Literature DB >> 7536861

Forensic drug testing for opiates. VI. Urine testing for hydromorphone, hydrocodone, oxymorphone, and oxycodone with commercial opiate immunoassays and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry.

M L Smith1, R O Hughes, B Levine, S Dickerson, W D Darwin, E J Cone.   

Abstract

Opiate testing for morphine and codeine is performed routinely in forensic urine drug-testing laboratories in an effort to identify illicit opiate abusers. In addition to heroin, the 6-keto-opioids, including hydromorphone, hydrocodone, oxymorphone, and oxycodone, have high abuse liability and are self-administered by opiate abusers, but only limited information is available on detection of these compounds by current immunoassay and gas chromatographic-mass spectrometric (GC-MS) methods. In this study, single doses of hydromorphone, hydrocodone, oxymorphone, and oxycodone were administered to human subjects, and urine samples were collected before and periodically after dosing. Opiate levels were determined in a quantitative mode with four commercial immunoassays, TDx opiates (TDx), Abuscreen radioimmunoassay (ABUS), Coat-A-Count morphine in urine (CAC), and EMIT d.a.u. opiate assay (EMIT), and by GC-MS. GC-MS assay results indicated that hydromorphone, hydrocodone, oxymorphone, and oxycodone administration resulted in rapid excretion of parent drug and O-demethylated metabolites in urine. Peak concentrations occurred within 8 h after drug administration and declined below 300 ng/mL within 24-48 h. Immunoassay testing indicated that hydromorphone, hydrocodone, and oxycodone, but not oxymorphone, were detectable in urine by TDx and EMIT (300-ng/mL cutoff) for 6-24 h. ABUS detected only hydrocodone, and CAC failed to detect any of the four 6-keto-opioid analgesics. Generally, immunoassays for opiates in urine displayed substantially lower sensitivities for 6-keto-opioids compared with GC-MS. Consequently, urine samples containing low to moderate concentrations of hydromorphone, hydrocodone, oxymorphone, and oxycodone will likely go undetected when tested by conventional immunoassays.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7536861     DOI: 10.1093/jat/19.1.18

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Anal Toxicol        ISSN: 0146-4760            Impact factor:   3.367


  5 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

Review 2.  Laboratory testing for prescription opioids.

Authors:  Michael C Milone
Journal:  J Med Toxicol       Date:  2012-12

3.  Rational Urine Drug Monitoring in Patients Receiving Opioids for Chronic Pain: Consensus Recommendations.

Authors:  Charles E Argoff; Daniel P Alford; Jeffrey Fudin; Jeremy A Adler; Matthew J Bair; Richard C Dart; Roy Gandolfi; Bill H McCarberg; Steven P Stanos; Jeffrey A Gudin; Rosemary C Polomano; Lynn R Webster
Journal:  Pain Med       Date:  2018-01-01       Impact factor: 3.750

4.  Validity testing of patient objections to acceptance of tamper-resistant opioid formulations.

Authors:  Charles E Argoff; Steven P Stanos; Matthew S Wieman
Journal:  J Pain Res       Date:  2013-05-16       Impact factor: 3.133

5.  The Laboratory's Role in Opioid Pain Medication Monitoring.

Authors:  Geza S Bodor
Journal:  EJIFCC       Date:  2012-07-18
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.