Interpretation of Oral Fluid Tests for Drugs of Abuse

EDWARD J. CONE; MARILYN A. HUESTIS

doi:10.1196/annals.1384.037

Ann N Y Acad Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 Jun 22.

Published in final edited form as:

Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2007 Mar; 1098: 51–103.

Published online 2007 Mar 1. doi: 10.1196/annals.1384.037

PMCID: PMC2700061

NIHMSID: NIHMS118888

PMID: 17332074

Interpretation of Oral Fluid Tests for Drugs of Abuse

EDWARD J. CONE^a and MARILYN A. HUESTIS^b

Author information Copyright and License information Disclaimer

Abstract

Oral fluid testing for drugs of abuse offers significant advantages over urine as a test matrix. Collection can be performed under direct observation with reduced risk of adulteration and substitution. Drugs generally appear in oral fluid by passive diffusion from blood, but also may be deposited in the oral cavity during oral, smoked, and intranasal administration. Drug metabolites also can be detected in oral fluid. Unlike urine testing, there may be a close correspondence between drug and metabolite concentrations in oral fluid and in blood. Interpretation of oral fluid results for drugs of abuse should be an iterative process whereby one considers the test results in the context of program requirements and a broad scientific knowledge of the many factors involved in determining test outcome. This review delineates many of the chemical and metabolic processes involved in the disposition of drugs and metabolites in oral fluid that are important to the appropriate interpretation of oral fluid tests. Chemical, metabolic, kinetic, and analytic parameters are summarized for selected drugs of abuse, and general guidelines are offered for understanding the significance of oral fluid tests.

Keywords: oral fluid, saliva, interpretation, testing, advantages, limitations

INTRODUCTION

Testing for drugs of abuse in biological fluids and tissues is an international phenomenon, practiced in many different settings for a variety of reasons. The majority of testing in the United States occurs in workplace programs, but a significant volume of testing also is performed in the United States and abroad in drug treatment centers, hospital emergency rooms, pain treatment clinics, sports organizations, and by courts and other legal authorities. Historically, urine has been the matrix of choice for testing, but recent advances in technology and the introduction of commercial oral fluid assays have effectively established oral fluid as a viable alternative. The popularity of oral fluid as a test matrix has arisen because of its distinct advantages over urine. Oral fluid collection can be performed in almost any location, with less embarrassment and under directly observed conditions. The noninvasiveness of collection and reduced opportunity for adulteration and substitution, in contrast to urine testing, are key factors to oral fluid’s success. Some programs now use oral fluid as the test matrix of choice, especially in the private-sector workplace, drug treatment, and legal settings. The obvious advantages of oral fluid and concomitant advances in technology led the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to propose oral fluid analysis for inclusion in the federal workplace drug-testing program.¹

There is now a significant body of scientific literature on oral fluid testing. Several reviews document aspects of oral fluid testing including drug disposition,²^–⁶ detection times,⁷ diagnostics,⁸ legal issues⁹ and application of state-of-the-art technologies.¹⁰^–¹² This review addresses chemical, physiological, and pharmacological factors that determine the outcome of oral fluid results and offers general guidelines for interpretation of positive tests and discussion of the limitations of oral fluid testing.

FACTORS INVOLVED IN INTERPRETATION OF ORAL FLUID DRUG TESTS

Interpretation of oral fluid drug results is dependent in part on the purpose of testing. Workplace drug testing is primarily performed as a means of identification of individuals, frequently in safety-sensitive positions, who are abusing drugs and as a deterrent to drug misuse by the general workforce. Drug treatment specialists perform drug testing to foster drug abstinence and compliance with program requirements. Testing in legal settings documents program violations, compliance, and provides evidence of impairment.

There are numerous considerations in drug test interpretation. Figure 1 illustrates the flow of the test process and factors important to accurate interpretation. Questions posed during the interpretational process depend upon the nature of the drug-testing program, and may be limited in scope, complex, and sometime seek answers that go beyond reasonable scientific certainty. Metabolic disposition patterns should be understood for each drug class. The body of evidence, including what is known with certainty and what is not known, must be brought to bear during the interpretation process.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nihms118888f1.jpg

Open in a separate window

FIGURE 1

Schematic of oral fluid drug testing and interpretation of results.

Oral fluid is a composite tissue consisting primarily of saliva, mixed with gingival crevicular fluid, buccal and mucosal transudates, cellular debris, bacteria, and residues of ingested products. Salivary glands are highly perfused, allowing rapid transference of drug in blood to salivary glands. Within minutes of parenteral drug administration, drug can appear in oral fluid.¹³ Transfer of drug and metabolites from blood to saliva occurs primarily by passive diffusion and is dependent upon numerous factors, including chemical properties of the drug, salivary pH, concentration of un-ionized drug (ionized drug does not passively diffuse across cellular membranes), drug–protein binding (only the free fraction can diffuse), and membrane characteristics. Because of the relative acidity of saliva compared to plasma, basic drugs (e.g., amphetamine and cocaine) are frequently found in higher concentrations than in plasma, yielding saliva/plasma ratios (s/p) greater than unity.¹³ Although the terms “saliva” and “oral fluid” are used somewhat interchangeably in scientific literature, oral fluid more accurately describes the biological characteristics of this matrix. Thus, oral fluid is the term used predominantly in this review.

Interpretation of oral fluid tests requires an understanding of the unique features of this biological matrix, chemical and physiological factors that affect drug transfer into oral fluid, analytical factors, kinetics of drug disposition, drug metabolic patterns, and potential risks of oral contamination and passive exposure. Clearly, oral fluid tests are most useful in detection of recent drug use. Drugs and metabolites can generally be detected for a period of several hours to several days following drug exposure.⁷ Drug concentrations in oral fluid are generally related to content in blood, but also may be present as residual drug in the oral cavity. The frequently observed high correspondence of drug concentrations in oral fluid to blood makes oral fluid an attractive matrix for use in detection of recent drug use and in interpretation of possible drug-induced behavioral effects.

A table is included for each drug that summarizes key chemical, metabolic, kinetic and analytic parameters for each drug. Following each table, general guidelines are offered, although they should not be considered absolute criteria. A list defining each parameter and the usefulness of factors influencing oral fluid test outcome follows:

Drug/metabolite(s) in oral fluid and urine: predominant drug or metabolite(s) most often detected in oral fluid and urine following drug exposure.
Fb: free drug fraction in blood not bound to plasma protein. Only free unionized drug can passively diffuse across biological membranes; hence, highly protein-bound drugs generally will be present in lower concentration in oral fluid than in plasma.
Plasma/oral fluid t1/2: period of time required for drug concentration in plasma or oral fluid to decrease by 50%. Drugs with longer half-lives generally can be detected for longer periods of time.
Plasma: oral fluid correlation: relationship between drug concentrations in plasma and oral fluid. A high plasma: oral fluid correlation reflects the close relationship between plasma and oral fluid.
s/p and s/b: saliva (oral fluid) to plasma or blood ratio. Saliva to plasma ratios greater than unity (>1) generally are observed for drugs whose molecular structures contain a basic nitrogen moiety and exhibit low plasma–protein binding. Basic drugs tend to accumulate in oral fluid in higher concentrations than in plasma because of the lower pH of saliva. Values of s/p or s/b reported in this review are actual measured values of drug in saliva (oral fluid), plasma, and whole blood.
P and log P: partition coefficient or logarithm of the partition coefficient of a drug. These parameters express the relative distribution of drug between oil and water under specified conditions, for example, octanol/water at 37°C and pH 7.4. Drugs with higher P or log P are more lipophilic and generally distribute more rapidly and to a greater degree into bodily tissues and fluids.
pKa: negative logarithm of equilibrium coefficient of neutral and charged forms of a compound. pKa is a constant for each drug. For basic compounds, those with higher pKa constants exhibit greater ionization in plasma (pH 7.4) than drugs with lower pKa constants. For acidic drugs, those with lower pKa constants will exhibit greater ionization in plasma (pH 7.4) than drugs with higher pKa constants. A drug’s pKa affects the transfer of basic drugs from plasma to saliva in two ways. Only un-ionized drug will transfer across epithelial membranes, and the acidic nature of saliva allows accumulation of greater concentrations of basic drugs than neutral or acidic drugs.
Screening test: initial laboratory test commonly employed to rapidly eliminate negative specimens and identify presumptively positive specimens. Most screening procedures are commercial immunoassay-based tests; administrative cutoff concentrations are utilized to distinguish between positive and negative specimens; drugs that do not react sufficiently in these assays may, by necessity, be tested by chromatographic methods.
Confirmation test: laboratory test utilized to confirm the presence of a specific drug analyte(s) at or above an administrative cutoff concentration(s).
Detection time (cutoff, ng/mL): typical duration of time a drug can be detected in a biological specimen at a specified ng/mL cutoff concentration. This parameter serves as a useful guideline to establish the probable time that drug use occurred prior to specimen collection. This parameter is frequently determined following administration of a single drug dose and may underestimate detection times following multiple drug administrations or chronic drug usage. Detection times also are highly influenced by cutoff concentrations employed in the analytical test.
Interpretation resources: cites key clinical studies and reports that were used in development of interpretational guidelines for oral fluid.
Possible drug/metabolite sources: potential sources of drug, or drug-associated metabolite(s), which might result in a positive oral fluid or urine test.
Biomarkers: drug-related metabolites and analytes that predict or signal, with a high degree of reliability, additional information for interpretation, for example, identification of anhydroecognine methyl ester indicates that cocaine has been administered by the smoking route. It should be noted that biomarkers are only useful, however, if it can be established that they were not present originally as contaminants of the administered drug or produced as artifacts during specimen storage and analysis. Of additional note, many of the biomarkers proposed in this review are based on urine studies and have not been established as biomarkers in oral fluid tests. Further, when biomarkers are present, they offer additional assurances of drug use, but their absence does not lessen the value of a confirmed test.

DRUG INTERPRETATION

Amphetamines

Amphetamine

Overview

Amphetamine is a sympathomimetic amine with central nervous stimulant activity (Table 1). The d-isomer (dextro-amphetamine) is three to four times more potent than the l-isomer (levo-amphetamine) as a stimulant. It is prescribed for treatment of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and narcolepsy. Amphetamine is available in immediate-release and sustained-release formulations in doses ranging from 3 to 30 mg. Some formulations, such as Adderall^®, contain combinations of d- and l-isomers.

TABLE 1

Summary of chemical, metabolic, kinetic, and analytic factors important in interpretation of oral fluid tests for amphetamine

Factor	Amphetamine information
Drug/metabolite(s) in oral fluid	Amphetamine¹⁶
Drug/metabolite(s) in urine	Amphetamine; p-hydroxy-amphetamine; norephedrine; p-hydroxynorephedrine²⁰
Amphetamine Fb	16% (similar for d- and l-isomers)¹⁶
Amphetamine plasma t1/2	d-Amphetamine (acidic urine): 6.8 h
	d-amphetamine (alkaline urine) 17.0 h
	l-amphetamine (acid urine): 7.7 h
	l-amphetamine (alkaline urine) 23.7 h¹⁶
Amphetamine oral fluid t1/2	d-Amphetamine (acidic urine): 6.8 h
	d-amphetamine (alkaline urine) 17.2 h
	l-amphetamine (acidic urine): 8.5 h
	l-amphetamine (alkaline urine) 24.6 h¹⁶
Amphetamine plasma: oral fluid correlation	Proportional to plasma in postabsorptive phase¹⁶
Amphetamine s/p	2.76 (postabsorptive phase)¹⁶
Amphetamine log P (HPLC)	0.82¹²⁷
Amphetamine pKa	10¹⁶
Amphetamine screening test	Amphetamines
Amphetamine confirmation test	Amphetamine
Amphetamine detection time in oral fluid [cutoff, ng/mL]	Amphetamine GC, [10]: 20–50 h¹⁶
Amphetamine detection time in urine [cutoff, ng/mL]	Single dose: EIA [1000] 24–72 h⁷,128; chronic: EIA [300]: 9 days; EIA [1000]: 9 days¹²⁹
Amphetamine oral fluid interpretation resources¹⁶	–

Open in a separate window

HPLC=high-performance liquid chromatography; GC=gas chromatography; EIA=enzyme immunoassay.

