No abstract

No abstract

Several substances relevant for forensic toxicology purposes have an endogenous presence in biological matrices: beta-hydroxybutyric acid (BHB), gamma-hydroxybutyric acid (GHB), steroids and human insulin, to name only a few. The presence of significant amounts of these endogenous substances in the biological matrix used to prepare calibration standards and quality control samples (QCs) can compromise validation steps and quantitative analyses. Several approaches to overcome this problem have been suggested, including using an analog matrix or analyte, relying entirely on standard addition analyses for these analytes, or simply ignoring the endogenous contribution provided that it is small enough. Although these approaches side-step the issue of endogenous analyte presence in spiked matrix-matched samples, they create serious problems with regards to the accuracy of the analyses or production capacity. We present here a solution that addresses head-on the problem of endogenous concentrations in matrices used for calibration standards and quality control purposes. The endogenous analyte concentration is estimated via a standard-addition type process. This estimated concentration, plus the spiked concentration are then used as the de facto analyte concentration present in the sample. These de facto concentrations are then used in data analysis software (MultiQuant, Mass Hunter, etc.) as the sample’s concentration. This yields an accurate quantification of the analyte, free from interference of the endogenous contribution. This de facto correction has been applied in a production setting on two BHB quantification methods (GC-MS and LC–MS-MS), allowing the rectification of BHB biases of up to 30 μg/mL. The additional error introduced by this correction procedure is minimal, although the exact amount will be highly method-dependent. The endogenous concentration correction process has been automated with an R script. The final procedure is therefore highly efficient, only adding four mouse clicks to the data analysis operations.

Qualitative methods hold an important place in drug testing, filling central needs in screening and analyses, among others, linked to per se legislation. Nevertheless, the bioanalytical method validation guidelines do not discuss this type of method or describe method validation procedures ill‐adapted to qualitative methods. The output of qualitative methods are typically categorical, binary results, such as presence/absence or above cut‐off/below cut‐off. As the goal of any method validation is to demonstrate fitness for use under production conditions, qualitative validation guidelines should evaluate performance based on discrete, binary results instead of the continuous measurements obtained from the instrument (e.g. area). A tentative validation guideline for threshold qualitative methods was developed by in silico modelling of measurements and derived binary results. This preliminary guideline was applied to a liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry method for 40 analytes, each with a defined threshold concentration. Validation parameters calculated from the analysis of 30 samples spiked above and below the threshold concentration (false negative rate, false positive rate, selectivity rate, sensitivity rate and reliability rate) showed a surprisingly high failure rate. Overall, 13 out of the 40 analytes were not considered validated. A subsequent examination found that this was attributable to an appreciable shift in the standard deviation of the area ratio on a day‐to‐day basis, a previously undescribed and unaccounted‐for behaviour in the qualitative threshold method validation literature. Consequently, the developed guideline was modified and used to validate a qualitative threshold method, based on the binary results for performance evaluation and incorporating measurement uncertainty.