ArticleDrug testing and analysis2015
Oral fluid with three modes of collection and plasma methamphetamine and amphetamine enantiomer concentrations after controlled intranasal l-methamphetamine administration.
Article in Drug testing and analysis, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Enantiomer-specific analysis of amphetamine in urine, oral fluid and blood.Journal of analytical toxicology · 2024Article
- Pharmacology ofACS pharmacology & translational science · 2023Review
- [Research progress on chiral separation of amphetamines, ketamine, cathinones].Se pu = Chinese journal of chromatography · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Methamphetamine is included in drug testing programmes due to its high abuse potential. d-Methamphetamine is a scheduled potent central nervous system stimulant, while l-methamphetamine is the unscheduled active ingredient in the over-the-counter nasal decongestant Vicks® VapoInhaler™. No data are available in oral fluid (OF) and few in plasma after controlled Vicks® VapoInhaler™ administration. We quantified methamphetamine and amphetamine enantiomers in OF collected with two different devices and plasma via a fully validated liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method. Additionally, OF were analyzed with an on-site screening device. Sixteen participants received 7 Vicks® VapoInhaler™ doses according to manufacturer's recommendations. Specimens were collected before and up to 32 h after the first dose. No d-methamphetamine or d-amphetamine was detected in any sample. All participants had measurable OF l-methamphetamine with median maximum concentrations 14.8 and 16.1 μg/L in Quantisal™ and Oral-Eze® devices, respectively, after a median of 5 doses. One participant had measurable OF l-amphetamine with maximum concentrations 3.7 and 5.5 μg/L after 6 doses with the Quantisal™ and Oral-Eze® devices, respectively. There were no positive DrugTest® 5000 results. In the cutoff range 20-50 μg/L methamphetamine with amphetamine ≥limit of detection, 3.1-10.1% of specimens were positive; first positive results were observed after 1-4 doses. Two participants had detectable plasma l-methamphetamine, with maximum observed concentrations 6.3 and 10.0 μg/L after 2 and 5 doses, respectively. Positive OF and plasma methamphetamine results are possible after Vicks® VapoInhaler™ administration. Chiral confirmatory analyses are necessary to rule out VapoInhaler™ intake. Implementing a selective d-methamphetamine screening assay can help eliminate false-positive OF results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.