Evaluation of a direct high-capacity target screening approach for urine drug testing using liquid chromatography–time-of-flight mass spectrometry

In this study a rapid liquid chromatography–time-of-flight mass spectrometry method was developed, validated and applied in order to evaluate the potential of this technique for routine urine drug testing. Approximately 800 authentic patient samples were analyzed for amphetamines (amphetamine and methamphetamine), opiates (morphine, morphine-3-glucuronide, morphine-6-glucuronide, codeine and codeine-6-glucuronide) and buprenorphines (buprenorphine and buprenorphine-glucuronide) using immunochemical screening assays and mass spectrometry confirmation methods for comparison. The chromatographic application utilized a rapid gradient with high flow and a reversed phase column with 1.8 μm particles. Total analysis time was 4 min. The mass spectrometer operated with an electrospray interface in positive mode with a resolution power of >10,000 at m/z 956. The applied reporting limits were 100 ng/mL for amphetamines and opiates, and 5 ng/mL for buprenorphines, with lower limits of quantification were 2.8–41 ng/mL. Calibration curves showed a linear response with coefficients of correlation of 0.97–0.99. The intra- and interday imprecision in quantification at the reporting limits were <10% for all analytes but for buprenorphines <20%. Method validation data met performance criteria for a qualitative and quantitative method. The liquid chromatography–time-of-flight mass spectrometry method was found to be more selective than the immunochemical method by producing lower rates of false positives (0% for amphetamines and opiates; 3.2% for buprenorphines) and negatives (1.8% for amphetamines; 0.6% for opiates; 0% for buprenorphines). The overall agreement between the two screening methods was between 94.2 and 97.4%. Comparison of data with the confirmation (LC–MS) results for all individual 9 analytes showed that most deviating results were produced in samples with low levels of analytes. False negatives were mainly related to failure of detected peak to meet mass accuracy criteria (±20 mDa). False positives was related to presence of interfering peaks meeting mass accuracy and retention time criteria and occurred mainly at low levels. It is concluded that liquid chromatography–time-of-flight mass spectrometry has potential both as a complement and as replacement of immunochemical screening assays.