John Koenig

Distinction among eight opiate drugs in urine by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry

Opiates are commonly abused substances, and forensic urine drug-testing for them requires gas chromatographic-mass spectrometric (GC-MS) confirmation. There are also medical reasons to test urine for opiates, and confirmation procedures other than GC-MS are often used for medical drug-testing. A thin-layer chromatographic (TLC) method distinguishes morphine, acetylmorphine, hydromorphone, oxymorphone, codeine, dihydrocodeine, hydrocodone, and oxycodone in clinical specimens. In certain clinical circumstances, GC-MS confirmation is requested for opiates identified by TLC, but, to our knowledge, no previous report examines all of the above opiates in a single GC-MS procedure. We find that they can be distinguished by GC-MS analyses of trimethylsilyl (TMS) ether derivatives, and identities of 6-keto opiates can be further confirmed by GC-MS analysis of methoxime (MO)-TMS derivatives. Inclusion of deuterium-labeled internal standards permits identification of the opiates in urine at concentrations below the TLC cutoff level of 600 ng/ml, and the GC-MS assay is linear over a concentration range that spans that level. This GC-MS procedure has proved useful as a third-stage identification step in a medical drug-testing sequence involving prior immunoassay and TLC.

Comparison between the CEDIA and EMIT II immunoassays for the determination of benzodiazepines

We evaluated a new, qualitative immunoassay for benzodiazepines in urine using CEDIA technology on the Hitachi 747 and compared its performance to an immunoassay using EMIT II methodology on the same instrument. A total of 500 urine samples received for routine drug screen analysis were prospectively examined for benzodiazepines by both methods. Samples producing positive results by either immunoassay method were analyzed by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS). Available medical records were reviewed for patients whose samples produced discrepant immunoassay results or that were positive in both immunoassays but negative by GC-MS. Samples that produced negative results in both immunoassays were not subjected to GC-MS analysis. Therefore, identification of an immunoassay result as a false negative only occurred when the sample produced a positive value in only one of the two immunoassays and was confirmed as positive by either GC-MS or medical record review. Following initial immunoassay screening and confirmation by GC-MS, a medical record review and reanalysis of GC-MS data was performed. After this in-depth analysis of the data, the CEDIA method produced 60 true-positives, 7 false positives and no false negatives. The EMIT II method produced 47 true positives, 1 fase positive and 13 false negatives. These differences appear to be due to the CEDIA assay being more sensitive for detection of lorazepam.