Amphetamine is excreted intact in urine and also as metabolites. Amphetamine metabolites are produced primarily by oxidative enzymes, leading to mostly inactive products. The amount of amphetamine excreted in urine is highly dependent upon urinary pH. Under acid conditions, as much as 57–66% of the dose may be excreted unchanged, whereas under alkaline conditions, the amount may decrease to 1–5%.¹⁴ Analytical methods are available for determining the enantiomeric forms of amphetamine and methamphetamine.¹⁵ The mean elimination half-life of d-amphetamine is slightly shorter than that of l-amphetamine.¹⁶ Amphetamine also is produced as a metabolite of methamphetamine and from a variety of pharmaceutical products (see Interpretation).

Amphetamine appears rapidly in oral fluid following administration and parallels plasma drug concentrations. Wan et al.¹⁶ evaluated the influence of systemic administration of sodium bicarbonate and ammonium chloride on the disposition of amphetamine in plasma and oral fluid. Although salivary pH was relatively constant with both treatments, the half-lives of d- and l-amphetamine were reduced considerably under acidic conditions.

Interpretation of Oral Fluid Amphetamine Tests

Positive test for amphetamine (no methamphetamine)
- Interpretation: amphetamine use; must rule out possibility that amphetamine presence is from metabolism of another drug. Determination of d/l-isomer ratio will assist interpretation.¹⁷ L-amphetamine only (no l-methamphetamine) would not occur from use of nasal inhaler.
Possible sources of amphetamine
- Prescription products containing amphetamine
- Illicit amphetamine
- Drugs that are metabolized to amphetamine (and methamphetamine) include: amfetaminil (amphetamine only); benzphetamine (d-isomers of amphetamine and methamphetamine); clobenzorex (d-amphetamine only); dimethylamphetamine (d-isomers of amphetamine and methamphetamine); ethylamphetamine (amphetamine only); famprofazone (d/l-isomers of amphetamine and methamphetamine); fencamine (d/l-isomers of amphetamine and methamphetamine); fenethylline (d/l-amphetamine only); fenproporex (d/l-amphetamine only); furfenorex (amphetamine and methamphetamine); mefenorex (amphetamine only); mesocarb (amphetamine only); prenylamine (d/l-amphetamine only); and selegiline (l-deprenyl; l-isomers of amphetamine and methamphetamine).¹⁷^–¹⁹
- At present, although no oral fluid or urine studies have been reported on passive amphetamine smoke exposure, the risk of a positive test from passive exposure does not appear likely.
Biomarkers
- The confirmed presence of oxidative metabolites of amphetamine such as p-hydroxyamphetamine, norephedrine, and p-hydroxynorephedrine in oral fluid would be useful to substantiate use.²⁰

Methamphetamine

Overview

Methamphetamine is a sympathomimetic amine with central nervous stimulant activity similar to amphetamine (Table 2). The d-isomer (dextro-methamphetamine) is prescribed for treatment of ADHD and for exogenous obesity. It is available as an immediate-release formulation containing 5 mg of methamphetamine hydrochloride. The usual effective dose is 20 to 25 mg daily. The l-isomer (levmetamfetamine; l-desoxyephedrine), marketed as a nasal inhaler decongestant product, is sold over the counter (OTC). The nasal inhaler typically contains 50 mg of levmetamfetamine. Illicit methamphetamine is widely available and abused. Methamphetamine is easily manufactured in clandestine laboratories and is the most prevalent synthetic drug manufactured in the United States. The synthetic route determines which isomeric form of methamphetamine is produced. Currently, the most common route yields the d-isomer, but older methods primarily yielded a racemic mixture.

TABLE 2

Summary of chemical, metabolic, kinetic, and analytic factors important in interpretation of oral fluid tests for methamphetamine

Factor	Methamphetamine information
Drug/metabolite(s) in oral fluid	Methamphetamine; amphetamine²⁴
Drug/metabolite(s) in urine	Methamphetamine; amphetamine, p-hydroxy-methamphetamine²⁵
Methamphetamine Fb	10–20%¹³⁰
Methamphetamine plasma t1/2	9.3–11.1 h²⁴; 8.3–18.2 h²³; 10.1 h¹³¹
Methamphetamine oral fluid t1/2	8.1–11.1 h²⁴
Methamphetamine plasma: oral fluid correlation	r² = 0.22²⁴; r² = 0.50¹³¹
Methamphetamine s/p	Oral: 2²⁴; 7.76¹³¹; IV: 6²³
Methamphetamine log P (HPLC)	0.86¹²⁷
Methamphetamine pKa	10.1²⁴
Methamphetamine screening test	Amphetamines EIA
Methamphetamine confirmation test	Methamphetamine; amphetamine
Methamphetamine/metabolite detection time in oral fluid [cutoff, ng/mL]	Single dose X4, methamphetamine: GC-MS [2.5]: 6–76 h; methamphetamine/amphetamine: GC-MS [50/2.5]: 24 h²⁴
Methamphetamine detection time in urine [cutoff, ng/mL]	Single dose X4, methamphetamine: GC-MS [250]: 31–96 h; methamphetamine/amphetamine: GC-MS [250/100]: 25–96 h; me- thamphetamine/amphetamine: GC-MS [500/200]: 22–92 h¹³²
Methamphetamine oral fluid interpretation resources²³,24,131

Open in a separate window

HPLC=high-performance liquid chromatography; GC-MS=gas chromatography-mass spectrometry.

Methamphetamine is abused by numerous routes including smoking, snorting, injection, and oral administration. The l-isomer of methamphetamine, levmetamfetamine contained in nasal inhalers, also can produce positive results for methamphetamine in urine.²¹ Methamphetamine is excreted intact in urine and also as metabolites following enzymatic oxidation and conjugation. Like amphetamine, the amount of methamphetamine excreted is highly dependent upon urinary pH. Amphetamine, a metabolite of methamphetamine, is excreted in urine in variable amounts. Kim et al.²² reported that the ratio of amphetamine to methamphetamine in urine increased over time from 0.13 to 0.36 following oral doses of 10 or 20 mg of d-methamphetamine hydrochloride. Cook et al.²³ reported a similar finding for subjects administered intravenous and smoked d-methamphetamine.

Methamphetamine and amphetamine appear rapidly in plasma and oral fluid following administration. The relative amounts of amphetamine to methamphetamine in plasma and oral fluid were reported to be approximately 21% and 24%, respectively.²⁴ Oral fluid methamphetamine concentrations were higher than plasma concentrations by approximately fourfold.

Interpretation of Oral Fluid Methamphetamine Tests

Positive test for methamphetamine (no amphetamine)
- Interpretation: methamphetamine use; must rule out possibility that methamphetamine presence is from metabolism of another drug or from use of over-the-counter nasal inhaler. Determination of d/l-isomer ratio will assist interpretation¹⁷
Positive test for methamphetamine and amphetamine (methamphetamine > amphetamine)
- Interpretation: methamphetamine use; must rule out possibility that methamphetamine and amphetamine presence is from metabolism of another drug or from use of OTC nasal inhaler. Determination of d/l-isomer ratio will assist interpretation¹⁷
Positive test for methamphetamine and amphetamine (methamphetamine < amphetamine)
- Interpretation: possible combined use of methamphetamine and amphetamine; must rule out possibility that presence is due to metabolism of other drugs. OTC nasal inhaler use would not account for high abundance of amphetamine. Determination of d/l-isomer ratio will assist interpretation¹⁷
Possible sources of methamphetamine
- Prescription products containing methamphetamine
- Illicit methamphetamine
- Drugs that may be metabolized to methamphetamine (and amphetamine): include: benzphetamine (d-isomers); dimethylamphetamine (d-isomers); famprofazone (d/l-isomers); fencamine (d/l-isomers); furfenorex; and selegiline (l-deprenyl; l-isomers)¹⁷^–¹⁹
- Nasal inhaler (l-methamphetamine)
- At present, although no oral fluid or urine studies have been reported on passive methamphetamine smoke exposure, the risk of a positive test from passive exposure does not appear likely
Biomarkers
- The confirmed presence of oxidative metabolites of methamphetamine such as p-hydroxymethamphetamine in oral fluid would be useful to substantiate use²⁵
- The confirmed presence of amphetamine in oral fluid would be useful to substantiate methamphetamine use. DHHS has proposed that a positive confirmed test for methamphetamine be accompanied by the confirmed presence of amphetamine at the assay’s limit of detection.¹

3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA)

Overview

MDMA is a synthetic, ring-substituted amphetamine derivative that has become popular as an illicit recreational drug (Table 3). MDMA is one of numerous “designer” drugs, often referred to as “club drugs,” because of induction of feelings of euphoria, energy, and a desire to socialize. MDMA street names include “ecstasy,” “XTC,” “E,” and “Adam.” “Ecstasy” may also be used to denote the group of ring-substituted illicit amphetamines. MDMA exerts multiple effects on neurotransmitter systems and may produce acute toxic reactions such as tachycardia, hypertension, arrhythmia, panic attack, and psychosis.²⁶ Recreational doses are generally in the range of 75 to 150 mg. Illicit synthetic routes generally produce a racemic mixture of R- and S-isomers. The S(+) isomer of MDMA is considered to be responsible for psychostimulant and empathic effects and the R(−) isomer for its hallucinogenic properties.²⁷

TABLE 3

Summary of chemical, metabolic, kinetic, and analytic factors important in interpretation of oral fluid tests for MDMA

Factor	MDMA information
Drug/metabolite(s) in oral fluid	MDMA; MDA; HMMA³⁰
Drug/metabolite(s) in urine	MDMA; MDA; HHMA; HMMA; HMA²⁷
MDMA Fb	34–40%¹³³
MDMA plasma t1/2	8–9 h²⁷; 7.2 h³⁰
MDMA oral fluid t1/2	5.6 h³⁰
MDMA plasma: oral fluid correlation	0.81³⁰
MDMA s/p	6.4–18.1³⁰; 0.8–22.4³⁵
MDMA log P (octanol/water, 37°C, pH 7.4)	1.68¹³⁴
MDMA pKa	10.4¹³³
MDMA screening test	Methamphetamine/MDMA
MDMA confirmation test	MDMA; MDA
MDMA/metabolite detection time in oral fluid [cutoff, ng/mL]	MDMA: GC-MS [LOD = 5.7]: 24 h; MDA: GC-MS [LOD = 1]: 24 h³⁰
MDMA detection time in urine [cutoff, ng/mL]	MDMA/HMMA, GC-MS [20 ng/mL]: 48 h⁷
MDMA oral fluid interpretation resources³⁰,31,35	–

Open in a separate window

MDMA=3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine; MDA=3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine; HHMA=3,4-dihydroxymethamphetamine; HMMA=4-hydroxy-3-methoxymethamphetamine; HMA=4-hydroxy-3-methoxyamphetamine; GC-MS=gas chromatography-mass spectrometry; LOD = limit of detection.

MDMA is typically administered by the oral route and reaches maximal blood concentrations in approximately 2 h.²⁷ It is metabolized by multiple pathways, primarily involving N-demethylation and O-demethylenation. N-demethylation of MDMA yields 3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDA), an active metabolite exhibiting similar pharmacological properties as the parent drug. O-demethylenation of MDMA and MDA produces 3,4-dihydroxymethamphetamine (HHMA) and 3,4-dihydroxyamphetamine (HHA), respectively. Additional metabolites are formed by O-methylation of HHMA to 4-hydroxy-3-methoxymethamphetamine (HMMA) and of HHA to 4-hydroxy-3-methoxyamphetamine (HMA), deamination, and conjugation. Nonlinear pharmacokinetics of MDMA was observed in humans; small increases in recreational doses gave rise to disproportionate increases in MDMA plasma concentrations.²⁸ Fallon et al.²⁹ reported that the plasma half-life in humans of (R)-MDMA (5.8 ± 2.2 h) was significantly longer than that of (S)-MDMA (3.6 ± 0.9 h). Approximately 15% of the dose of MDMA is excreted in urine in 24 h as intact MDMA, 1.5% as MDA, 17.7% as HHMA, 22.7% as HMMA, and 1.3% as HMA.²⁷

Oral administration of 100 mg of MDMA to humans yielded peak oral fluid and plasma concentrations of MDMA at 1.5 h after drug intake.³⁰ Oral fluid concentrations of MDMA were an order of magnitude higher than in plasma. HMMA, the major metabolite of MDMA, was detected in oral fluid in trace amounts, and MDA was present at approximately 4–5% of MDMA. Oral fluid concentrations of MDMA were highly correlated with plasma MDMA. The high concentrations of MDMA in oral fluid relative to plasma were attributed to the high pKa of MDMA and low plasma–protein binding.

