Methamphetamine and Amphetamine Pharmacokinetics in Oral Fluid and Plasma after Controlled Oral Methamphetamine Administration to Human Volunteers

Schepers, Raf; Oyler, Jonathan M.; Joseph, Robert E.; Cone, Edward J.; Moolchan, Eric T.; Huestis, Marilyn A.

doi:10.1373/49.1.121

Cited by 212 publications

(149 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

132

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Most data are available following a single dose where the detection time is reported to range from 24 to 48 h in plasma to 87 h in urine (177). Limited data are available in relation to repeated doses of methamphetamine, however, the detection time is in the range of 3 days in saliva/oral fluid to 8 days in urine and sweat (177,(179)(180)(181). Accumulation of amphetamines in a keratin matrix is more complex (174) but has been shown to provide a stable measure of temporal exposures with the distribution of drugs along the shaft of the hair expected to reflect historical month-by-month exposures (174).…”

Section: Measurement Of Exposure Using Biological Data (Biomarkers) Gmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The halflife of methamphetamine in plasma varies from 9.1 to 13.1 h with a window of detection for the presence of the drug in plasma up to 24 h (181) following exposure. In plasma, after oral administration of methamphetamine, concentrations of the metabolite amphetamine are lower than methamphetamine with the 24-h area under the curve (AUC 24 ) for amphetamine showing a typical doseresponse relationship (169,171,181). As urine is the primary mechanism of elimination following exposure to amphetamines, it is most commonly used for the purpose of assessing and quantifying workplace exposure, driving related offences and criminal cases (181)(182)(183).…”

Section: Blood and Urinementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In plasma, after oral administration of methamphetamine, concentrations of the metabolite amphetamine are lower than methamphetamine with the 24-h area under the curve (AUC 24 ) for amphetamine showing a typical doseresponse relationship (169,171,181). As urine is the primary mechanism of elimination following exposure to amphetamines, it is most commonly used for the purpose of assessing and quantifying workplace exposure, driving related offences and criminal cases (181)(182)(183). Analyses of urine for exposure to methamphetamine are only considered positive if the levels are above a pre-determined cut-off limit and the metabolite amphetamine is also detected.…”

Section: Blood and Urinementioning

confidence: 99%

“…A number of studies have indicated that oral fluid methamphetamine concentrations are higher than blood plasma (169,171,179,181), however, there was a poor correlation between saliva/oral fluid and plasma methamphetamine concentrations reflecting high intra and inter-individual variability. While some attempts have been made to better define saliva-plasma ratios (S/P) for methamphetamine (171,185) the measure is generally not considered to be a reliable quantitative measure of exposure, and is only considered to be a suitable matrix for screening for drug use (181).…”

Section: Saliva/oral Fluid and Sweatmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Exposures associated with clandestine methamphetamine drug laboratories in Australia

Wright

Edwards

Walker

2016

Reviews on Environmental Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AbstractThe clandestine manufacture of methamphetamine in residential homes may represent significant hazards and exposures not only to those involved in the manufacture of the drugs but also to others living in the home (including children), neighbours and first responders to the premises. These hazards are associated with the nature and improper storage and use of precursor chemicals, intermediate chemicals and wastes, gases and methamphetamine residues generated during manufacture and the drugs themselves. Many of these compounds are persistent and result in exposures inside a home not only during manufacture but after the laboratory has been seized or removed. Hence new occupants of buildings formerly used to manufacture methamphetamine may be unknowingly exposed to these hazards. Children are most susceptible to these hazards and evidence is available in the literature to indicate that these exposures may result in immediate and long-term adverse health effects. The assessment of exposure within the home can be undertaken by measuring contaminant levels or collecting appropriate biological data from individuals exposed. To gain a better understanding of the available data and key issues associated with these approaches to the characterisation of exposure, a review of the published literature has been undertaken.

show abstract

Section: Measurement Of Exposure Using Biological Data (Biomarkers) Gmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Blood and Urinementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Blood and Urinementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Saliva/oral Fluid and Sweatmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Exposures associated with clandestine methamphetamine drug laboratories in Australia

Wright

Edwards

Walker

2016

Reviews on Environmental Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Regarding MA concentrations between oral fluid and plasma or blood, Schepers et al [13] compared MA and AM concentrations between oral fluid and plasma after oral MA administration to human volunteers. They reported that oral fluid MA concentrations were two times higher than those in plasma, and AM concentrations in oral fluid were about onetenth that of MA.…”

