Trial reportJournal of analytical toxicology2022
Urinary Excretion Profile of Cannabinoid Analytes Following Acute Administration of Oral and Vaporized Cannabis in Infrequent Cannabis Users.
Trial report in Journal of analytical toxicology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interpol review of forensic drug chemistry, 2022-2025.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2026Review
- Interpol review of forensic toxicology, 2023-2025.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2026Review
- Chronic inflammatory pain and chronic THC vapor inhalation alter midbrain neuronal activity.Journal of neurophysiology · 2025Article
- THC Vapor Inhalation Attenuates Hyperalgesia in Rats Using a Chronic Inflammatory Pain Model.The journal of pain · 2024Article
- Article
- Advances and Challenges in Modeling Cannabidiol Pharmacokinetics and Hepatotoxicity.Drug metabolism and disposition: the biological fate of chemicals · 2024Review
- ΔCardiovascular toxicology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Traditionally, smoking has been the predominant method for administering cannabis, but alternative routes of administration have become more prevalent. Additionally, research examining urinary cannabinoid excretion profiles has primarily focused on 11-nor-9-carboxy-∆9-tetrahydrocannabinol (∆9-THC-COOH), a metabolite of ∆9-tetrahydrocannabinol (∆9-THC), as the primary analyte. The aim of the current study was to characterize the urinary excretion profile of ∆9-THC-COOH, ∆9-THC, ∆8-tetrahydrocannabinol (∆8-THC), 11-hydroxy-∆9-tetrahydrocannabinol (11-OH-∆9-THC), ∆9-tetrahydrocannabivarin (THCV), 11-nor-∆9-tetrahydrocannabivarin-9-carboxlic acid (THCV-COOH), cannabidiol (CBD), cannabinol (CBN) and 8,11-dihydroxytetrahydrocannabinol (8,11-diOH-∆9-THC) following controlled administration of both oral and vaporized cannabis. Participants (n = 21, 11 men/10 women) who were infrequent cannabis users ingested cannabis-containing brownies (0, 10 and 25 mg ∆9-THC) and inhaled vaporized cannabis (0, 5 and 20 mg ∆9-THC) across six double-blind outpatient sessions. Urinary concentrations of ∆9-THC analytes were measured at baseline and for 8 h after cannabis administration. Sensitivity, specificity and agreement between the three immunoassays (IAs) for ∆9-THC-COOH (cutoffs of 20, 50 and 100 ng/mL) and liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS-MS) analyses (confirmatory cutoff concentrations of 15 ng/mL) were assessed. Urinary concentrations for ∆9-THC-COOH, ∆9-THC, 11-OH-∆9-THC, THCV, CBN and 8,11-diOH-∆9-THC all peaked at 5-6 h and 4 h following oral and vaporized cannabis administration, respectively. At each active dose, median maximum concentrations (Cmax) for detected analytes were quantitatively higher after oral cannabis administration compared to vaporized. Using current recommended federal workplace drug-testing criteria (screening via IA with a cutoff of ≥50 ng/mL and confirmation via LC-MS-MS at a cutoff of ≥15 ng/mL), urine specimens tested positive for ∆9-THC-COOH in 97.6% of oral sessions and 59.5% of vaporized sessions with active ∆9-THC doses. These data indicate that while ∆9-THC-COOH may serve as the most consistent confirmatory analyte under the current drug-testing guidelines, future work examining 11-OH-∆9-THC under similar parameters could yield an alternative analyte that may be helpful in distinguishing between licit and illicit cannabis products.
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.