Interpretation of Oral Fluid MDMA Tests

Positive test for MDMA (no MDA)
- Interpretation: illicit MDMA use
Positive test for MDMA and MDA
- MDMA ≫ MDA
  - ▪ Interpretation: illicit MDMA use; presence of MDA likely due to metabolism of MDMA to MDA
- MDA ≥ MDMA
  - ▪ Interpretation: combined use of illicit MDMA and illicit MDA, or illicit MDMA contaminated with MDA
Possible sources of MDMA
- Illicit MDMA
Biomarkers
- The confirmed presence of MDA or HMMA in oral fluid would be useful to substantiate MDMA use.³⁰ It should be noted that MDA could be present either from metabolism of MDMA or use of MDA.

3,4-Methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDA)

Overview

MDA is a synthetic, ring-substituted amphetamine derivative available as an illicit recreational drug (Table 4). It appears to produce similar pharmacological effects as MDMA. MDA street names include “love drug” and “love pill.” Recreational doses of MDA are similar to MDMA and generally in the range of 75 to 150 mg. Like MDMA, MDA has a chiral center (R- and S-isomers), and illicit synthesis leads to production of the racemic mixture. MDA also serves as a precursor in the synthesis of MDMA and 3,4-methylenedioxy-N-ethylamphetamine (MDEA).

TABLE 4

Summary of chemical, metabolic, kinetic, and analytic factors important in interpretation of oral fluid tests for MDA

Factor	MDA information
Drug/metabolite(s) in oral fluid	MDA³⁰
Drug/metabolite(s) in urine	MDA; HHA; HMA²⁷
MDA Fb	34–40%¹³³
MDA plasma t1/2	24.9 h (metabolite of MDMA)²⁷
MDA oral fluid t1/2	MDA (MDMA dosed): 5.6–37.3 h²⁸; MDA (MDEA administration): 3.4 h³³
MDA plasma: oral fluid correlation	Not available
MDA s/p	Not available
MDA log P (octanol/water, 37°C, pH 7.4)	1.38¹³⁴
MDA pKa	10.0¹³³
MDA screening test	Amphetamines/MDA
MDA confirmation test	MDA
MDA detection time in oral fluid [cutoff, ng/mL]	Not available
MDA detection time in urine [cutoff, ng/mL]	Not available
MDA oral fluid interpretation resources³⁰	–

Open in a separate window

MDA=3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine; HMA=4-hydroxy-3-methoxyamphetamine; HHA= 3,4-dihydroxyamphetamine.

Although MDMA has been extensively studied in humans, there are few metabolic data on MDA. MDA is an active metabolite of MDMA and is produced by O-demethyleneation (see MDMA). HHA and HMA are metabolites of MDA. A number of studies have characterized the kinetics of MDA (as a metabolite of MDMA),¹⁸^,²⁸^,³¹ but there appears to be little information on MDA administered under controlled clinical settings.

MDA has been reported to appear in oral fluid following the administration of MDMA in concentrations representing approximately 4–5% of MDMA.³²

Interpretation of Oral Fluid MDA Tests

Positive test for MDA (no MDMA)
- Interpretation: illicit MDA use
Possible sources of MDA
- Illicit MDA
- Metabolite of illicit MDMA
- Metabolite of illicit MDEA
Biomarkers
- The confirmed presence of HHA and/or HMA in oral fluid would be useful to substantiate MDA use.²⁷

3,4-Methylenedioxyethylamphetamine (MDEA)

Overview

When an ethyl group is substituted for the methyl group of MDMA, the synthetic analogue MDEA, is formed (Table 5). Like MDMA and MDA, MDEA has a chiral center and exists as two isomers. The S(+)-isomer appears to be primarily responsible for its psychotropic effect (higher affinity for presynaptic 5-HT transporters), whereas the R(−)-isomer appears to mediate the hallucinogenic effects.³³ MDEA is referred to by street names such as “eve” and “intellect.” Recreational doses of MDEA are generally in the range of 60 mg to 175 mg.

TABLE 5

Summary of chemical, metabolic, kinetic, and analytic factors important in interpretation of oral fluid tests for MDEA

Factor	MDEA information
Drug/metabolite(s) in oral fluid	MDEA; MDA
Drug/metabolite(s) in urine	MDEA; MDA; HME³⁴
MDEA Fb	Not available
MDEA plasma t1/2	(R)-MDEA: 7.5 h; (S)-MDEA: 4.2 h¹³⁵
MDEA oral fluid t1/2	Not available
MDEA plasma: oral fluid correlation	Not available
MDEA s/p	Not available
MDEA log P (octanol/water, 37°C, pH 7.4)	Not available
MDEA pKa	Not available
MDEA screening test	Amphetamine/MDEA
MDEA confirmation test	MDEA; MDA
MDEA detection time in oral fluid [cut-off, ng/mL]	Not available
MDEA detection time in urine [cut-off, ng/mL]	MDEA, FPIA [300]: 33–62 h; MDEA, GC-MS [5]: 33–62 h; MDA, GC-MS [5]: 32–36 h; HME, GC-MS [10]: 7–8 days¹³⁶
MDEA oral fluid interpretation resources	–

Open in a separate window

MDEA=3,4-methylenedioxyethylamphetamine; MDA=3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine; HME=N-ethyl-4-hydroxy-3-methoxyamphetamine; FPIA=fluorescent polarization immunoassay; GC-MS=gas chromatography-mass spectrometry.

MDEA is metabolized by O-demethylenation and by N-dealkylation of the ethyl-group. The major metabolite is formed by O-demethylenation to yield N-ethyl-4-hydroxy-3-methoxyamphetamine (HME); N-dealkylation leads to formation of the active metabolite MDA.³⁴

MDEA has been reported in oral fluid of recreational drug users in concentrations ranging from 332 to 3320 ng/mL³⁵ and suspected users in concentrations > 100 ng/mL.³²

Interpretation of Oral Fluid MDEA Tests

Positive test for MDEA (no MDA)
- Interpretation: illicit MDEA use
Positive test for MDEA and MDA
- MDEA ≫ MDA
  - ▪ Interpretation: Illicit MDEA use, presence of MDA likely due to metabolism of MDEA to MDA
- MDA ≥ MDEA
  - ▪ Interpretation: combined use of illicit MDEA and illicit MDA, or illicit MDEA contaminated with MDA
Possible sources of MDEA
- Illicit MDEA
Biomarkers
- The confirmed presence of MDA or HME in oral fluid would be useful to substantiate MDEA use.³⁴ It should be noted that MDA could be present either from use of MDA or metabolism of MDEA.

Barbiturates

Overview

Barbiturates are sedatives used for seizure disorders, induction of anesthesia, and management of increased intracranial pressure. Barbiturate actions range from the short-acting, fast-starting pentobarbital and secobarbital to the long-acting, slow-starting phenobarbital, amobarbital, and butabarbital. Depending on the dose, frequency, and duration of use, one can rapidly develop tolerance, physical dependence, and psychological dependence on barbiturates. With the development of tolerance, the margin of safety between the effective dose and the lethal dose becomes narrow. Because of the risks associated with barbiturate abuse, and because new and safer drugs such as the benzodiazepines are now available, barbiturates are less frequently prescribed than in the past. Nearly all barbiturates are structurally related to barbituric acid. Although over 2,000 derivatives of barbituric acid have been synthesized, only about a dozen are currently used. Barbiturates available in the United States include amobarbital, aprobarbital, butabarbital, mephobarbital, pentobarbital, phenobarbital, and secobarbital. One preparation contains a combination of amobarbital and secobarbital. Barbiturate abusers appear to prefer the short-acting (e.g., pentobarbital, secobarbital) and intermediate drugs (e.g., amobarbital), but all barbiturates have significant abuse liability properties.

When used as sedative/hypnotics, barbiturates are typically administered orally. Barbiturates are efficiently absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract and exhibit high bioavailability. Generally, barbiturates are metabolized in the liver by oxidation and conjugation prior to renal excretion.

Studies of barbiturate disposition in oral fluid have been somewhat limited. Because amobarbital is one of the more commonly abused barbiturates and characterized most thoroughly, it is selected as the model compound for interpretation (Table 6). The disposition of amobarbital in oral fluid and serum of human subjects has been reported following ingestion of 120 mg of amobarbital.³⁶^,³⁷ Peak concentrations of amobarbital were observed simultaneously in oral fluid and saliva at approximately 1 h and exhibited similar elimination curves. Concentrations were lower in oral fluid than serum with an average ratio of 0.35.³⁶ Amobarbital was detectable in oral fluid for approximately 50 h.

TABLE 6

Summary of chemical, metabolic, kinetic, and analytic factors important in interpretation of oral fluid tests for amobarbital

Factor	Amobarbital information
Drug/metabolite(s) in oral fluid	Amobarbital³⁶
Drug/metabolite(s) in urine	Amobarbital; 3′-hydroxyamobarbital; N-glucosyl amobarbital; 3′-carboxyamobarbital¹³⁰
Amobarbital Fb	58%³⁶
Amobarbital serum t1/2	20.6 h³⁶
Amobarbital oral fluid t1/2	20.0 h³⁶
Amobarbital plasma: oral fluid correlation	r = 0.96³⁶
Amobarbital s/p	0.35³⁶
Amobarbital log P (octanol/water, 37°C, pH 7.4)	2.07^*
Amobarbital pKa	7.95³⁶
Amobarbital screening test	Barbiturates
Amobarbital confirmation test	Amobarbital
Amobarbital detection time in oral fluid [cutoff, ng/mL]	Amobarbital: GC [100]: 50 h³⁶
Amobarbital detection time in urine [cutoff, ng/mL]	3′-Hydroxyamobarbital: GC [NR]: 5–6 days¹³⁷
Amobarbital oral fluid interpretation resources³⁶,37	–

Open in a separate window

GC=gas chromatography; NR=not reported.

^*Source: Internet: Amobarbital: http://chrom.tutms.tut.ac.jp/JINNO/DRUGDATA/22amobarbital.html (accessed September 29, 2006).

Studies on the detection of other barbiturates in oral fluid also have been reported including pentobarbital,³⁷ hexobarbital,³⁸^,³⁹ and phenobarbital.⁴⁰^–⁴⁵

Interpretation of Oral Fluid Amobarbital Tests

Positive test for amobarbital
- Interpretation: amobarbital use
Possible sources of amobarbital
- Prescription amobarbital
Biomarkers
- The confirmed presence of oxidative metabolites of amobarbital in oral fluid would be useful to substantiate use.

Benzodiazepines

Overview

Benzodiazepines are a large class of structurally related compounds with anxiolytic, sedative, hypnotic, antipsychotic, and antiepileptic effects. Over 40 different drugs have been marketed worldwide and approximately 14 different benzodiazepines are marketed in the United States. The benzodiazepines, as a class, are generally lipophilic drugs with low solubility in water and exhibit efficient absorption from the gastrointestinal tract, first-pass metabolism, and high plasma–protein binding (70–99%). Potencies vary widely over this class of drugs; for example, the usual dose of triazolam is 0.125 mg, whereas 50–100 mg of chlordiazepoxide is usually taken for relief of symptoms of acute alcoholism.

A number of bezodiazepines share sufficient structural similarity such that metabolic conversions from one compound to another may occur. For example, diazepam may be metabolically converted in the human body to temazepam (3-hydroxydiazepam), nordiazepam, and oxazepam. In addition to this complexity, medazepam and ketazolam may be metabolically converted to diazepam. Thus, interpretation of benzodiazepine tests requires a thorough knowledge of the metabolic profiles of benzodiazepines. A number of benzodiazepines contain unique structural substitutions and use distinct metabolic pathways.

