Current state-of-the-art approaches for mass spectrometry in clinical toxicology: an overview

Evaluating the detection of barbiturates in dried blood spots: A comparative analysis using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry, gas chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry, and liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry with different extraction methods

Rapid and accurate characterization and quantitation of blood barbiturates and their combination drugs are very important for the clinical treatment of acute barbiturate poisoning. A comparison of dried blood spot (DBS) and traditional liquid-liquid extraction (LLE) in the pre-treatment stage, as well as a comparison of gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS), gas chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (GC-MS/MS), and liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) as instrumental analysis methods, revealed differences in the analysis results of barbiturates and their combination drugs under different conditions. Based on these findings, we introduce a DBS-GC-MS/MS method. The developed and validated method showed good selectivity, sensitivity (LOD: 0.1 μg mL-1, LOQ: 0.2 μg mL-1), linearity (R2>0.9992), trueness (<15 %, except for carbamazepine, at 29.4 %), and precision (<15 %). Recovery was also good for most target compounds, but significant matrix effects were evident. Compared with the LLE method, the DBS method has the benefits of easy sample collection, storage, and transport, as well as simple pre-treatment and reduced reagent and energy consumption. Compared to LC-MS/MS, GC-MS/MS requires no switching between positive and negative ion modes and uses the MRM detection mode, meaning that more information about the sample compounds can be obtained in less analysis time. Using actual sample analysis, we have demonstrated the advantages of the DBS-GC-MS/MS method for the qualitative and quantitative analysis of barbiturates and poisoning events due to combinations of these drugs. Comparison of the three instruments and the two treatment methods revealed their analysis characteristics. From the perspective of practical application, the broad practical value and advantages of DBS should be embraced in more applications, and future analytical laboratory development should continue to recognize GC-MS/MS as a useful supplement to LC-MS/MS.

QuEChERS Extraction and Simultaneous Quantification in GC-MS/MS of Hexahydrocannabinol Epimers and Their Metabolites in Whole Blood, Urine, and Oral Fluid

Recently, hexahydrocannabinol (HHC) was posed under strict control in Europe due to the increasing HHC-containing material seizures. The lack of analytical methods in clinical laboratories to detect HHC and its metabolites in biological matrices may result in related intoxication underreporting. We developed and validated a comprehensive GC-MS/MS method to quantify 9(R)-HHC, 9(S)-HHC, 9αOH-HHC, 9βOH-HHC, 8(R)OH-9(R)-HHC, 8(S)OH-9(S)HHC, 11OH-9(R)HHC, 11OH-9(S)HHC, 11nor-carboxy-9(R)-HHC, and 11nor-carboxy-9(S)-HHC in whole blood, urine, and oral fluid. A novel QuEChERS extraction protocol was optimized selecting the best extraction conditions suitable for all the three matrices. Urine and blood were incubated with β-glucuronidase at 60 °C for 2 h. QuEChERS extraction was developed assessing different ratios of Na2SO4:NaCl (4:1, 2:1, 1:1, w/w) to be added to 200 µL of any matrix added with acetonitrile. The chromatographic separation was achieved on a 7890B GC with an HP-5ms column, (30 m, 0.25 mm × 0.25 µm) in 12.50 min. The analytes were detected with a triple-quadrupole mass spectrometer in the MRM mode. The method was fully validated following OSAC guidelines. The method showed good validation parameters in all the matrices. The method was applied to ten real samples of whole blood (n = 4), urine (n = 3), and oral fluid (n = 3). 9(R)-HHC was the prevalent epimer in all the samples (9(R)/9(S) = 2.26). As reported, hydroxylated metabolites are proposed as urinary biomarkers, while carboxylated metabolites are hematic biomarkers. Furthermore, 8(R)OH-9(R)HHC was confirmed as the most abundant metabolite in all urine samples.

Biological Testing and Interpretation of Laboratory Results Associated with Detecting Newborns with Substance Exposure

BACKGROUND

Substance use during pregnancy is common, as is biological testing that is intended to help identify prenatal exposures. However, there is no standardized requirement for biological testing with either maternal or newborn specimens, nor is there standardization related to when testing occurs, how frequently testing occurs, what specimen(s) to test, what substances to test for, or how to perform testing.

CONTENT

We review common specimen types tested to detect maternal and newborn substance exposure with a focus on urine, meconium, and umbilical cord tissue. We also review common analytical methods used to perform testing, including immunoassay, and mass spectrometry platforms. Considerations regarding the utilization of testing relative to the purpose of testing, the drug analyte(s) of interest, the specific testing employed, and the interpretation of results are emphasized to help guide decisions about clinical utilization of testing. We also highlight specific examples of unexpected results that can be used to guide interpretation and appropriate next steps.

SUMMARY

There are strengths and limitations associated with all approaches to detecting substance exposure in pregnant persons as well as biological testing to evaluate a newborn with possible substance exposure. Standardization is needed to better inform decisions surrounding evaluation of substance exposures in pregnant people and newborns. If biological sampling is pursued, testing options and results must be reviewed in clinical context, acknowledging that false-positive and -negative results can and do occur.

A multicomponent LC-MS/MS method for drugs of abuse testing using volumetric DBS and a clinical evaluation by comparison with urine

BACKGROUND

Drug testing commonly use urine as a specimen and immunoassays for screening. The need for supervised urine collection has led to an interest in alternative specimens and a need for using mass spectrometry methods already for screening. In addition, mass spectrometry methods allow for broad multipanel screening which of great value because of the increased number of substances that needs to be covered has increased over time. One alternative specimen of interest for drugs of abuse testing is dried blood spots (DBS) and this work aimed at developing multipanel screening methods based on selected reaction monitoring liquid chromatography - mass spectrometry for both urine and dried finger blood as specimens.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The urine method comprised 37 analytes and utilised salted out liquid/liquid extraction in 96-well format, respectively, and the blood method comprised 35 analytes, a 10 µL volumetric DBS device and a two-step solvent extraction procedure. In both cases stable isotope labelled internal standards were used for almost all analytes.

RESULTS

The methods were validated according to forensic standard. The lowest reporting limits were generally set at 100 ng/mL for urine and 1 ng/mL for blood and the accuracy and imprecision were within limits of 15 and 20%. The methods were applied in a clinical study on patients receiving methadone maintenance treatment for opioid dependence. Methadone was detected in all urine and DBS samples, for urine sometimes below the commonly applied screening cutoff limit of 300 ng/mL. In 20 out of 99 cases no other drug was detected in any specimen. The most commonly other detected substances were pregabalin, amphetamine, alprazolam, zopiclone and THCCOOH. Findings in urine and DBS generally agreed well but more positives were detected in DBS.

CONCLUSION

Multipanel methods using liquid chromatography - mass spectrometry suitable for clinical drug screening were successfully developed for urine and blood collected by finger-pricking and stored as DBS.