ArticleJournal of analytical toxicology2024
Enantiomer-specific analysis of amphetamine in urine, oral fluid and blood.
Article in Journal of analytical toxicology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Interpol review of forensic drug chemistry, 2022-2025.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2026Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Illegal amphetamine is usually composed of a racemic mixture of the two enantiomers (S)- and (R)-amphetamine. However, when amphetamine is used in medical treatment, the more potent (S)-amphetamine enantiomer is used. Enantiomer-specific analysis of (S)- and (R)-amphetamine is therefore used to separate legal medical use from illegal recreational use. The aim of the present study was to describe our experience with enantiomer-specific analysis of amphetamine in urine and oral fluid, as well as blood, and examine whether the distribution of the two enantiomers seems to be the same in different matrices. We investigated 1,722 urine samples and 1,977 oral fluid samples from prison inmates, and 652 blood samples from suspected drugged drivers, where prescription of amphetamine was reported. Analyses were performed using ultra high performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (UHPLC-MS-MS). The enantiomer separation was achieved by using a chiral column, and results from the method validation are reported. Samples containing <60% (S)-amphetamine were interpreted as representing illegal use of amphetamine. The distribution of the two enantiomers was compared between different matrices. In urine and oral fluid, the mean amount of (S)-amphetamine was 45.2 and 43.7%, respectively, while in blood, the mean amount of (S)-amphetamine was 45.8%. There was no statistically significant difference in the amount of (S)-amphetamine between urine and oral fluid samples and between urine and blood samples, but the difference was significant in blood compared to oral fluid samples (P < 0.001). Comparison of urine and oral fluid between similar populations indicated that enantiomers of amphetamine can be interpreted in the same way, although marginally higher amounts of (R)-amphetamine may occur in oral fluid. Oral fluid, having several advantages, especially during collection, could be a preferred matrix in testing for illegal amphetamine intake in users of medical amphetamine.
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.