Studies of benzodiazepine disposition in oral fluid have been somewhat limited. Because diazepam has been studied most thoroughly, it is selected as the model compound for interpretation (Table 7). The disposition of diazepam and its metabolites in oral fluid has been reported following a single oral dose,⁴⁶^–⁵¹ multiple daily doses,⁴⁸^,⁵¹ and chronic dosing.⁴⁹^,⁵² Following oral diazepam, concentrations in plasma and oral fluid peak at approximately 0.75 h.⁴⁷ Metabolites identified in oral fluid include 3-hydroxydiazepam, nordiazepam, and oxazepam.⁵¹ At steady state, a significant correlation was observed between diazepam and nordiazepam in oral fluid.⁵² The metabolite, nordiazepam, typically is found in higher concentration than diazepam in oral fluid at steady state with a ratio of 1.58 (nordiazepam/diazepam).⁵² A significant correlation also was reported for diazepam concentration in oral fluid and CSF.⁴⁹

TABLE 7

Summary of chemical, metabolic, kinetic, and analytic factors important in interpretation of oral fluid tests for diazepam

Factor	Diazepam information
Drug/metabolite(s) in oral fluid	Diazepam; 3-hydroxydiazepam (temazepam); nordiazepam; oxazepam⁵¹
Drug/metabolite(s) in urine	Diazepam; nordiazepam; oxazepam conjugates⁵¹
Diazepam Fb	96–98%⁴⁷
Diazepam plasma t1/2	21–37 h¹³⁸
Diazepam oral fluid t1/2	Not available
Diazepam plasma: oral fluid correlation	r = 0.97⁴⁷,48
Diazepam s/p	0.035⁴⁷
Diazepam log P (octanol/water)	2.99^a
Diazepam pKa	3.3⁵²
Diazepam screening test	Benzodiazepines
Diazepam confirmation test	Diazepam; nordiazepam; oxazepam
Diazepam detection time in oral fluid [cutoff, ng/mL]	Diazepam GC [NR]: <5–50 h³
Diazepam detection time in urine [cutoff, ng/mL]	Diazepam, EMIT [500]: 2–7 days¹³⁹
Diazepam oral fluid interpretation resources⁴⁶–52,140,141	–

Open in a separate window

GC=gas chromatography; NR=not reported; EMIT=enzyme multiplied immunoassay technique.

^aSource: National Toxicology Program, http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/index.cfm?objectid=7182FF48-BDB7-CEBA-F8980E5DD01A1E2D (accessed September 27, 2006).

Studies on the detection of other benzodiazepines in oral fluid also have been reported including chlordiazepoxide,⁵³ clorazepate,⁴⁹ flunitrazepam,⁵⁴ midazolam,⁵⁵ nitrazepam,⁵⁶^,⁵⁷ and oxazepam.⁵¹

Interpretation of Oral Fluid Diazepam Tests

Positive test for diazepam (other metabolites of diazepam may be present including nordiazepam, oxazepam, and 3-hydroxydiazepam)
- Interpretation: diazepam use, but also possible combined use of diazepam with nordiazepam, oxazepam, or 3-hydroxydiazepam
Possible sources of diazepam
- Diazepam
- Metabolite of medazepam
- Metabolite of ketazolam
Biomarkers
- The confirmed presence of oxidative metabolites of diazepam such as 3-hydroxydiazepam (temazepam), nordiazepam, oxazepam⁵¹ in oral fluid would be useful to substantiate use, but it should be noted that these drug/metabolites may arise from use of other benzodiazepines.

Cannabis (Marijuana, THC)

Overview

Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is a naturally occurring psychoactive constituent of Cannabis sativa L. (marijuana or cannabis; Table 8). Cannabis is the most widely used illegal substance in the world. THC also is found in pharmaceutical preparations, for example, dronabinol, a light yellow resinous oil insoluble in water and formulated in sesame oil. Dronabinol capsules are supplied as round, soft gelatin capsules containing either 2.5, 5, or 10 mg dronabinol for oral administration for the treatment of anorexia associated with weight loss in patients with AIDS and for treatment of nausea and vomiting associated with cancer chemotherapy. THC also is found in small amounts in cannabis products sold commercially such as hemp seeds and hemp oil and may produce positive urine tests for cannabinoid metabolite.⁵⁸

TABLE 8

Summary of chemical, metabolic, kinetic, and analytic factors important in interpretation of oral fluid tests for THC

Factor	THC information
Drug/metabolite(s) in oral fluid	THC; THCCOOH (minor)⁶²–65
Drug/metabolite(s) in urine	THCCOOH; multiple minor metabolites; conjugates¹⁴²
THC Fb	97%¹⁴³
THC plasma t1/2	THC: 0.75 h⁶⁵; THC: (multiphasic): >20 h 144,¹⁴⁵; THCCOOH: 5–6 days¹⁴⁶
THC oral fluid t1/2	0.8 h⁶⁵
THC plasma: oral fluid correlation	High correlation⁶⁵
THC s/p	1.18 (range 0.5–2.2) h⁶⁵
THC log P (octanol/water)	6.97^a
THC pKa	10.6¹⁴³
Cannabis screening test	Cannabinoids
Cannabis confirmation test	THC
THC detection time in oral fluid [cutoff, ng/mL]	Single doses, THC: RIA [1]: 2.0–24.0 h⁶⁵
THCCOOH detection time in urine [cutoff, ng/mL]	Single dose: cannabinoid metabolites: EMIT [20]: 9.3–78.4 h⁶⁵; cannabinoid metabolites: EMIT [50]: 6.4–54.0 h; THCCOOH: GC-MS [15]: 8.0–122.3 h¹⁴⁷; chronic users: cannabinoid metabolites: EMIT [20]: up to 67 days¹⁴⁸
THC oral fluid interpretation resources⁶²–65,149,150	–

Open in a separate window

THC=delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol; THCCOH=11-nor-9-carboxy-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol; RIA=radioimmunoassay; EMIT=enzyme multiplied immunoassay technique; GC-MS=gas chromatography-mass spectrometry.

^aSource: National Toxicology Program, http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/index.cfm?objectid=7182FF48-BDB7-CEBA-F8980E5DD01A1E2D (accessed September 27, 2006).

The primary route of administration of cannabis is by smoking, but ingestion of cannabis products as foodstuffs is not uncommon. THC appears rapidly in plasma following the smoking of cannabis products.⁵⁹ Oral ingestion generally produces lower blood concentrations and delays in time-to-peak effects.⁶⁰^,⁶¹ The highly lipophilic nature of THC allows rapid tissue uptake with concomitant decreases in plasma. THC appears to be released slowly from tissue resulting in a prolonged half-life of THC and metabolites. THC is metabolized by hydroxylation to an active metabolite, 11-hydroxy-THC, which in turn, is oxidized to 11-nor-9-carboxy-Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THCCOOH). THCCOOH is excreted in urine as the water-soluble glucuronic acid conjugate.

THC is found in oral fluid following smoked⁶²^,⁶³ and oral ingestion⁶⁴ of cannabis. THCCOOH is also found in oral fluid at very low concentrations. Extremely high (typically >200 ng/mL), but declining levels of THC, have been reported immediately after smoking cannabis.⁶²^,⁶³^,⁶⁵ Thereafter, THC appeared to decline in similar fashion to plasma concentrations.⁶⁵ On the basis of evidence to date, it appears that THC is present in oral fluid primarily as a result of deposition in the oral cavity, rather than from transfer from blood.⁶⁵ Following ingestion of hemp oil liquid containing THC and capsules of dronabinol, positive oral fluid tests for THC did not occur.⁶⁶ Early studies on passive inhalation of cannabis smoke indicated a potential risk for detection of low concentrations of THC in oral fluid for up to 30 min following exposure;⁶³ however, a more recent study in which methods were taken to eliminate contamination during specimen collection indicated that passive inhalation did not produce positive oral fluid tests.⁶²

Interpretation of Oral Fluid THC Tests

Positive test for THC
- Interpretation: cannabis use, but must rule out possibility that presence is due to use of pharmaceutical THC (Sativex^®). Ingestion of Marinol^® and hemp seed oil does not produce positive oral fluid tests for THC.⁶⁶
Possible sources of THC
- Illicit cannabis products
- Hempseed products (does not give positive THC test)
- Sativex
- Marinol (does not give positive THC oral fluid test)
- A positive THC test from passive cannabis smoke exposure does not appear to be feasible on the basis of recent studies⁶²
Biomarkers
- The confirmed presence of oxidative metabolites of THC such as 11-hydroxy-THC and THCCOOH in oral fluid would be useful to substantiate use.
- The confirmed presence of conjugates of THC and 11-hydroxy-THC in oral fluid would be useful to substantiate use.⁶⁷
- The use of 11-nor-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabivarin-9-carboxylic acid (THCV-COOH) has been proposed as a biomarker in urine to distinguish the use of synthetic THC (Marinol) from cannabis use.⁶⁸ THCV-COOH is an oxidative metabolite of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabivarin found naturally in cannabis, but not in synthetic THC. The confirmed presence of THCV-COOH in oral fluid would be useful to differentiate cannabis use from synthetic THC.

Cocaine

Overview

Cocaine is a local anesthetic and vasoconstrictor found in abundance in leaves of the coca plant (Table 9). Pharmaceutical preparations are used primarily for topical anesthesia of the upper respiratory tract. Illicit cocaine is broadly available in illicit markets in two main forms, cocaine hydrochloride (for intravenous and intranasal administration) and free-base cocaine (for smoking). Self-administration of cocaine produces stimulation and short-lived euphoria and is frequently followed by a desire for more drug.

TABLE 9

Summary of chemical, metabolic, kinetic, and analytic factors important in interpretation of oral fluid tests for cocaine

Factor	Cocaine information
Drug/metabolite(s) in oral fluid	Cocaine; BZE; EME⁷⁰
Drug/metabolite(s) in urine	BZE; EME; norcocaine; benzoylnorecgonine; hydroxylated metabolites⁶⁹
Cocaine Fb	Cocaine: negligible binding; BZE: negligible binding¹⁵¹
Cocaine Plasma t1/2	Cocaine: 1.4–1.8 h; BZE: 5.4–7.6 h; EME: 2.7–5.6 h¹⁵²
Oral fluid t1/2	Cocaine: 1–2 h; BZE: 4.8–9.2 h; EME: 3.9–5.4 h¹⁵²
Cocaine plasma:oral fluid correlation	r = 0.89¹⁵³
Cocaine s/p	0.4–9.7¹⁵²
Cocaine log P (octanol/water, 37°C, pH 7.4)	0.55¹⁵⁴
Cocaine log P (HPLC)	3.35¹²⁷
BZE log P (HPLC)	0.44¹²⁷
EME log P (HPLC)	0.72¹²⁷
Cocaine pKa	Cocaine: 8.81; BZE: 2.1; 11.75¹⁵¹
Cocaine screening test	Cocaine metabolite
Cocaine confirmation test	Cocaine; BZE
Detection times in oral fluid [cutoff, ng/mL]	Single dose: cocaine, GC-MS [1]: up to 12 h; GC-MS [1]: BZE: >12 h⁷⁰; Chronic: cocaine, GC-MS [1]: 8.0–48.0 h; BZE, GC-MS [1]: 36.0–72.0 h¹⁵⁵
Cocaine detection time in urine [cutoff, ng/mL]	Single dose: BZE, EIA [300]: 14–59 h; BZE, GC-MS [150]: 21–59 h⁶⁹; chronic: BZE, GC-MS [10]: 123–218 h¹⁵²; BZE, EIA [300]: 11–147 h¹⁵⁶
Cocaine oral fluid interpretation resources⁷⁰,125,152,153,155	–

Open in a separate window

BZE=benzoylecgonine; EME=ecognine methyl ester; GC-MS=gas chromatography-mass spectrometry; EIA=enzyme immunoassay.

Cocaine has a short half-life (approximately 1 h) and is rapidly hydrolyzed by hepatic esterases to benzoylecgonine (BZE) and ecognine methyl ester (EME). A variety of other metabolites of cocaine also have been identified.⁶⁹ When cocaine is administered in concert with ethanol, a transesterification product, cocaethylene, is formed in minor amounts and is metabolized in a similar manner as cocaine. Cocaine and its metabolites appear rapidly in oral fluid following all routes of administration.⁷⁰ High concentrations of cocaine and BZE in oral fluid are observed shortly after intranasal and smoked administration. Cocaine concentrations decrease rapidly within approximately 1 h; thereafter, oral fluid concentrations appear to decline in parallel with blood.⁷⁰

Interpretation of Oral Fluid Cocaine Tests

Positive test for cocaine (no BZE)
- Interpretation: very recent cocaine use (e.g., within 8 h)
Positive tests for cocaine and BZE
- Cocaine concentration > BZE concentration
  - ▪ Interpretation: cocaine use likely within 2–8 h
- Cocaine concentration < BZE concentration
  - ▪ Interpretation: cocaine use likely within 12 h for occasional users
  - ▪ Interpretation: cocaine use likely within 48 h for daily users
    - □ Positive test for BZE (no cocaine)
  - ▪ Interpretation: cocaine use likely within 48 h for occasional users
  - ▪ Interpretation: cocaine use likely within 48–96 days for daily users
    - □ Possible sources of cocaine
- Pharmaceutical cocaine, for example, use of cocaine as an anesthetic in surgery
- Illicit cocaine
- Coca tea
- At present, no studies on oral fluid testing have been reported with passive cocaine smoke exposure; however, the risk of a positive test from passive exposure does not appear likely on the basis of urine studies.⁷¹
Biomarkers
- The confirmed presence of metabolites of oxidative metabolites of cocaine such as norcocaine, benzoylnorecgonine, and other hydroxy-metabolites in oral fluid would be useful to substantiate use.
- The presence of cocaethylene in oral fluid may indicate combined cocaine and ethanol use; however, cocaethylene also may be present as a contaminant of both pharmaceutical and illicit cocaine.
- The presence of anhydroecgonine methyl ester⁷⁰ or ecgonidine⁷² would be indicative of smoked administration of cocaine.

