ArticleJournal of mass spectrometry and advances in the clinical lab2025
Urine methamphetamine-to-amphetamine ratio by LC-MS/MS to differentiate methamphetamine use from pharmaceutical impurity in patients prescribed amphetamine.
Article in Journal of mass spectrometry and advances in the clinical lab, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Patients compliant with prescribed amphetamine (AMPH) should not have detectable methamphetamine (METH) in their urine; detectable METH typically indicates illicit use. However, we have identified patients with results suggestive of METH as an impurity in prescribed AMPH. Objectives: Derive a METH:AMPH ratio cut-off from a training set of patients compliant with AMPH prescriptions to differentiate METH as an impurity from illicit use. Methods: Retrospective review of AMPH and METH-positive cases by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) at Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH) and Luxor Scientific. Correlated results with clinical and medication history and compliance with prescribed medications. Results: The median ± interquartile range (IQR) METH:AMPH ratio for the Adderall training sets was 0.43 ± 0.31 % and 0.05 ± 0.040 %, with a maximum ratio of 1.125 % and 0.125 % at BWH and Luxor, respectively. The median ± IQR METH:AMPH ratio for the Luxor d-AMPH training set was 0.039 ± 0.028 %, with a maximum ratio of 0.09 %; not statistically different from the Adderall training set. Assessment of the BWH test set where METH < AMPH (n = 22) revealed that METH was likely due to an impurity (n = 10), distant METH mis/use (n = 11), or requiring further analysis (n = 1). METH was also detected by LC-MS/MS in a commercial AMPH calibrator and in Adderall XR. Discussion: METH may represent an impurity in the AMPH formulation. Laboratories are encouraged to define a METH:AMPH ratio below which an impurity is the likely explanation for METH and/or to increase the METH positivity cut-off to 50 or 100 ng/mL to reduce potential false-accusations of illicit METH use.
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.