Section: Comparison Of Am/ma Ratios In Oral Fluid Urine and Hair Sammentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of methamphetamine concentrations in oral fluid, urine and hair of twelve drug abusers using solid-phase extraction and GC-MS

Kim¹,

Lee²,

Choi³

et al. 2008

Ann Toxicol Anal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

-Introduction: Methamphetamine (MA) is the most abused drug in Korea. In order to investigate the correlation of MA disposition in oral fluid, urine and hair specimens, quantitative analysis for MA and its main metabolite amphetamine (AM) was performed. Methods: Twelve drug abuser's oral fluid, urine and hair samples, submitted by the Police for drug testing, were used. As the preliminary test, MA was screened in urine and oral fluid by fluorescence polarization immunoassay. Extraction for MA was performed using solid-phase extraction after dilution with phosphate buffer. Hair samples were finely cut and incubated for 20 h in 1 mL methanol. Samples were derivatized with pentafluoropropionic acid anhydride for oral fluids and urines and trifluoroacetic acid anhydride for hairs. Quantitation of MA and AM was performed by GC-MS using SIM mode for oral fluids and hairs and full scan mode for urines. Results and conclusion: Concentrations of MA and AM in twelve urine samples ranged 120.4-73 216.0 and 67.6-4238.4 ng/mL, respectively. For oral fluids, just one sample gave negative result, and concentrations of MA and AM in eleven samples ranged 104.2-4603.3 and 32.4-268.6 ng/mL, respectively. For hairs, the concentrations of MA and AM were 3.40-98.25 and 0.21-4.35 ng/mg, respectively in twelve samples. The average ratios of AM/MA in urine, oral fluid and hair for eleven samples were 0.12, 0.11 and 0.06, respectively. Two-way ANOVA showed a significant difference of AM/MA ratios between three specimens. Multiple comparison by Tukey method, AM/MA ratio of hair was significantly lower than urine and oral fluid. a montré une différence significative des ratios métabolite/métamphétamine entre 3 matrices. Une seconde comparaison par le test de Tukey a montré que le ratio métabolite/métamphétamine pour les cheveux était significativement plus faible que pour la salive et les urines.

show abstract

Oral Fluid Toxicology

Laloup

Samyn

Gert

2009

Wiley Encyclopedia of Forensic Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Technological advances over the past decades have enabled oral fluid testing for the presence of numerous drugs, narcotics, and hormones. The advantages of oral fluid over traditional fluids are that collection is almost noninvasive, is relatively easy to perform, and, in forensic situations, can be achieved under close supervision to prevent adulteration or substitution of the samples. Moreover, concentrations of many drugs in oral fluid correlate well with blood concentrations and, therefore, the analysis of oral fluid specimens can be used to determine the current degree of exposure to a definite drug at the time of sampling. These characteristics have resulted in the use of oral fluid for drugs of abuse testing in the workplace, in testing of intoxicated drivers, for monitoring illicit drug use in drug treatment. There are now sensitive and reliable analytical methods available both for screening and confirmation analysis of oral fluid specimens. External proficiency testing is being developed and cutoff concentrations have been proposed by scientific organizations. Appropriate certification of laboratories worldwide and the introduction of legal provisions in several countries will be the next step. However, a number of concerns require further research. The search for an on‐site screening method that can provide acceptable accuracies for the detection of cannabinoids in oral fluid remains a major hurdle. Additional considerations that have received attention are the variability in the volume of sample collected and the drug recovery from the many different specimen collection systems on the market. This article discusses developments in the field of collection devices, pharmacokinetics of common drugs of abuse in oral fluid, and recent technological advances and guidelines that increase the actual use of oral fluid testing in a legal context and its acceptance by the criminal justice system.

show abstract

Methamphetamine and Amphetamine Pharmacokinetics in Oral Fluid and Plasma after Controlled Oral Methamphetamine Administration to Human Volunteers

Cited by 212 publications

References 24 publications

Exposures associated with clandestine methamphetamine drug laboratories in Australia

Exposures associated with clandestine methamphetamine drug laboratories in Australia

Comparison of methamphetamine concentrations in oral fluid, urine and hair of twelve drug abusers using solid-phase extraction and GC-MS

Oral Fluid Toxicology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About