Nicotine/Cotinine

Overview

Nicotine is the principal alkaloid that accounts for the widespread human use of tobacco products throughout the world. Tobacco products come in different forms including cigarettes, cigars, pipe tobacco, chewing tobacco, and smokeless tobacco (snuff). Almost 30% of the population of the United States are current users of tobacco products, the majority being cigarette smokers. Passive smoking also delivers nicotine to nonsmokers. Passive smoking is exposure to tobacco smoke that occurs when a nonsmoker is exposed to the sidestream smoke of a cigarette. Nicotine in high doses can be toxic, but serious direct toxicity is rare. The major health effect of nicotine is by mediating tobacco use, which results in millions of premature deaths yearly. A number of nicotine replacement products have been developed as smoking cessation medications including nicotine gum, nicotine patches, and nicotine sprays.

Nicotine is efficiently absorbed during use of tobacco products and nicotine replacement medications. It has a half-life in blood of approximately 2 h and is readily distributed to tissues, metabolized, and excreted in urine as nicotine and metabolites. Quantitatively, the most important metabolites of nicotine are cotinine and 3′-hydroxycotinine. The metabolite, cotinine, exhibits a considerably longer half-life of approximately 17 h.⁷³

Nicotine appears in oral fluid at peak concentrations within 2–5 min following nicotine infusion in humans.⁷⁴ Oral fluid/plasma ratios were >1 for 60–120 min after nicotine administration. Cotinine also appears rapidly in oral fluid and is higher in concentration, but parallel to serum concentrations.⁷⁵ The higher concentration and longer half-life of cotinine makes it the preferred marker in plasma, oral fluid, or urine for monitoring nicotine intake after passive and active smoking (Table 10).⁷⁶ Passive smokers usually have cotinine concentrations in oral fluid <5 ng/mL, but heavy passive exposure can result in concentrations ≥ 10 ng/mL.⁷⁷ Cotinine concentrations in oral fluid between 10–100 ng/mL are seen in infrequent smokers and concentrations >100 ng/mL are generally associated with regular active smoking.⁷⁷ Trans-3′-hydroxycotinine concentrations in oral fluid of light- and heavy-smoking pregnant women have been reported to range from 14.4–117.7 ng/mL and 38.3–184.4 ng/mL, respectively.⁷⁸ A ratio of 0.41 for trans-3′-hydroxycotinine/cotinine was most effective in differentiating light from heavy tobacco use.

TABLE 10

Summary of chemical, metabolic, kinetic, and analytic factors important in interpretation of oral fluid tests for nicotine/cotinine

Factor	Nicotine/cotinine information
Drug/metabolite(s) in oral fluid	Nicotine; cotinine; trans-3′-hydroxycotinine; norcotinine⁷⁸
Drug/metabolite(s) in urine	Nicotine; cotinine; trans-3′-hydroxycotinine⁷⁸
Nicotine Fb	5–20%¹⁵⁷
Cotinine Fb	2.6%¹⁵⁸
Nicotine plasma t1/2	2 h¹⁵⁹
Cotinine plasma t1/2	16.6 h¹⁶⁰
Nicotine oral fluid t1/2	Not available
Cotinine oral fluid t1/2	17.4 h¹⁶⁰
Nicotine plasma:oral fluid correlation	None⁷⁴
Cotinine plasma:oral fluid correlation	r = 0.99¹⁵⁹
Nicotine s/p	>1⁷⁴
Cotinine s/p	1.2; 1.3–1.8¹⁵⁹,161
Nicotine log P	0.93¹⁶¹
Cotinine log P	0.04¹⁶¹
Nicotine pKa	9.13¹⁶¹
Cotinine pKa	4.72¹⁶¹
Nicotine/cotinine screening test	Cotinine
Nicotine/cotinine confirmation test	Cotinine; trans-3′-hydroxycotinine; nicotine
Nicotine detection time in oral fluid [cutoff, ng/mL]	Not available
Cotinine detection time in oral fluid [cutoff, ng/mL]	light smokers: RIA [10]: 1–5 days¹⁶² oral ingestion of 28 mg of nicotine/day: GC [<10]: 4 days¹⁶⁰
Nicotine detection time in urine [cutoff, ng/mL]	Nicotine, GC [NR]: 16 h¹⁶³
Cotinine detection time in urine [cutoff, ng/mL]	Continine, daily smokers: GC-MS [5]: > 5 days¹⁶⁴; oral ingestion of 28 mg of nicotine per day: GC [<50]: 4 days¹⁶⁰
Nicotine/cotinine oral fluid interpretation resources⁷³–78,159,162,165–167	–

Open in a separate window

GC=gas chromatography; RIA=radioimmunoassay; NR=not reported.

Interpretation of Oral Fluid Cotinine Tests

Positive test for cotinine
- Cutoff concentrations for cotinine in oral fluid to distinguish environmental smoke exposure from smoking have been suggested, but overlap between groups occurs.⁷⁷
  - ▪ Cotinine (0–10 ng/mL)
    - □ Interpretation: passive tobacco smoke exposure
  - ▪ Cotinine (>10–100 ng/mL)
    - □ Interpretation: passive tobacco smoke exposure or light smoking
  - ▪ Cotinine (>100 ng/mL)
    - □ Interpretation: light to heavy smoking
Possible sources of cotinine
- Metabolite of nicotine-containing replacement medications, for example, nicotine gum, nicotine patch, nicotine nasal spray
- Metabolite of nicotine in tobacco products
- Metabolite of nicotine from environmental tobacco smoke exposure
- Metabolite of nicotine present in some foods (insignificant amounts compared with environmental tobacco smoke exposure)⁷⁹
Biomarkers
- The confirmed presence of oxidative metabolites of cotinine such as trans-3′-hydroxycotinine and norcotinine in oral fluid would be useful to substantiate use.⁷⁸

Opioids

Heroin

Overview

Heroin is a diacetyl derivative of morphine prepared from opium for the illicit drug market (Table 11). Illicit heroin contains minor amounts of other alkaloids including codeine and acetylcodeine. Pharmaceutical grade heroin is prepared from pure morphine and is generally free from impurities. Pharmaceutical heroin is used in some European countries for therapeutic treatment of heroin addiction.⁸⁰

TABLE 11

Summary of chemical, metabolic, kinetic, and analytic factors important in interpretation of oral fluid tests for heroin

Factor	Heroin information
Drug/metabolite(s) in oral fluid	Heroin, morphine; 6-AM⁸¹
Drug/metabolite(s) in urine	Morphine; morphine-3-glucuronide; morphine-6-glucuronide; 6-AM; normorphine (minor); heroin (minor)¹⁶⁸
Heroin Fb	Heroin: 20–39%¹⁶⁹; 6-AM: not available; Morphine: 20–37.5%¹⁷⁰,171
Heroin plasma t1/2	Heroin: 3–4 min; 6-AM: 22–26 min; morphine: 177–184 min⁸⁰
Heroin oral fluid t1/2	Heroin (IV): 1–67 min; heroin (SM): 26–294 min⁸¹
Heroin plasma:oral fluid correlation	Not available
Heroin s/b	Heroin s/b (IV): 0–1.9; heroin s/b (SM): 0–784; 6-AM (IV): 0–7.2; 6-AM (SM): 0–333; morphine (IV): 0–1.8; morphine (SM): 0–29⁸¹
Heroin log P (octanol/water, 37°C, pH 7.4)	Heroin: 1.076; 6-AM: 0.791; morphine: 0.083¹⁵⁴
Heroin log P (HPLC)	6-AM: 1.48; morphine: 0.5¹²⁷
Heroin pKa	Heroin: 7.6⁸⁰; 6-AM: 8.19¹⁷²; morphine: 7.9; 9.6¹⁷³
Heroin screening test	Opiates
Heroin confirmation test	Total morphine; 6-AM; morphine
Heroin detection time in oral fluid [cutoff, ng/mL]	Heroin, GC-MS [1]: 2–24 h; 6-AM, GC-MS [1]: 0.5–8 h; morphine, GC-MS [1]: 2–12 h⁸¹
Heroin detection time in urine [cutoff, ng/mL]	Single dose: opiates, EMIT [300]: 7–54 h¹⁷⁴; chronic: total morphine, GC-MS [25]: up to 270 h; 6-AM, GC-MS [10]: up to 34.5 h¹⁷⁵
Oral fluid interpretation resources⁸¹	–

Open in a separate window

6-AM=6-acetylmorphine; IV=intravenous; SM=smoked; GC-MS=gas chromatography-mass spectrometry; EMIT=enzyme multiplied immunoassay technique.

Heroin is most commonly administered by intravenous and other parenteral routes and also may be smoked. The greater lipophilicity of heroin and 6-acetylmorphine, as compared to morphine, allows rapid entry into the central nervous system, resulting in fast onset of euphoria and other pharmacological effects. Heroin has an extremely short half-life (minutes) and is rapidly converted to 6-acetlymorphine and morphine.⁸⁰

Heroin and 6-acetylmorphine appear in oral fluid within 2 min following administration.⁸¹ Drug and metabolite concentrations in oral fluid generally are similar to blood concentrations following intravenous administration, but may be substantially higher than blood following smoking. The elevated drug and metabolite concentrations following smoking are presumably due to residual drug deposited in the oral cavity. Thirty to sixty minutes after smoked heroin, concentrations in oral fluid diminish considerably and begin to reflect blood concentrations.

Interpretation of Oral Fluid Heroin Tests

Positive test for heroin, 6-acetylmorphine and morphine
- Interpretation: heroin use
Positive test for 6-acetylmorphine and morphine
- Interpretation: heroin use
Positive test for 6-acetylmorphine (only)
- Interpretation: heroin use; consistent with very recent use by smoked or snorted route
Positive test for morphine (only)
- Interpretation: heroin or morphine use; possible poppy seed ingestion within last hour
Positive test for morphine and codeine
- Codeine concentration ≫ morphine concentration
  - ▪ Interpretation: codeine use
Morphine concentration ≥ codeine concentration
- ▪ Interpretation:
  - □ Possible heroin or morphine use. Codeine presence may arise as impurity of heroin or secondary use in combination with morphine, but generally in low concentration.
  - □ Possible recent poppy seed ingestion within hour
Possible sources of heroin
- Pharmaceutical heroin
- Illicit heroin
Possible sources of 6-AM
- Pharmaceutical heroin
- Illicit heroin
Possible sources of morphine
- Pharmaceutical heroin
- Illicit heroin
- Morphine
- Poppy seeds
- Metabolism of codeine to morphine
At present, although no oral fluid or urine studies have been reported on passive heroin smoke exposure, the risk of a positive test from passive exposure does not appear likely.
Biomarkers
- The confirmed presence of 6-AM in oral fluid is indicative of heroin use.
- The confirmed presence of 6-acetylcodeine in oral fluid would be useful to differentiate illicit heroin use from pharmaceutical grade heroin.⁸²

Morphine

Overview

Morphine, like most therapeutic opioids, produces effects through interaction with μ opioid receptors (Table 12).⁸³ The pharmacological actions of morphine encompass a wide range of effects including analgesia, mood alteration, and drug-seeking behavior. Historically, opioids have been the mainstay of pain treatment and continue to be widely used for this purpose. Numerous morphine prescription medications for treatment of acute and chronic pain are available in immediate-release formulations for oral and parenteral administration. Controlled-release formulations are available for oral administration.

