Lindsey Contella , Phillip Kang , Clara E. Wolf , Victoria L. Thomas , Melissa Gildenberg , Marion L. Snyder , Stacy E.F. Melanson , Nicole V. Tolan
{"title":"采用LC-MS/MS鉴别处方安非他明患者的尿甲基苯丙胺与药物杂质","authors":"Lindsey Contella , Phillip Kang , Clara E. Wolf , Victoria L. Thomas , Melissa Gildenberg , Marion L. Snyder , Stacy E.F. Melanson , Nicole V. Tolan","doi":"10.1016/j.jmsacl.2025.07.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Patients compliant with prescribed amphetamine (AMPH) should not have detectable methamphetamine (METH) in their urine; detectable METH typically indicates illicit use. However, we have identified patients with results suggestive of METH as an impurity in prescribed AMPH.</div></div><div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>Derive a METH:AMPH ratio cut-off from a training set of patients compliant with AMPH prescriptions to differentiate METH as an impurity from illicit use.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Retrospective review of AMPH and METH-positive cases by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) at Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH) and Luxor Scientific. Correlated results with clinical and medication history and compliance with prescribed medications.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The median ± interquartile range (IQR) METH:AMPH ratio for the Adderall training sets was 0.43 ± 0.31 % and 0.05 ± 0.040 %, with a maximum ratio of 1.125 % and 0.125 % at BWH and Luxor, respectively. The median ± IQR METH:AMPH ratio for the Luxor d-AMPH training set was 0.039 ± 0.028 %, with a maximum ratio of 0.09 %; not statistically different from the Adderall training set. Assessment of the BWH test set where METH < AMPH (n = 22) revealed that METH was likely due to an impurity (n = 10), distant METH mis/use (n = 11), or requiring further analysis (n = 1). METH was also detected by LC-MS/MS in a commercial AMPH calibrator and in Adderall XR.</div></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><div>METH may represent an impurity in the AMPH formulation. Laboratories are encouraged to define a METH:AMPH ratio below which an impurity is the likely explanation for METH and/or to increase the METH positivity cut-off to 50 or 100 ng/mL to reduce potential false-accusations of illicit METH use.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":52406,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Mass Spectrometry and Advances in the Clinical Lab","volume":"37 ","pages":"Pages 49-55"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Urine methamphetamine-to-amphetamine ratio by LC-MS/MS to differentiate methamphetamine use from pharmaceutical impurity in patients prescribed amphetamine\",\"authors\":\"Lindsey Contella , Phillip Kang , Clara E. Wolf , Victoria L. Thomas , Melissa Gildenberg , Marion L. Snyder , Stacy E.F. Melanson , Nicole V. Tolan\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jmsacl.2025.07.001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Patients compliant with prescribed amphetamine (AMPH) should not have detectable methamphetamine (METH) in their urine; detectable METH typically indicates illicit use. However, we have identified patients with results suggestive of METH as an impurity in prescribed AMPH.</div></div><div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>Derive a METH:AMPH ratio cut-off from a training set of patients compliant with AMPH prescriptions to differentiate METH as an impurity from illicit use.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Retrospective review of AMPH and METH-positive cases by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) at Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH) and Luxor Scientific. Correlated results with clinical and medication history and compliance with prescribed medications.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The median ± interquartile range (IQR) METH:AMPH ratio for the Adderall training sets was 0.43 ± 0.31 % and 0.05 ± 0.040 %, with a maximum ratio of 1.125 % and 0.125 % at BWH and Luxor, respectively. The median ± IQR METH:AMPH ratio for the Luxor d-AMPH training set was 0.039 ± 0.028 %, with a maximum ratio of 0.09 %; not statistically different from the Adderall training set. Assessment of the BWH test set where METH < AMPH (n = 22) revealed that METH was likely due to an impurity (n = 10), distant METH mis/use (n = 11), or requiring further analysis (n = 1). METH was also detected by LC-MS/MS in a commercial AMPH calibrator and in Adderall XR.</div></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><div>METH may represent an impurity in the AMPH formulation. Laboratories are encouraged to define a METH:AMPH ratio below which an impurity is the likely explanation for METH and/or to increase the METH positivity cut-off to 50 or 100 ng/mL to reduce potential false-accusations of illicit METH use.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":52406,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Mass Spectrometry and Advances in the Clinical Lab\",\"volume\":\"37 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 49-55\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Mass Spectrometry and Advances in the Clinical Lab\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667145X25000203\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Mass Spectrometry and Advances in the Clinical Lab","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667145X25000203","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Urine methamphetamine-to-amphetamine ratio by LC-MS/MS to differentiate methamphetamine use from pharmaceutical impurity in patients prescribed amphetamine
Introduction
Patients compliant with prescribed amphetamine (AMPH) should not have detectable methamphetamine (METH) in their urine; detectable METH typically indicates illicit use. However, we have identified patients with results suggestive of METH as an impurity in prescribed AMPH.
Objectives
Derive a METH:AMPH ratio cut-off from a training set of patients compliant with AMPH prescriptions to differentiate METH as an impurity from illicit use.
Methods
Retrospective review of AMPH and METH-positive cases by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) at Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH) and Luxor Scientific. Correlated results with clinical and medication history and compliance with prescribed medications.
Results
The median ± interquartile range (IQR) METH:AMPH ratio for the Adderall training sets was 0.43 ± 0.31 % and 0.05 ± 0.040 %, with a maximum ratio of 1.125 % and 0.125 % at BWH and Luxor, respectively. The median ± IQR METH:AMPH ratio for the Luxor d-AMPH training set was 0.039 ± 0.028 %, with a maximum ratio of 0.09 %; not statistically different from the Adderall training set. Assessment of the BWH test set where METH < AMPH (n = 22) revealed that METH was likely due to an impurity (n = 10), distant METH mis/use (n = 11), or requiring further analysis (n = 1). METH was also detected by LC-MS/MS in a commercial AMPH calibrator and in Adderall XR.
Discussion
METH may represent an impurity in the AMPH formulation. Laboratories are encouraged to define a METH:AMPH ratio below which an impurity is the likely explanation for METH and/or to increase the METH positivity cut-off to 50 or 100 ng/mL to reduce potential false-accusations of illicit METH use.