According to the European Monitoring Center for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA), there were 179 different synthetic cannabinoids reported as of 2017. In the USA, 5F‐MDMB‐PINACA, or 5F‐ADB, accounted for 28% of cannabinoid seizures 2016–2018. The synthetic cannabinoid, 5F‐MDMB‐PICA, is structurally similar to 5F‐MDMB‐PINACA with an indole group replacing the indazole. Limited data exist from in vivo or in vitro metabolic studies of these synthetic cannabinoids, so potential metabolites to identify use may be missed. The goals of this study were to (a) investigate 5F‐MDMB‐PICA and 5F‐MDMB‐PINACA in vitro metabolism utilizing human hepatocytes; (b) to verify in vitro metabolites by analyzing authentic case specimens; and (c) to identify the potency and efficacy of 5F‐MDMB‐PICA and 5F‐MDMB‐PINACA by examining activity at the CB1 receptor. Biotransformations found in this study included phase I transformations and phase II transformations. A total of 22 5F‐MDMB‐PICA metabolites (A1 to A22) were identified. From hepatocyte incubations and urine samples, 21 metabolites (B1 to B21) were identified with 3 compounds unique to urine specimens for 5F‐MDMB‐PINACA. Phase II glucuronides were identified in 5F‐MDMB‐PICA (n = 3) and 5F‐MDMB‐PINACA (n = 5). For both compounds, ester hydrolysis and ester hydrolysis in combination with oxidative defluorination were the most prevalent metabolites produced in vitro. Additionally, the conversion of ester hydrolysis with oxidative defluorination to pentanoic acid for the first time was identified for 5F‐MDMB‐PICA. Therefore, these metabolites would be potentially good biomarkers for screening urine of suspected intoxication of 5F‐MDMB‐PICA or 5F‐MDMB‐PINACA. Both 5F‐MDMB‐PICA and 5F‐MDMB‐PINACA were acting as full agonists at the CB1 receptor with higher efficacy and similar potency as JWH‐018.

No abstract

Analysis of postmortem samples with the presence of morphine can sometimes be challenging to interpret. Tolerance complicates interpretation of intoxications and causes of death due to overlap in therapeutic and fatal concentrations. Determination of metabolites and metabolic ratios can potentially differentiate between abstinence, continuous administration, and perhaps time of administration. The purpose of this study was to (a) develop and validate a method for quantitation of morphine-3β-D-glucuronide, morphine-6β-D-glucuronide, normorphine, codeine-6β-D-glucuronide, norcodeine, codeine, 6-acetylmorphine, and ethylmorphine in urine using liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry; (b) apply the method to opiate related deaths; (c) compare metabolic ratios in urine in different causes of death (CoD) and after different drug intakes and (d) compare heroin intoxications in rapid and delayed deaths. Validation parameters such as precision, bias, matrix effects, stability, process efficiency, and dilution integrity were assessed and deemed acceptable. Lower limits of quantitation ranged from 0.01–0.2 μg/mL for all analytes. Autopsy cases (n=135) with paired blood and urine samples were analyzed. Cases were divided into three groups based on CoD; opiate intoxication, intoxication with other drugs than opiates, and other CoD. The cases were classified by intake: codeine (n=42), heroin (n=36), morphine (n=49), and ethylmorphine (n=3). Five cases were classified as mixed intakes and excluded. Heroin intoxications (n=35) were divided into rapid (n=15) or delayed (n=20) deaths. Parent drug groups were compared using metabolic ratio morphine-3β-D-glucuronide/morphine and significant differences were observed between codeine vs morphine (p=0.005) and codeine vs heroin (p≤0.0001). Urine and blood concentrations, and metabolic ratios in rapid and delayed heroin intoxications were compared and determined a significant difference for morphine (p=0.001), codeine (p=0.009), 6-acetylmorphine (p=0.02) in urine, and morphine (p=0.02) in blood, but there was no significant difference (p=0.9) between metabolic ratios. Morphine-3β-D-glucuronide results suggested a period of abstinence prior to death in 25% of the heroin intoxications.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Fentanyl, fentanyl analogs, and other novel synthetic opioids (NSO), including nitazene analogs, prevail in forensic toxicology casework. Analytical methods for identifying these drugs in biological specimens need to be robust, sensitive, and specific. Isomers, new analogs, and slight differences in structural modifications necessitate the use of high‐resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS), especially as a non‐targeted screening method designed to detect newly emerging drugs. Traditional forensic toxicology workflows, such as immunoassay and gas chromatography mass spectrometry (GC–MS), are generally not sensitive enough for detection of NSOs due to observed low (sub‐μg/L) concentrations. For this review, the authors tabulated, reviewed, and summarized analytical methods from 2010–2022 for screening and quantification of fentanyl analogs and other NSOs in biological specimens using a variety of different instruments and sample preparation approaches. Limits of detection or quantification for 105 methods were included and compared to published standards and guidelines for suggested scope and sensitivity in forensic toxicology casework. Methods were summarized by instrument for screening and quantitative methods for fentanyl analogs and for nitazenes and other NSO. Toxicological testing for fentanyl analogs and NSOs is increasingly and most commonly being conducted using a variety of liquid chromatography mass spectrometry (LC–MS)‐based techniques. Most of the recent analytical methods reviewed exhibited limits of detection well below 1 μg/L to detect low concentrations of increasingly potent drugs. In addition, it was observed that most newly developed methods are now using smaller sample volumes which is achievable due to the sensitivity increase gained by new technology and new instrumentation.

According to the Governors Highway Safety Association, drugs are detected more frequently in fatally injured drivers than alcohol. Due to the variety of drugs (prescribed and/or illicit) and their various physiological effects on the body, it is difficult for law enforcement to detect/prosecute drug impairment. While blood and urine are typical biological specimens used to test for drugs, oral fluid is an attractive alternative matrix. Drugs are incorporated into oral fluid by oral contamination (chewing or smoking) or from the bloodstream. Oral fluid is non-invasive and easy to collect without the need for a trained professional to obtain the sample, unlike urine or blood. This study analyzes paired oral fluid and urine with drug recognition expert (DRE) observations. Authentic oral fluid samples (n = 20) were collected via Quantisal™ devices from arrestees under an institutional review board-approved protocol. Urine samples (n = 18) were collected with EZ-SCREEN® cups that presumptively screened for Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (cannabinoids), opiates, methamphetamine, cocaine, methadone, phencyclidine, amphetamine, benzodiazepines and oxycodone. Impairment observations (n = 18) were recorded from officers undergoing DRE certification. Oral fluid samples were screened using an Agilent Technologies 1290 Infinity liquid chromatograph (LC) coupled to an Agilent Technologies 6530 Accurate Mass Time-of-Flight mass spectrometer (MS). Personal compound and database libraries were produced in-house containing 64 drugs of abuse. An Agilent 1290 Infinity LC system equipped with an Agilent 6470 Triple Quadrupole MS was used for quantification of buprenorphine, heroin markers (6-acetylmorphine, morphine) and synthetic opioids. Subjects were 23–54 years old; 11 (55%) were male and 9 (45%) were female. Evaluator opinion of drug class was confirmed in oral fluid 90% of time and in urine 85% of the time in reference to scope of testing by the LC–MS methods employed (excludes cannabis and central nervous system depressants). Data indicate that oral fluid may be a viable source for confirming driving under the influence of drugs.