TABLE 12

Summary of chemical, metabolic, kinetic, and analytic factors important in interpretation of oral fluid tests for morphine

Factor	Morphine information
Drug/metabolite(s) in oral fluid	Morphine¹³
Drug/metabolite(s) in urine	Morphine; morphine-3-glucuronide; morphine-6-glucuronide; normorphine (minor); hydromorphone (minor)⁹²
Morphine Fb	20–37.5%¹⁷⁰,171
Morphine plasma t1/2 (h)	2.9–4.5 h¹⁷⁶
Morphine oral fluid t1/2 (h)	Similar to plasma¹³
Morphine plasma:oral fluid correlation	High correlation¹³; no correlation⁸⁵
Morphine s/p	<1¹³
Morphine log P (octanol/water, 37°C, pH 7.4)	0.083¹⁵⁴
Morphine log P (HPLC)	0.5¹²⁷
Morphine pKa	7.9; 9.6¹⁷³
Morphine screening test	Opiates
Morphine confirmation test	Total morphine
Morphine detection time in oral fluid [cutoff, ng/mL]	Morphine, GC-MS [0.6]: 24 h⁹³
Morphine detection time in urine [cutoff, ng/mL]	Total morphine, GC-MS [300] 36–48 h⁸⁸
Morphine oral fluid interpretation¹³,93 resources	–

Open in a separate window

HPLC=high performance liquid chromatography; GC-MS=gas chromatography-mass spectrometry.

Pharmaceutical morphine preparations have significant abuse liability. Drug abusers prefer immediate-release formulations that can be administered by the oral, intranasal, parenteral, and smoked routes. Controlled-release formulations generally contain higher doses, but may be more difficult to administer by alternate routes. Instructions may be found on the Internet for tampering with morphine formulations to allow faster administration, higher doses, and conversion of morphine to heroin.⁸⁴

Following parenteral morphine administration, morphine appears rapidly in saliva. Cone¹³ reported an approximate 45-min delay in equilibration of morphine concentrations in saliva compared to plasma following intramuscular administration of 10- and 20-mg doses; thereafter, saliva concentrations paralleled plasma concentrations. Kopecky et al.⁸⁵ measured morphine in saliva and plasma of pediatric patients following parenteral administration, but failed to demonstrate significant correlation. Although morphine is rapidly metabolized by conjugation, only free morphine has been reported in saliva. Morphine has been detected in oral fluid following intravenous and smoked heroin administration⁸¹ and poppy seed ingestion,⁸⁶ but has not been detected following codeine administration.⁸⁷

Morphine is a metabolite of heroin,⁸⁸ codeine⁸⁸ and a natural component of poppy seeds.⁸⁶ Pholcodine, a synthetic derivative of morphine with codeine-like effects, also has been reported to be metabolized to morphine in minor amounts.⁸⁹^–⁹¹ Interpretation of oral fluid morphine results must take into account these multiple sources of morphine (e.g., heroin, codeine, or poppy seeds).

Interpretation of Oral Fluid Morphine Tests

Positive test for morphine (no other opioids present)
- Interpretation: possible use of heroin or morphine or ingestion of poppy seed
  - ▪ Although 6-AM is frequently detected in oral fluid, it has a shorter half-life, and may not be present.
  - ▪ Poppy seed ingestion may result in low concentrations of morphine for up to 1 h after consumption.⁸⁶
  - ▪ Codeine use has not been reported to produce detectable levels of morphine in oral fluid.⁸⁷
  - ▪ Pholcodine use has been reported to result in low concentrations of morphine in urine,⁸⁹^,⁹⁰ but not likely to be found in oral fluid in absence of high concentration of phlocodine.
Positive tests for morphine and 6-AM
- Interpretation: heroin use
Positive tests for morphine and codeine
- Interpretation: codeine concentration ≫ morphine concentration
  - ▪ Codeine use
- Interpretation: morphine concentration > codeine concentration
  - ▪ Heroin or combined morphine/codeine use
  - ▪ Codeine presence may arise as impurity of heroin or secondary use in combination with morphine
Possible sources of morphine
- Pharmaceutical heroin
- Illicit heroin
- Morphine
- Poppy seeds⁸⁶
- Codeine
- Pholcodine⁸⁹^,⁹⁰
Biomarkers
- The confirmed presence of oxidative metabolites such as normorphine in oral fluid would be useful to substantiate use.⁹²

Codeine

Overview

Codeine is an analgesic and cough suppressant usually marketed as an oral preparation, frequently in combination with additional active ingredients such as acetaminophen, aspirin, caffeine, guaifenesin, and ibuprofen (Table 13). Prescription doses range from 15 to 60 mg. Recreational drug users prefer higher doses and may attempt various purification methods available on the Internet, for example, “cold water extraction,” to eliminate unwanted active components and excipients present in over-the-counter and prescription formulations.⁸⁴ Codeine appears to be abused primarily by the oral route.

TABLE 13

Summary of chemical, metabolic, kinetic, and analytic factors important in interpretation of oral fluid tests for codeine

Factor	Codeine information
Drug/metabolite(s) in oral fluid	Codeine; norcodeine⁸⁷
Drug/metabolite(s) in urine	Codeine; codeine-6-glucuronide; morphine-6- glucuronide; norcodeine¹⁷⁷; hydrocodone (minor)¹⁰¹
Codeine Fb	14.2–28.5%¹⁷¹
Codeine plasma t1/2	1.4–3.5 h⁸⁷
Codeine oral fluid t1/2	1.0–3.8 h⁸⁷
Codeine plasma:oral fluid correlation	r = 0.22⁸⁷
Codeine s/p (range)	4.1 (1–17.2)⁸⁷
Codeine log P (octanol/water, 37°C, pH 7.4)	0.54¹⁵⁴
Codeine pKa	8.2⁸⁷
Codeine screening	Opiates
Codeine confirmation	Total codeine
Codeine detection time in oral fluid [cutoff, ng/mL]	Codeine, GC-MS [2.5]:7–21 h⁸⁷
Codeine detection time in urine [cutoff, ng/mL]	Codeine, GC-MS [300]: 24–48 h⁸⁸
Codeine oral fluid interpretation resources⁸⁷,93,178	–

Open in a separate window

GC-MS=gas chromatography-mass spectrometry.

Following oral administration of 60 and 120 mg, codeine appeared in oral fluid within an hour and reached maximum concentration in approximately 1.6–1.7 h.⁸⁷ Concentrations in oral fluid correlated significantly with plasma concentration and were three to four times higher in oral fluid than plasma. Codeine could be detected in oral fluid for approximately 21 and 7 h at cutoff concentrations of 2.5 and 40 ng/mL, respectively.⁸⁷ Following intramuscular codeine of 60 and 120 mg, codeine appeared rapidly in oral fluid and reached maximal concentrations in 0.5–0.75 h.⁹³

Codeine is metabolized by oxidation to morphine and norcodeine and by conjugation. Codeine is not a metabolite of morphine.⁸⁸ Only free codeine and norcodeine have been detected in oral fluid; morphine was not detected.⁸⁷ Codeine is known to be present in minor amounts in illicit heroin and poppy seeds. 6-Acetylcodeine, a derivative of codeine produced during heroin manufacture, was proposed as a possible urinary marker of illicit heroin use,⁸² and has been identified in oral fluid of opioid-dependent women.⁹⁴ Interpretation of oral fluid codeine results must take into account possible sources of codeine (e.g., heroin or poppy seeds).

Interpretation of Oral Fluid Codeine Tests

Positive test for codeine (no other opioid present)
- Interpretation: codeine use
Positive tests for codeine and morphine
- Codeine concentration ≫ morphine concentration
  - ▪ Interpretation: codeine use
- Morphine concentration > codeine concentration
  - ▪ Interpretation
Possible heroin or morphine use. Codeine presence may arise as impurity of heroin or secondary codeine use in combination with morphine.
Possible recent poppy seed ingestion within an hour
Possible sources of codeine
- Codeine
- Illicit heroin
- Poppy seeds
- Codeine is not a metabolite of morphine
Biomarkers
- The confirmed presence of oxidative metabolites such as norcodeine in oral fluid would be useful to substantiate use.⁸⁷

Hydromorphone

Overview

Hydromorphone (Dilaudid^®) is a hydrogenated ketone derivative of morphine sold as an opioid analgesic for relief of pain (Table 14). It is available commercially in various immediate-release forms such as injectable, oral liquid, tablets, and suppositories. Doses range from 1 to 10 mg. Hydromorphone is approximately seven times more potent than morphine when injected intravenously.⁹⁵

TABLE 14

Summary of chemical, metabolic, kinetic, and analytic factors important in interpretation of oral fluid tests for hydromorphone

Factor	Hydromorphone information
Drug/metabolite(s) in oral fluid	Hydromorphone⁹⁶
Drug/metabolite(s) in urine	Hydromorphone; hydromorphone-3-glucuronide; hydromorphol (α/β-isomers)⁹⁷
Hydromorphone Fb	7%⁹⁶
Hydromorphone plasma t1/2	2.5–2.6 h⁹⁵; 2.4–4.1 h⁹⁶
Hydromorphone oral fluid t1/2	2.12 h⁹⁶
Hydromorphone plasma:oral fluid correlation	Not available
Hydromorphone s/p	0.25–2.32⁹⁶
Hydromorphone log P (octanol/water, 37°C, pH 7.4)	0.161¹⁵⁴
Hydromorphone log P (octanol/phosphate buffer, pH 7.4)	0.308⁹⁶
Hydromorphone pKa	8.08; 9.47⁹⁶
Hydromorphone screening test	Opiates
Hydromorphone confirmation test	Total hydromorphone
Hydromorphone detection time in oral fluid [cutoff, ng/mL]	Single doses: hydromorphone, RIA [1]: 6 h⁹⁶
Hydromorphone detection time in urine [cutoff, ng/mL]	Single doses: hydromorphone: EMIT [300]: 6.3–11.3 h; hydromorphone: GC-MS [300]: 12–24 h¹⁰³
Hydromorphone oral fluid interpretation resources⁹⁶	–

Open in a separate window

RIA=radioimmunoassay; EMIT=enzyme multiplied immunoassay technique; GC-MS=gas chromatography-mass spectrometry.

Following oral administration, hydromorphone reaches maximal plasma levels in approximately 1 h, demonstrates an elimination half-life of approximately 4.1 h, and has an absolute bioavailability of 50–60%.⁹⁵^,⁹⁶ Hydromorphone is metabolized primarily by conjugation and to a lesser extent by 6-keto reduction to α- and β-isomers of hydromorphol.⁹⁷ Evidence for the metabolic transformation of morphine to hydromorphone in small amounts in subjects chronically treated with high-dose morphine has been reported.⁹⁸

Hydromorphone was reported to appear in saliva rapidly following intravenous administration.⁹⁶ Initial saliva/plasma (s/p) ratios were lower during the distribution phase (up to approximately 40 min post drug administration) than the elimination phase.

Interpretation of Oral Fluid Hydromorphone Tests

Positive test for hydromorphone (no hydrocodone/morphine)
- Interpretation: hydromorphone use
Positive test for hydromorphone and morphine
- Hydromorphone > morphine
  - ▪ Interpretation: hydromorphone and morphine use
- Hydromorphone ≪ morphine
  - ▪ Interpretation: possible hydromorphone use; possible occurrence of hydromorphone as a minor metabolite of morphine⁹⁸
Possible sources of hydromorphone
- Hydromorphone
- Hydrocodone metabolism to hydromorphone in minor amounts
- Chronic morphine administration with minor metabolic conversion of morphine to hydromorphone⁹⁸
Biomarkers
- The confirmed presence of reduced metabolites such as hydromorphol in oral fluid would be useful to substantiate use.⁹⁷

Hydrocodone

Overview

Hydrocodone is a semisynthetic opioid analgesic and antitussive with multiple actions qualitatively similar to those of codeine (Table 15). Misuse of hydrocodone appears to be primarily by the oral route, likely because most preparations are compounded with other active ingredients. Other routes of administration include intranasal, smoked, and rectal administration. Pharmaceutical hydrocodone is supplied as tablets, syrup, suspension, and oral solution, and as an extended-release formulation. Most formulations are immediate-release and contain hydrocodone in doses ranging from 2.5 to 10 mg.

