Abed Pablo1, Autumn R Breaud1, William Clarke2. 1. Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. 2. Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. Electronic address: wclarke@jhmi.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dried specimens have been proposed in multiple environments to minimize costs associated with specimen storage and shipping in clinical studies. This report describes the development and validation of an automated method for qualitative toxicology screening of dried urine samples using LC-MS/MS. METHODS: Urine standards containing 41 compounds were prepared and applied to filter paper cards. Dried urine was eluted from the cards using a Dried Blood Spot (DBS) autosampler from Spark Holland, which was plumbed inline with a Thermo Scientific Turboflow chromatography system for subsequent MS/MS detection with selected reaction monitoring. Limits of detection, precision of peak areas, repeatability, and carryover studies were conducted. Concordance with a reference LC-MS/MS method using liquid samples was evaluated using remnant discarded specimens. RESULTS: The limit of detection ranged from 5 to 75 ng/mL for most compounds. At the LOD for each analyte, the peak area precision ranged from 8 to 29%. For 20 repeat injections of samples spiked at ±25% of the LOD, there was a 4% false positive rate for the 75% × LOD samples, and a 0.4% false negative rate for the +125% × LOD samples. In comparing 40 known positive specimens analyzed with the DUS method and a liquid urine reference method, there was 88% agreement. Analysis of 10 known negative specimens yielded negative results. There was no significant carryover detected up to 2000 ng/mL for any of the analytes in the assay. CONCLUSION: Using a robotic DUS sampling an inline HTLC-MS/MS system, we have developed and validated a fully-automated and robust method for multi-analyte detection of drugs of abuse in dried urine specimens.
BACKGROUND: Dried specimens have been proposed in multiple environments to minimize costs associated with specimen storage and shipping in clinical studies. This report describes the development and validation of an automated method for qualitative toxicology screening of dried urine samples using LC-MS/MS. METHODS: Urine standards containing 41 compounds were prepared and applied to filter paper cards. Dried urine was eluted from the cards using a Dried Blood Spot (DBS) autosampler from Spark Holland, which was plumbed inline with a Thermo Scientific Turboflow chromatography system for subsequent MS/MS detection with selected reaction monitoring. Limits of detection, precision of peak areas, repeatability, and carryover studies were conducted. Concordance with a reference LC-MS/MS method using liquid samples was evaluated using remnant discarded specimens. RESULTS: The limit of detection ranged from 5 to 75 ng/mL for most compounds. At the LOD for each analyte, the peak area precision ranged from 8 to 29%. For 20 repeat injections of samples spiked at ±25% of the LOD, there was a 4% false positive rate for the 75% × LOD samples, and a 0.4% false negative rate for the +125% × LOD samples. In comparing 40 known positive specimens analyzed with the DUS method and a liquid urine reference method, there was 88% agreement. Analysis of 10 known negative specimens yielded negative results. There was no significant carryover detected up to 2000 ng/mL for any of the analytes in the assay. CONCLUSION: Using a robotic DUS sampling an inline HTLC-MS/MS system, we have developed and validated a fully-automated and robust method for multi-analyte detection of drugs of abuse in dried urine specimens.
Authors: Ana Hernández Redondo; Christiane Körber; Stefan König; Andreas Längin; Ali Al-Ahmad; Wolfgang Weinmann Journal: Anal Bioanal Chem Date: 2012-01-17 Impact factor: 4.142
Authors: Mara Otero-Fernández; José Ángel Cocho; María Jesús Tabernero; Ana María Bermejo; Pilar Bermejo-Barrera; Antonio Moreda-Piñeiro Journal: Anal Chim Acta Date: 2013-05-10 Impact factor: 6.558
Authors: Lisa Delahaye; Evelyn Dhont; Pieter De Cock; Peter De Paepe; Christophe P Stove Journal: Anal Bioanal Chem Date: 2018-10-23 Impact factor: 4.142
Authors: Nathalie A Desrosiers; Dayong Lee; Karl B Scheidweiler; Marta Concheiro-Guisan; David A Gorelick; Marilyn A Huestis Journal: Anal Bioanal Chem Date: 2013-12-01 Impact factor: 4.142
Authors: Lisa C Martial; Erik van den Hombergh; Cornelis Tump; Otto Halmingh; David M Burger; Erik M van Maarseveen; Roger J Brüggemann; Rob E Aarnoutse Journal: J Chromatogr B Analyt Technol Biomed Life Sci Date: 2018-04-27 Impact factor: 3.205
Authors: Daniel Gonzalez; Chiara Melloni; Brenda B Poindexter; Ram Yogev; Andrew M Atz; Janice E Sullivan; Susan R Mendley; Paula Delmore; Amy Delinsky; Kanecia Zimmerman; Andrew Lewandowski; Barrie Harper; Kenneth C Lewis; Daniel K Benjamin; Michael Cohen-Wolkowiez Journal: Bioanalysis Date: 2015 Impact factor: 2.695