ArticleJournal of analytical toxicology2025
Drug detection in oral fluid and urine after single therapeutic doses of dexamphetamine, lisdexamphetamine, and methylphenidate in healthy volunteers.
Article in Journal of analytical toxicology, 2025. 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 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.
- Analyses of dextroamphetamine and its metabolites in human urine by capillary electrophoresis with diode array and capacitively coupled contactless conductivity detection (CE-DAD-CAnalytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2026Article
- Multidimensional Evaluation of Lisdexamfetamine: Pharmacology, Therapeutic Use, Toxicity and Forensic Implications.Basic & clinical pharmacology & toxicology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Dexamphetamine, lisdexamphetamine, and methylphenidate are central stimulant drugs widely used to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), but poor adherence may lead to treatment failure, and the drugs are also subject to misuse and diversion. Drug analysis in oral fluid may thus be useful for monitoring adherence and misuse. We measured drug concentrations in oral fluid and urine after controlled dosing to investigate detection windows and evaluate the chosen cutoffs. Healthy volunteers ingested single oral doses of 10 mg dexamphetamine (n = 11), 30 mg lisdexamphetamine (n = 11), or 20 mg methylphenidate (n = 10), after which they collected parallel oral fluid and urine samples every 8 h for 4-6 days. Amphetamine (analytical cutoff, oral fluid: 1.5 ng/mL; urine: 50 ng/mL), methylphenidate (oral fluid: 0.06 ng/mL), and ritalinic acid (urine: 500 ng/mL) were analyzed using fully validated chromatographic methods. The median time from ingestion to the last detection in oral fluid was 67 ± 4.9 h (lisdexamphetamine) and 69 ± 8.8 h (dexamphetamine) for amphetamine and 36 ± 2.5 h for methylphenidate. This was comparable to urine (77 ± 5.1 h for lisdexamphetamine, 78 ± 4.5 h for dexamphetamine, and 41 ± 2.4 h for ritalinic acid). The interindividual variability in detection times was large, probably in part due to pH-dependent disposition. Using a logistic regression approach, we found similar detection rates as a function of time since intake in urine and oral fluid with the chosen cutoffs, with a high degree of probability for detection at least 24 h after intake of a low therapeutic dose. This demonstrates the usefulness of oral fluid as a test matrix to assess adherence to ADHD medications, provided that the analytical method is sensitive, requiring a cutoff as low as 0.1 ng/mL for methylphenidate. Detection windows similar to those in urine may be achieved for amphetamine and methylphenidate in oral fluid.
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.