TABLE 15

Summary of chemical, metabolic, kinetic, and analytic factors important in interpretation of oral fluid tests for hydrocodone

Factor	Hydrocodone information
Drug/metabolite(s) in oral fluid	Hydrocodone
Drug/metabolite(s) in urine	Hydrocodone; norhydrocodone; hydrocodol (α/β-isomers); hydromorphone; hydromorphol (α/β-isomers); conjugated metabolites¹⁰⁰
Hydrocodone Fb	Not available
Hydrocodone plasma t1/2	Extensive metabolizers: 4.2 h; poor metabolizers: 6.2 h⁹⁹
Hydrocodone oral fluid t1/2	Not available
Hydrocodone plasma:oral fluid correlation	Not available
Hydrocodone s/p	Not available
Hydrocodone log P (octanol/water, 37°C, pH 7.4)	0.143¹⁵⁴
Hydrocodone pKa	8.9¹³⁰
Hydrocodone screening test	Opiates
Hydrocodone confirmation test	Hydrocodone
Hydrocodone detection time in oral fluid [cutoff, ng/mL]	Expected to be similar to codeine
Hydrocodone detection time in urine [cutoff, ng/mL]	Single doses: hydrocodone: EMIT [300]: 12–36 h; hydrocodone: GC-MS [300]: 11–24 h; hydromorphone: GC-MS [300]: 0–11.8 h¹⁰³
Hydrocodone oral fluid interpretation resources	–

Open in a separate window

EMIT=enzyme multiplied immunoassay technique; GC-MS=gas chromatography-mass spectrometry.

Following oral administration, hydrocodone reaches maximal serum concentrations in approximately 1 h and has an elimination half-life of approximately 4–6 h. Hydrocodone is metabolized by O-demethylation to hydromorphone by CYP2D6, a genetically polymorphic enzyme.⁹⁹ Hydromorphone is a potent analgesic and may be primarily responsible for hydrocodone’s analgesic effects. Additional hydrocodone metabolic pathways include N-demethylation, keto-reduction, and conjugation.¹⁰⁰ Evidence for human metabolic transformation in small amounts of codeine¹⁰¹ and dihydrocodeine¹⁰² to hydrocodone has been reported.

Although commercial testing services are available in the United States for hydrocodone in oral fluid, there appears to be little information on the time course of appearance and disappearance of this drug in oral fluid.

Interpretation of Oral Fluid Hydrocodone Tests

Positive test for hydrocodone (no hydromorphone/codeine)
- Interpretation: hydrocodone use
Positive test for hydrocodone and hydromorphone
- Hydrocodone > hydromorphone
  - ▪ Interpretation: hydrocodone use; presence of hydromorphone likely due to metabolism of hydrocodone to hydromorphone
- Hydrocodone < hydromorphone
  - ▪ Interpretation: likely combined use of hydrocodone and hydromorphone, but could occur at low concentrations toward end of excretion following hydrocodone use¹⁰³
Positive test for hydrocodone and codeine
- Hydrocodone ≥ codeine
  - ▪ Interpretation: likely combined use of hydrocodone and codeine
- Hydrocodone ≪ codeine
  - ▪ Interpretation: possible hydrocodone use; possible occurrence of hydrocodone as a minor metabolite of codeine¹⁰¹
Possible sources of hydrocodone
- Hydrocodone
- Metabolite of codeine in minor amounts; but would occur only when codeine was present in very high concentration¹⁰¹
- Metabolite of dihydrocodeine in minor amounts; but would occur only when dihydrocodeine was present in very high concentration¹⁰²
- Hydrocodone is not a metabolite of hydromorphone
Biomarkers
- The confirmed presence of oxidative metabolites such as norhydrocodone and hydromorphone in oral fluid would be useful to substantiate use.¹⁰⁰
- The confirmed presence of reduced metabolites such as hydrocodol in oral fluid would be useful to substantiate use.¹⁰⁰

Oxymorphone

Overview

Oxymorphone is a potent semisynthetic opioid substitute for morphine (Table 16). The approximate potency of oxymorphone is some 10 times that of morphine following parenteral administration.¹⁰⁴ Oxymorphone is available as an injection and as a suppository for relief of moderate-to-severe pain. Oxymorphone is available as an injection in concentrations of 1–1.5 mg/mL and as a 5 mg suppository.

TABLE 16

Summary of chemical, metabolic, kinetic, and analytic factors important in interpretation of oral fluid tests for oxymorphone

Factor	Oxymorphone information
Drug/metabolite(s) in oral fluid	Oxymorphone
Drug/metabolite(s) in urine	Oxymorphone; conjugated oxymorphone; oxymorphol (α/β-isomers)¹⁰⁷
Oxymorphone Fb	10–12%^a
Oxymorphone plasma t1/2	Parenteral: 1.3 h; oral: 7.3–9.4 h¹⁷⁹
Oxymorphone oral fluid t1/2	Not available
Oxymorphone plasma:oral fluid correlation	Not available
Oxymorphone s/p	Not available
Oxymorphone log P (octanol/water, 37°C, pH 7.4)	−0.105¹⁵⁴
Oxymorphone pKa	8.5, 9.3¹³⁰
Oxymorphone screening test	Oxycodone
Oxymorphone confirmation test	Total oxymorphone
Oxymorphone detection time in oral fluid [cutoff, ng/mL]	Not available
Oxymorphone detection time in urine [cutoff, ng/mL]	Single doses: oxymorphone: opiate EMIT[300]: 0 h; oxymorphone: GC-MS [300]: 11.3–36 h¹⁰³
Oxymorphone oral fluid interpretation resources¹⁰⁷	–

Open in a separate window

EMIT=enzyme multiplied immunoassay technique; GC-MS=gas chromatography-mass spectrometry.

^aSource: http://www.opana.com/pdfs/Opana_IR_PI.pdf#search=%22oxymorphone%20plasma%-20binding%22 (accessed September 29, 2006).

Oral oxymorphone is approximately one-sixth as potent as injectable oxymorphone.¹⁰⁵ It is metabolized primarily by conjugation and to a lesser extent by 6-keto-reduction to oxymorphol. Oxymorphol has been shown in animal studies to have analgesic activity.¹⁰⁶ Following a 10-mg oral dose, approximately 46% of the dose was reported to be excreted in urine as free and conjugated oxymorphone.¹⁰⁷ 6-Keto-reduced metabolites accounted for an additional 2.7% of the dose.

Oral fluid testing for oxymorphone is quite feasible, but there appears to be no information currently available on the time course of appearance and disappearance of this drug in oral fluid.

Interpretation of Oral Fluid Oxymorphone Tests

Positive test for oxymorphone (no oxycodone)
- Interpretation: oxymorphone use
Possible sources of oxymorphone
- Oxymorphone
- Oxycodone metabolism to oxymorphone in minor amounts
Biomarkers
- The confirmed presence of oxidative metabolites such as noroxymorphone in oral fluid would be useful to substantiate use.
- The confirmed presence of reduced metabolites such as oxymorphol in oral fluid would be useful to substantiate use.¹⁰⁷

Oxycodone

Overview

Oxycodone is an opioid analgesic supplied as tablets, capsules, and oral solution (Table 17). It is available primarily as the hydrochloride salt with some formulations containing a combination of oxycodone hydrochloride and oxycodone terephthalate. Some formulations also contain aspirin or acetaminophen. Immediate-release formulations contain oxycodone doses ranging from 2.5 to 30 mg; a controlled-release formulation contains from 10 to 160 mg.

TABLE 17

Summary of chemical, metabolic, kinetic, and analytic factors important in interpretation of oral fluid tests for oxycodone

Factor	Oxycodone information
Drug/metabolite(s) in oral fluid	Oxycodone
Drug/metabolite(s) in urine	Oxycodone; oxymorphone; conjugated oxymorphone; oxycodol (α/β-isomers); oyxmorphol (α/β-isomers)¹⁰⁹
Oxycodone Fb	0.45¹³⁰
Plasma t1/2	Oxycodone: 2.25 h¹⁰⁴; oxycodone 2.1–5.1 h¹⁸⁰; oxymorphone: 2.40 h¹⁰⁴; noroxycodone: 4.15 h¹⁰⁴
Oxycodone oral fluid t1/2	Not available
Oxycodone plasma:oral fluid correlation	Not available
Oxycodone s/p	Not available
Oxycodone log P (octanol/water, 37°C, pH 7.4)	0.243¹⁵⁴
Oxycodone pKa	8.53¹⁸¹
Oxycodone screening test	Oxycodone
Oxycodone confirmation test	Oxycodone
Oxycodone detection time in oral fluid [cutoff, ng/mL]	Not available
Oxycodone detection time in urine [cutoff, ng/mL]	Single doses: oxycodone: opiate EMIT [300]: 0–6.6 h; oxycodone: GC-MS [300]: 12–36 h; oxymorphone: GC-MS [300]: 12–48 h¹⁰³
Oxycodone oral fluid interpretation resources¹⁸²	–

Open in a separate window

EMIT=enzyme multiplied immunoassay technique; GC-MS=gas chromatography-mass spectrometry.

Oxycodone is effective orally and has a bioavailability of 50 to 90%.¹⁰⁸ It is metabolized by O-demethylation to oxymorphone, by N-demethylation to noroxycodone, and to minor metabolites by 6-keto-reduction.¹⁰⁹ CYP2D6 is the enzyme responsible for conversion of oxycodone to oxymorphone, a metabolite that is more potent than the parent drug. Although the analgesic potency of oxymorphone is higher, it is unclear how much activity is contributed to the actions of oxycodone by this metabolite. The analgesic potency of noroxycodone appears to be lower than that of oxycodone.¹⁰⁴

Oral fluid testing for oxycodone is quite feasible, but little information is currently available on the time course of appearance and disappearance of this drug in oral fluid.

Interpretation of Oral Fluid Oxycodone Tests

Positive test for oxycodone (no oxymorphone)
- Interpretation: oxycodone use
Positive test for oxycodone and oxymorphone
- Oxycodone > oxymorphone
  - ▪ Interpretation: oxycodone use; presence of oxymorphone likely due to metabolism of oxycodone to oxymorphone
- Oxycodone < oxymorphone
  - ▪ Interpretation: likely combined use of oxycodone and oxymorphone, but could occur at low concentrations toward end of excretion following oxycodone use¹⁰³
Possible sources of oxycodone
- Oxycodone
- Oxycodone is not a metabolite of oxymorphone
Biomarkers
- The confirmed presence of oxidative metabolites such as noroxycodone and oxymorphone in oral fluid would be useful to substantiate use.¹⁰⁹
- The confirmed presence of reduced metabolites such as oxycodol in oral fluid would be useful to substantiate use.¹⁰⁹

Methadone

Overview

Methadone is a long-acting opioid μ-receptor agonist with pharmacological properties similar to those of morphine (Table 18). Methadone is available as an oral concentrate and dispensable tablets for relief of chronic pain, treatment of opioid abstinence syndromes, and treatment of heroin dependence.

TABLE 18

Summary of chemical, metabolic, kinetic, and analytic factors important in interpretation of oral fluid tests for methadone

Factor	Methadone information
Drug/metabolite(s) in oral fluid	Methadone; EDDP¹¹²
Drug/metabolite(s) in urine	Methadone; EDDP; EMDP; minor metabolites¹⁸³
Methadone Fb	88.1–89.1%¹⁸⁴
Methadone plasma t1/2	15–55 h¹⁸⁵; 23–27 h¹⁸⁶; 33–46 h¹⁸⁵
Methadone oral fluid t1/2	Not available
Methadone plasma:oral fluid correlation	r = 0.81¹⁸⁷; r = 0.54¹¹²
Methadone s/p	0.51¹⁸⁸; 0.6–7.2¹¹²; 1.3¹⁸⁷
Methadone P (chloroform/water, 25°C, pH 7.4)	Methadone: 14.56; EDDP: 2.38¹¹⁰
Methadone pKa	Methadone 8.62¹¹⁰;9.2¹⁸⁶; 8.2¹¹²; EDDP: 10.42¹¹⁰
Methadone screening tests	Methadone; EDDP
Methadone confirmation test	Methadone; EDDP
Methadone detection time in oral fluid [cutoff, ng/mL]	Methadone, GC-MS [20]: 24 h¹⁸⁸
Methadone detection time in urine [cutoff, ng/mL]	Methadone, EIA [300]: 24–96 h¹⁸⁹
Methadone oral fluid interpretation resources¹¹²,187,188	–

Open in a separate window

EDDP=2-ethylidene-1,5-dimethyl-3,3-diphenylpyrrolidine; EMDP=2-ethyl-5-methyl-3,3-diphenylpyrrolidine; EIA=enzyme immunoassay; GC-MS=gas chromatography-mass spectrometry.

