Article

Quantitative analysis of buprenorphine and norbuprenorphine in urine using liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry.

Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Britannia House, Britannia Road, Morley, Leeds, LS27 0DQ, U.K.
Journal of analytical toxicology (Impact Factor: 2.11). 06/2006; 30(4):238-44. DOI: 10.1093/jat/30.4.238
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Buprenorphine is an opioid analgesic drug that is used as an alternative to methadone to treat heroin addiction. Established methods for the analysis of buprenorphine and its metabolites in urine such as gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) involve complicated sample extraction procedures. The aim of the present study was to develop a sensitive yet straightforward method for the simultaneous analysis of buprenorphine and norbuprenorphine in urine using liquid chromatography-MS-MS. The method comprised an enzymatic hydrolysis using Patella vulgata b-glucuronidase, followed by centrifugation and direct analysis of the supernatant. The limits of detection and quantitation were < 1 microg/L for buprenorphine and < 1 and 4 microg/L, respectively, for norbuprenorphine. Assay coefficients of variation (CVs) were < 15%, with the exception of concentrations close to the limit of quantitation, where CVs were below 20%. In direct comparison with an established GC-MS protocol, the method showed minimal negative bias (8.7% for buprenorphine and 1.8% for norbuprenorphine) and was less susceptible to sample carryover. The extent of conjugation in unhydrolyzed urine was investigated and found to be highly variable, with proportions of unconjugated buprenorphine and norbuprenorphine of 6.4% [range 0% to 67%; standard deviation (SD) 9.7%] and 34% (range 0% to 100%; SD 23.8%), respectively.

2 Bookmarks
 · 
178 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The objective was to estimate the detection times and metabolite/parent compound ratios in urine after a single dose of buprenorphine. Eighteen healthy volunteers received a single dose of 0.4 mg buprenorphine sublingually. Urine samples were collected prior to dosing and at 2, 4, 6, 8 12, 24, 48, 72, and 96 h post-dose. The samples were screened using cloned enzyme donor immunoassay (CEDIA) reagent and quantitation was performed with liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS-MS) with a cut-off of 0.5 ng/mL for buprenorphine and norbuprenorphine. The mean time of continuous positive results was 9 h (range 4 to 24 h) with CEDIA, whereas for an LC-MS-MS method it was 76 h (range 23-96 h) for buprenorphine, and for norbuprenorphine all samples were positive at 96 h. Some subjects had positive CEDIA results after a negative sample, owing to differences in creatinine concentration. The time when the ratio norbuprenorphine/buprenorphine exceeded 1 was estimated at 7 h. The metabolite/parent ratio may be used to estimate the time of intake even though the individual ratios showed an increased variation the more distant the collection time. We believe that using this ratio, rather than the actual concentrations, it is possible to compensate for urine dilution and different doses, and to improve interpretation.
    Journal of analytical toxicology 11/2008; 32(8):586-93. · 2.11 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: (i) Standard solutions of buprenorphine (B) and three metabolites; (ii) immunoassay (IA) reagents designed for the analysis of B and/or its metabolites; and (iii) clinical urine specimens collected from patients (under B-treatment), constitute the B-System for fundamental study of parameters critical to the two-step test strategy, an analytical approach designed for a high-volume testing environment. The cross-reacting characteristics of IA reagents were examined using standard solutions of B and its metabolites. Resulting data were used as the basis for selecting target analytes suitable for the preliminary and the confirmatory test steps. Test data derived from IA and GC-MS analysis of clinical urine specimens (with natural distribution of B and its metabolites) were quantitatively correlated. Correlation parameters were examined: (i) to verify whether the analyte-pair targeted by the IA and GC-MS test steps has been properly selected; and (ii) to decide on appropriate cutoffs for the two test steps. In conclusion, this study has demonstrated that the most effective analyte(s) that should be targeted in the GC-MS determination step vary with the IA selected in the preliminary test step. All analytes that generate significant responses to the IA reagent should be targeted in the GC-MS test step.
    The Analyst 10/2009; 134(9):1848-56. · 4.23 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Buprenorphine (BUP), a semi-synthetic opioid analgesic, is increasingly prescribed for the treatment of chronic pain and opioid dependence. Urine immunoassay screening methods are available for monitoring BUP compliance and misuse; however, these screens may have poor sensitivity or specificity. We evaluated whether the pretreatment of urine with β-glucuronidase (BG) improves the sensitivity and overall accuracy of three BUP enzyme immunoassays when compared with liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS-MS). Urine samples sent to our laboratories for BUP testing (n = 114) were analyzed before and after BG pretreatment by cloned enzyme donor immunoassay (CEDIA), enzyme immunoassay (EIA) and homogenous EIA (HEIA) immunoassays using a common 5 ng/mL cutoff. Total BUP and norbuprenorphine (NBUP) concentrations were measured by LC-MS-MS as the reference method. Urine BG pretreatment improved EIA, HEIA and CEDIA sensitivities from 70, 82 and 94%, respectively, to 97% for each of the three methods, when compared with LC-MS-MS. While the specificity of the EIA and HEIA remained 100% after BG pretreatment, the specificity of the CEDIA decreased from 74 to 67%. Urine pretreatment with BG is recommended to improve sensitivity of the EIA and HEIA BUP screening methods.
    Journal of analytical toxicology 05/2014; · 2.11 Impact Factor

Full-text

View
3 Downloads