RESUMEN
Recently, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) has become a resurgent drug of abuse. The detection of LSD is problematic because of the low dosage taken by users, light and heat sensitivity of the analyte and the lack of efficient analytical methods. Presented here is the validation of an automated sample preparation method for the analysis of LSD and its primary urinary metabolite, 2-oxo-3-hydroxy-LSD (OHLSD), in urine samples by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Analytes were extracted from urine using an automated Dispersive Pipette XTRaction method on Hamilton STAR and STARlet liquid handling systems. The limit of detection for both analytes was administratively defined at the lowest calibrator used in the experiments, and the limit of quantitation was 0.05 ng/mL for both analytes. All validation criteria were acceptable per Department of Defense Instruction 1010.16 requirements. This method offers an efficient, sensitive analytical solution to routinely evaluate large numbers of urine specimens for LSD in workplace drug deterrence programs.
Asunto(s)
Líquidos Corporales , Dietilamida del Ácido Lisérgico , Dietilamida del Ácido Lisérgico/análisis , Dietilamida del Ácido Lisérgico/metabolismo , Espectrometría de Masas en Tándem/métodos , Reproducibilidad de los Resultados , Cromatografía Liquida/métodos , Líquidos Corporales/metabolismoRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Most hospital urine toxicology screens detect a fixed, limited set of common substances. These tests are fast and accurate but may miss emerging trends in substance use in the community and clinical acumen alone is insufficient for identifying new substances. METHODS: This prospective cohort study examined de-identified urine specimens obtained from patients visiting the Emergency Department (ED) at Prince George's Hospital Center (PGHC), between October 15, 2019 to November 6, 2019 and tested positive for one or more substances. The Emergency Department Drug Surveillance System (EDDS) collects quarterly exports from de-identified electronic health records (EHRs) containing urinalysis results for drug related ED visits. We performed a feasibility study of a new urine specimen submission by collecting a stratified sample of 151 urine specimens from PGHC ED patients. The specimens were tested for 240 drugs using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). This paper presents a comparison between the PGHC and expanded testing results. RESULTS: The expanded urinalysis panel found more cocaine (37% vs. 20%; p < 0.01) and benzodiazepine positives (21% vs. 11%; p < 0.05) than would have been detected by the hospital screen. Additionally, the expanded toxicology panel identified fentanyl in 4-14% of the samples. CONCLUSION: The EHR data submitted to EDDS from the hospital urine toxicology screen correctly identified hospital substance use patterns over the approximate 1 month study period. The expanded testing also uncovered drugs that the hospital might consider adding to their routine screen. EDDS is a feasible system for monitoring and confirming recent substance use trends among ED patients.
Asunto(s)
Preparaciones Farmacéuticas , Urinálisis , Cromatografía Liquida , Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital , Hospitales , Humanos , Laboratorios , Proyectos Piloto , Estudios Prospectivos , Espectrometría de Masas en TándemRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: NIDA's National Drug Early Warning System (NDEWS) was established in 2014 with the mission of identifying and monitoring emerging drugs in the United States. Identification of emerging drugs has been complicated, however, by the rapid development of novel psychoactive substances such that users often cannot identify and report the drugs they have ingested. Biologic testing of urine, hair or blood is the only way to reliably identify the substances recently used. Unfortunately, the large number of up-to-date tests required is beyond the resources available to most organizations. METHODS: The DOTS study tested the feasibility of recruiting organizations to submit up to 25 de-identified urine specimens for testing for approximately 240 drugs, at no cost to them. The results were for epidemiologic purposes only and not for clinical use. Eleven sites who had questions about their patients or the results of their organization's more limited urinalysis screens participated. These sites included drug treatment programs, medical examiners, hospitals and a criminal justice testing program. RESULTS: Extensive polydrug use and geographic differences in the drugs detected were found. All sites found the DOTS collaborating laboratory's test results to be very useful for understanding the types of drugs being used recently and to assess the adequacy of their testing protocols. CONCLUSIONS: The U.S. should consider establishing a program of expanded testing of already collected de-identified urine specimens in order to identify emerging drugs and track local patterns of use and availability.