Replacement of immunoassay by LC tandem mass spectrometry for the routine measurement of drugs of abuse in oral fluid

Allen, K R; Azad, Ramiz M. R.; Field, HP; Blake, D.

doi:10.1258/0004563054255632

Cited by 57 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite a reasonable good correlation between oral fluid concentrations and those encountered in plasma on one hand and the impairment in psychomotor performance induced by drugs on the other, there are some challenges to be faced in the areas of the sensitivity and reliability of analytical methodologies applied in drug testing [14]. Several authors postulate that mass spectrometry coupled to chromatographic techniques offer a more flexible, specific and sensitive alternative to the screening of oral fluid samples for drugs of abuse than immunoassays [15]. Indeed, in recent years different methods involving both gas and liquid chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry have been reported, which determined different classes of illicit drugs and psychoactive pharmaceuticals (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A simple and reliable procedure for the determination of psychoactive drugs in oral fluid by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry

Pujadas¹,

Pichini

Civit³

et al. 2007

Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis

124

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A simple and reliable procedure for the determination of psychoactive drugs in oral fluid by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry

Pujadas¹,

Pichini

Civit³

et al. 2007

Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis

124

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Numerous articles have been published using LC-MS methods to confirm the presence of COC and its metabolites (specifically BZE) in OF specimens [22,32,[34][35][36][37][38][39][40]. MS/MS methods included the use of QQQ analyzers with MRM data acquisition [22,30,37,38]. Linear IT and Q-ToF instruments were also used for the analysis of COC and BZE [32,34,35].…”

Section: Coc/bzementioning

confidence: 99%

Oral Fluid for The Detection of Drugs of Abuse Using Immunoassay and LC–MS/MS

Moore

Crouch²

2013

Bioanalysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The utility of oral fluid as a sample matrix for the analysis of drugs has been increasing in popularity over the last few years. This is largely because of collection advantages over other matrices, but also due to the rapid improvements in analytical assays including highly sensitive liquid reagent format enzyme immunoassays and LC-MS/MS. This review will highlight improvements in assay formats, sensitivity, laboratory equipment and sample processing using low sample volumes to expand drug test profiles.

show abstract

“…Other studies using LC-MS-MS have also supported the poor sensitivity of EDDP in confirming methadone compliance in oral fluid. 5 This reduced sensitivity for detection of EDDP in oral fluid compared with urine testing does disadvantage oral fluid as a matrix for monitoring compliance for methadone. A positive oral fluid test for methadone could easily be attributed to oral contamination with the drug, particularly if procedures to rinse the mouth prior to specimen collection are not carried out.…”

Section: Methadonementioning

confidence: 99%

Screening for drugs of abuse: which matrix, oral fluid or urine?

Allen

2011

Ann Clin Biochem

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Urine is recognized as the prime matrix for drug test screening with well-established methods and testing protocols. Its major limitation is with regard to the inconvenience of sample collection and lack of integrity due to adulteration, dilution, drug spiking or sample exchange. The question is whether oral fluid, with its apparent better sample integrity, can replace urine for drug screening. This review examines the sample integrity problems and the advantages and limitations of oral fluid and urine in drug screening programmes. The variety of sample collection devices for oral fluid is shown to be a problem with recovery and detection for some drugs. This is examined in relation to the pharmacokinetics of drug metabolism and excretion in this matrix. Buccal contamination with drugs in oral fluid may also cause problems with interpretation. The clinical advantages of oral fluid analysis compared with urine testing are highlighted. Parent drugs are often found in oral fluid where only their metabolites may be found in urine, for example the benzodiazepines. 6-Monoacetylmorphine, an indicative marker of heroin, has a high prevalence in oral fluid from users of this drug but its detection in urine is limited due to its short half-life. Advances in analytical techniques, particularly chromatography linked to tandem mass spectrometry, are helping to promote oral fluid analysis. However, the lack of concordance studies examining both urine and oral fluid drug levels and kinetics in the clinical setting is of some concern.

show abstract

Replacement of immunoassay by LC tandem mass spectrometry for the routine measurement of drugs of abuse in oral fluid

Abstract: LC/MS/MS offers a more flexible, specific and sensitive alternative to the screening of oral fluid samples for drugs of abuse than ELISA. A wide range of drugs and metabolites can be detected from a single sample injection.

Cited by 57 publications

References 16 publications

A simple and reliable procedure for the determination of psychoactive drugs in oral fluid by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry

A simple and reliable procedure for the determination of psychoactive drugs in oral fluid by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry

Oral Fluid for The Detection of Drugs of Abuse Using Immunoassay and LC–MS/MS

Screening for drugs of abuse: which matrix, oral fluid or urine?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About