Literature DB >> 12324487

Duration of detectable methamphetamine and amphetamine excretion in urine after controlled oral administration of methamphetamine to humans.

Jonathan M Oyler1, Edward J Cone, Robert E Joseph, Eric T Moolchan, Marilyn A Huestis.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Confirmation of a workplace drug test requires urinary methamphetamine (MAMP) and amphetamine (AMP) concentrations > or = 500 and 200 micro g/L, respectively, but cutoffs at half those values (250/100 micro g/L) have been proposed. We determined the urinary excretion of MAMP after oral ingestion and examined the effect of using lower cutoffs on detection of exposure.
METHODS: Volunteers (n = 8) ingested four 10-mg doses of MAMP. HCl daily over 7 days, and five of them ingested four 20-mg doses 4 weeks later. After ingestion, the volunteers collected all urine specimens for 2 weeks. After solid-phase extraction, MAMP and AMP were measured by gas chromatography-positive chemical ionization mass spectrometry with dual silyl derivatization.
RESULTS: MAMP and AMP were generally detected in the first or second void (0.7-11.3 h) collected after drug administration, with concentrations of 82-1827 and 12-180 micro g/L, respectively. Peak MAMP concentrations (1871-6004 micro g/L) after single doses occurred within 1.5-60 h. MAMP > or = 500 micro g/L was first detected in the first or second void (1-11 h) at 524-1871 micro g/L. Lowering the MAMP cutoff to 250 micro g/L changed the initial detection time little. AMP > or = 200 micro g/L was first detected in the 2nd-13th (7-20 h) post-administration voids. At a cutoff of 100 micro g/L, AMP was first confirmed in the second to eighth void (4-13 h). Reducing the cutoff to 250/100 micro g/L extended terminal MAMP detection by up to 24 h, increased total detection time by up to 34 h, and increased the total number of positive specimens by 48%.
CONCLUSIONS: At the lower cutoff, initial detection times are earlier, detection windows are longer, and confirmation rates are increased. Elimination of the AMP requirement would increase detection rates and allow earlier detection.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12324487

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Chem        ISSN: 0009-9147            Impact factor:   8.327


  15 in total

Review 1.  Interpretation of oral fluid tests for drugs of abuse.

Authors:  Edward J Cone; Marilyn A Huestis
Journal:  Ann N Y Acad Sci       Date:  2007-03-01       Impact factor: 5.691

2.  Interpreting methamphetamine levels in a high-use community.

Authors:  Aurea C Chiaia-Hernandez; Caleb J Banta-Green; Jennifer A Field
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2011-04-21       Impact factor: 4.223

3.  Normalized diurnal and between-day trends in illicit and legal drug loads that account for changes in population.

Authors:  Alex J Brewer; Christoph Ort; Caleb J Banta-Green; Jean-Daniel Berset; Jennifer A Field
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2012-07-17       Impact factor: 9.028

Review 4.  Methamphetamine: an update on epidemiology, pharmacology, clinical phenomenology, and treatment literature.

Authors:  Kelly E Courtney; Lara A Ray
Journal:  Drug Alcohol Depend       Date:  2014-08-17       Impact factor: 4.492

5.  Stereoselectivity in the human metabolism of methamphetamine.

Authors:  Linghui Li; Tom Everhart; Peyton Jacob Iii; Reese Jones; John Mendelson
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 4.335

6.  Excretion of methamphetamine and amphetamine in human sweat following controlled oral methamphetamine administration.

Authors:  Allan J Barnes; Michael L Smith; Sherri L Kacinko; Eugene W Schwilke; Edward J Cone; Eric T Moolchan; Marilyn A Huestis
Journal:  Clin Chem       Date:  2007-11-02       Impact factor: 8.327

Review 7.  Measures of outcome for stimulant trials: ACTTION recommendations and research agenda.

Authors:  Brian D Kiluk; Kathleen M Carroll; Amy Duhig; Daniel E Falk; Kyle Kampman; Shengan Lai; Raye Z Litten; David J McCann; Ivan D Montoya; Kenzie L Preston; Phil Skolnick; Constance Weisner; George Woody; Redonna Chandler; Michael J Detke; Kelly Dunn; Robert H Dworkin; Joanne Fertig; Jennifer Gewandter; F Gerard Moeller; Tatiana Ramey; Megan Ryan; Kenneth Silverman; Eric C Strain
Journal:  Drug Alcohol Depend       Date:  2015-11-21       Impact factor: 4.492

8.  The spatial epidemiology of cocaine, methamphetamine and 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) use: a demonstration using a population measure of community drug load derived from municipal wastewater.

Authors:  Caleb J Banta-Green; Jennifer A Field; Aurea C Chiaia; Daniel L Sudakin; Laura Power; Luc de Montigny
Journal:  Addiction       Date:  2009-07-14       Impact factor: 6.526

9.  Mechanistic PBPK Modeling of Urine pH Effect on Renal and Systemic Disposition of Methamphetamine and Amphetamine.

Authors:  Weize Huang; Lindsay C Czuba; Nina Isoherranen
Journal:  J Pharmacol Exp Ther       Date:  2020-03-20       Impact factor: 4.030

10.  Novel biomarkers of prenatal methamphetamine exposure in human meconium.

Authors:  Teresa R Gray; Tamsin Kelly; Linda L LaGasse; Lynne M Smith; Chris Derauf; William Haning; Penny Grant; Rizwan Shah; Amelia Arria; Arthur Strauss; Barry M Lester; Marilyn A Huestis
Journal:  Ther Drug Monit       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 3.681

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.