use requires quantification of the metabolite THC-COOH above the cutoff value of 0.2 ng/g. The achievement of such lower limit of quantification is challenging, particularly with the use of liquid chromatography coupled to triple quadrupole mass spectrometers (LC-MS/MS). In this study, a very sensitive LCMS/ MS assay for the simultaneous quantification of THC-COOH along with THC, CBD, and CBN was developed and validated. Sample preparation was based on hair hydrolysis, followed by selective ion-exchange solid-phase extraction. The extraction yield was 101.5-101.6% for THC-COOH, 92.3-97.4% for THC, 89.7-95.2% for CBN, and 104.9-121.1% for CBD. Internal standard corrected matrix effects were - 2.7 to - 1,1 for THCCOOH and - 11.5 to - 0.1% for the other analytes. The lower limit of quantification was 01 ng/g for THC-COOH and 25 ng/g for THC, CBD, and CBN. The assay fulfilled validation guidelines acceptance criteria. The measurement uncertainties were determined and the assay was ISO17025 accredited, being currently used in routine testing., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

The determination of psychotropic drugs and metabolites in blood is relevant in the context of both therapeutic drug monitoring and clinical and forensic toxicology. LC-MS/MS is the preferred method for these assays. However, LC-MS/MS is particularly susceptible to matrix ionization effects and appropriate sample preparation is required to minimize these effects. In this study, a simple, single-step, mini-QuEchERS extraction procedure, coupled to UPLC-MS/MS, was developed and validated for the determination of 15 toxicologically relevant compounds in whole blood, including psychoactive drugs and some metabolites. The assay was linear in the range of 25-1,000 ng ml -1 , fulfilling criteria for accuracy and precision. Extraction yields (71.9-87.7%) and matrix effects (-3.3 to +4.4%, with the exception of codeine, which had matrix effects of -35.36 to -28.14%) were acceptable for the majority of the evaluated compounds, using a single internal standard. The assay was applied to 238 clinical specimens from patients admitted to an emergency service, with 22 samples presenting quantifiable concentrations of 11 different compounds. The developed assay is a simple and efficient strategy for determination of target psychotropic drugs and metabolites in forensic and clinical toxicology., (© 2021 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

The use of psychoactive substances has been associated with increased risk for traffic accidents. Hair testing has become a routine practice in clinical and forensic toxicological laboratories, with a unique perspective in the investigation of drug consumption. The study aimed to develop and validate a UHPLC-MS/MS method for the determination of multiple drugs in hair, to be used for toxicological examination in driving license granting. Sample preparation was a one-step liquid extraction of milled hair with methanol, which was incubated for 15h at 50°C. The chromatographic separation was performed in a reversed phase column, with a run time of 2.2min. Measured compounds were cocaine, benzoylecgonine, norcocaine, anhydroecgonine methyl ester, cocaethylene, amphetamine, methamphetamine, methylenedioxyamphetamine, methylenedioxymethamphetamine, fenproporex, amfepramone, mazindol, codeine, morphine, 6-monoacetylmorphine, and tetrahydrocannabinol. The assay was linear for all substances (r>0.99), accurate (86.63-105.87 %), and precise, with a cv ranging from 1.9-13.5 % for intra-assay and 3.3-14.3 % for inter-assay. There was no significant carry over effect and the internal standard corrected matrix effect was minimal. The relative uncertainty percentages were below 9% for all the substances at cut-off values. The method was successfully applied to 50 hair samples from injured drivers, with 12% of positivity, including cocaine, MDMA and THC., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: to evaluate plasma and salivary uracil (U) to dihydrouracil (UH2) ratios as tools for predicting 5-fluorouracil systemic exposure and drug-related severe toxicity, and clinically validate the use of dried saliva spots (DSS) as an alternative sampling strategy for dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) deficiency assessment., Methods: Pre-chemotherapy plasma, fresh saliva and DSS samples were obtained from gastrointestinal patients (N = 40) for measurement of endogenous U and UH2 concentrations by LC-MS/MS. A second plasma sample collected during 5FU infusion was used for 5FU area under the curve (AUC) determination by HPLC-DAD. Data on toxicity was reported according to CTCAE., Results: 15% of the patients developed severe 5FU-related toxicity, with neutropenia accounting for 67% of the cases. U, UH2 and [UH2,]/[U] were highly correlated between fresh and dried saliva samples (r s  = 0.960; r s  = 0.828; r s  = 0.910, respectively). 5FU AUC ranged from 11.3 to 37.31 mg h L -1 , with 46.2% of under-dosed and 10.3% over-dosed patients. The [UH2]/[U] ratios in plasma, fresh saliva and dried saliva samples were moderately correlated with 5FU AUC and adverse events grade, indicating a partial contribution of the variables to drug exposure (r = -0.412, r s  = -0.373, r s  = 0.377) and toxicity (r = -0.363, r s  = -0.523, r s  = 0.542). Metabolic ratios were lower in patients with severe toxicity (P < .01 salivary ratios, and P < .5 plasma ratios), and 5FU AUC were in average 47% higher in this group than in moderate toxicity. The diagnostic performance of [UH2]/[U] ratios in fresh saliva and DSS for the identification of patients with severe toxicity were comparable., Conclusions: The [UH2]/[U] metabolic ratios in plasma, fresh saliva and DSS were significantly associated with 5FU systemic exposure and toxicity degree. This study also demonstrated the applicability of DSS as alternative sampling for evaluating DPD activity., (Copyright © 2018 The Canadian Society of Clinical Chemists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)