Methadone undergoes extensive metabolism in the liver to form cyclic metabolites, 2-ethylidene-1,5-dimethyl-3,3-diphenylpyrrolidine (EDDP) and 2-ethyl-5-methyl-3,3-diphenylpyrrolidine (EMDP), and other minor metabolites. The amount of methadone excreted in urine is increased when urine is acidified.¹¹⁰ EDDP is excreted in urine in approximately equal amounts to methadone, but with apparent less variability. Thus, there may be advantages in testing for EDDP when monitoring patient compliance.¹¹¹

Methadone and EDDP appear rapidly in oral fluid and correlate with plasma concentrations.¹¹² Oral fluid pH appears to be a factor in determining concentration of methadone in oral fluid, but is less important for EDDP detection.¹¹²

Interpretation of Oral Fluid Methadone Tests

Positive test for methadone (no EDDP)
- Interpretation: methadone use within 24–48 h or possible methadone doping
Positive tests for methadone and EDDP
- Interpretation: methadone use within 24–48 h
Possible sources of methadone
- Methadone
Biomarkers
- The confirmed presence of oxidative metabolites such as EDDP and EMDP in oral fluid would be useful to substantiate use.¹¹²

Buprenorphine

Overview

Buprenorphine is a thebaine-derived synthetic opioid whose actions are limited by a ceiling effect (Table 19). It is available in injectable form as an analgesic (0.3 mg) and as sublingual tablets (2 mg and 8 mg) for treatment of opioid dependence. One type of sublingual tablet contains only buprenorphine hydrochloride and the second contains buprenorphine hydrochloride in combination with naloxone hydrochloride in a ratio of 4:1 buprenorphine:naloxone (ratio of free bases).

TABLE 19

Summary of chemical, metabolic, kinetic, and analytic factors important in interpretation of oral fluid tests for buprenorphine

Factor	Buprenorphine information
Drug/metabolite(s) in oral fluid	Buprenorphine; norbuprenorphine¹³
Drug/metabolite(s) in urine	Buprenorphine; conjugated buprenorphine; norbuprenorphine; conjugated norbuprenorphine¹¹⁵
Buprenorphine Fb	95–98%¹⁹⁰
Plasma t1/2	Buprenorphine: 40.7 h; norbuprenorphine: 73.3 h¹¹⁸
Buprenorphine oral fluid t1/2	Not available
Buprenorphine plasma:oral fluid correlation	High correlation¹³
Buprenorphine s/p	Intramuscular: 0.05–0.41; sublingual: >1¹³
Buprenorphine log P (octanol/water, 37°C, pH 7.4)	4.98¹⁷²
Buprenorphine pKa	8.24, 10¹⁹⁰
Buprenorphine screening test	Buprenorphine
Buprenorphine confirmation test	Buprenorphine; norbuprenorphine; conjugates
Buprenorphine detection time in oral fluid [cutoff, ng/mL]	Buprenorphine, RIA [1]: up to 5 days¹³
Buprenorphine detection time in urine[cutoff, ng/mL]	total buprenorphine/norbuprenorphine, GC [10/5]: 4–8 days¹⁹¹; total buprenorphine/norbuprenorphine, GC-MS [0.25/0.2]: 4–8 days¹⁹²
Buprenorphine oral fluid interpretation resources¹³	–

Open in a separate window

RIA=radioimmunoassay; GC=gas chromatography; GC-MS=gas chromatography-mass spectrometry.

Following sublingual administration, buprenorphine reaches maximal plasma concentrations in 1.3–1.6 h.¹¹³ The bioavailability of sublingual buprenorphine (ethanol solution) ranges from 28 to 36%. Sublingual bioavailability of buprenorphine tablets (relative to ethanolic solution) is 49% ± 25%.¹¹⁴ Buprenorphine is metabolized by conjugation and N-demethylation, and is excreted in urine primarily as conjugated metabolites.¹¹⁵

Cone reported measurement of buprenorphine in saliva following intramuscular and sublingual administration of single doses of buprenorphine.¹³ Drug concentrations in saliva were substantially lower than plasma at all times following intramuscular administration and were substantially higher following sublingual administration. The low s/p ratio following intramuscular administration is likely due to the high fraction of drug that is protein-bound in plasma. The high s/p observed following sublingual administration was attributed to an oral mucosal drug depot.¹¹⁶ Close correspondence in saliva and plasma buprenorphine concentrations was observed for subjects administered sublingual buprenorphine daily or on an every-other-day basis.¹³

Interpretation of Oral Fluid Buprenorphine Tests

Positive test for buprenorphine
- Interpretation: buprenorphine use
Positive tests for buprenorphine and norbuprenorphine
- Buprenorphine ≫ norbuprenorphine
  - ▪ Interpretation: acute buprenorphine use (suggested from plasma data)¹¹⁷
- Buprenorphine ≤ norbuprenorphine
  - ▪ Interpretation: chronic buprenorphine use (suggested from plasma data¹¹⁸
Possible sources of buprenorphine
- Buprenorphine
Biomarkers
- The confirmed presence of oxidative metabolites such as norbuprenorphine in oral fluid would be useful to substantiate use.¹¹⁵

Phencyclidine (PCP)

Overview

PCP is a dissociative anesthetic reported in the 1950s to be effective in surgery without respiratory depression, but also produced unpleasant side effects leading to its discontinuation of clinical use (Table 20). It was used in veterinary medicine, but withdrawn in 1978, leaving only illicit synthesis as a source of the drug. PCP is illicitly marketed under a number of street names including Angel Dust, Supergrass, Killer Weed, Embalming Fluid, and Rocket Fuel. Among PCP’s least desirable side effects are delirium, visual disturbances, and hallucinations and, occasionally, violence.

TABLE 20

Summary of chemical, metabolic, kinetic, and analytic factors important in interpretation of oral fluid tests for PCP

Factor	PCP information
Drug/metabolite(s) in oral fluid	PCP¹²⁴
Drug/metabolite(s) in urine	PCP; PPC; PCHP¹²⁰
PCP Fb	64%¹²³; 68–69%¹²⁰
PCP plasma t1/2	7–50 h¹²⁰
PCP oral fluid t1/2	Not available
PCP plasma:oral fluid correlation	r = 0.87¹²⁰
PCP serum:oral fluid correlation	r = 0.92¹²⁴; r = 0.4¹²³
PCP s/p	1.5–3¹⁹³
PCP log P (octanol/water, 37°C, pH 7.4):	1.96¹⁵⁴
PCP pKa	8.5¹²³
PCP screening test	PCP
PCP confirmation test	PCP
PCP detection time in oral fluid [cutoff, ng/mL]	Not available
PCP detection time in urine [cutoff, ng/mL]	Chronic: PCP; GC [5]: up to 30 days¹⁹⁴
PCP oral fluid interpretation resources¹²⁰,121,123,124	–

Open in a separate window

PCP=phencyclidine; PPC=4-(1-piperidinyl)-cyclohexanol; PCHP=1-(1-phenylcyclohexyl)-4-hydroxypiperidine; GC=gas chromatography.

PCP is well absorbed and readily penetrates the central nervous system after intravenous, smoked, intranasal, oral, and percutaneous administration, and it can be passively absorbed from the environment.¹¹⁹ The plasma elimination half-life is 7–50 h (mean: 17.6 h) in normal volunteers.¹²⁰ PCP is excreted in urine in small amounts (approximately 10% of dose) along with a number of polar metabolites.¹²⁰ Acidification of urine by ingestion of ammonium chloride¹²¹ or by infusion of 0.1 N HCl¹²² increased PCP excretion in urine. Hydroxy-metabolites of PCP excreted in urine include 4-phenyl-4-(1-piperidinyl)-cyclohexanol (PPC) and 1-(1-phenylcyclohexyl)-4-hydroxypiperidine (PCHP).¹²⁰

PCP has been measured by radioimmunoassay in oral fluid and serum specimens of emergency room patients suspected of PCP intoxication.¹²³ Of 74 patients with positive oral fluid tests, 73 were accompanied by positive serum result. Only two specimens were positive for serum and negative for oral fluid. Concentrations of PCP in oral fluid and plasma ranged from 2–600 ng/mL and 5–400 ng/mL, respectively. PCP also has been measured in oral fluid of humans following administration of small doses of radiolabeled drug.¹²⁰^,¹²¹^,¹²⁴ The radioactivity in oral fluid was principally (>90%) parent drug. Acidification or alkalinization of urine, respectively, increased and decreased urinary excretion of PCP but did not significantly alter concentration in oral fluid.

Interpretation of Oral Fluid PCP Tests

Positive test for PCP
- Interpretation: PCP use
Possible sources of PCP
- Pharmaceutical PCP
- Illicit PCP
Biomarkers
- The confirmed presence of oxidative metabolites such as PPC and PCHP in oral fluid would be useful to substantiate use.¹²⁰

LIMITATIONS

Interpretation of biological tests for drugs of abuse will always be limited by available scientific evidence. At present, much of the available knowledge on oral fluid and urine tests has been generated from single- or multiple-dosing studies, but there is limited information in chronic users. Significant ethical issues exist in the study of many licit and illicit drugs that preclude their study under conditions that simulate “real-world use,” and relevant information may never be available. There also are significant cost and resource limitations for clinical studies that limit the number of drug studies that can be performed. Despite a substantial number of clinical studies on drug disposition in oral fluid, many psychoactive drugs have not been studied. Many benzodiazepines and barbiturates and some opioid products have received limited or no evaluation in oral fluid; controlled dosing studies of hallucinogens in humans are virtually nonexistent.

Collection of oral fluid is an important process that deserves comment in the context of limitations to interpretation. The dynamic nature of oral fluid, especially pH, can substantially affect drug concentrations of basic drugs. For example, Kato et al.¹²⁵ showed that oral fluid collected from cocaine users under non-stimulated conditions produced substantially higher drug concentrations in oral fluid than under stimulated conditions. A similar finding has been reported for cotinine.¹²⁶ Collection of oral fluid with an absorptive device further introduces issues of drug/metabolite recovery. If drug/metabolite is not fully recoverable from the collection device, concentrations in oral fluid will be lower relative to neat oral fluid. If so, cutoff concentrations for oral fluid may, by necessity, be lower than for neat oral fluid. Obviously, comparison of oral fluid studies across different collection conditions is problematic if drug recovery is not equivalent.

Aside from collection, many other factors that may affect oral fluid test outcomes and interpretation have not been studied. Do adulterants exist that can be safely placed in the mouth and negate screening tests, thus producing false negative results? Observed collection, coupled with a waiting period, would likely be an effective procedure to overcome the risk of adulteration, but this remains to be clearly established. Does passive exposure to drug smoke result in positive oral fluid tests? Studies on passive inhalation of cannabis smoke indicate that the risk of a positive from exposure is equivalent to or less than that for urine testing.⁶² However, there is virtually no information on the risk of passive inhalation with heroin, methamphetamine, and PCP. Would passive exposure to these drugs result in positive tests in oral fluid? Experience in passive exposure studies with cannabis and cocaine suggests that passive exposure to other drugs is highly unlikely to produce positive oral fluid tests. Also, it should be noted that the limitation in information on the risk of passive inhalation for many drugs extends to urine testing as well.

Overall, it is clear that interpretation of oral fluid tests should be limited to available scientific knowledge. How oral fluid tests perform under many different conditions is not available, nor is it available for other biological matrices, for example, urine, sweat, and hair. It can be confidently predicted that scientific studies can never address all questions that may arise regarding how drug exposure affects test outcome. As always, science is an evolving process building upon prior knowledge that sometimes strikes out in new directions. Use of oral fluid as a test matrix is a relatively new science showing exceptional promise for detection of recent drug use. Informed interpretation of results requires a broad understanding of the unique characteristics of oral fluid.

Acknowledgments

E. J. Cone is a consultant to OraSure Diagnostics, a company that manufactures oral fluid diagnostic products.

References

1. DHHS. Proposed revisions to mandatory guidelines for federal workplace drug testing programs. Fed Regist. 2004;69:19673–19732. [Google Scholar]

2. Caddy B. Saliva as a specimen for drug analysis. In: Baselt RC, editor. Advances in Analytical Toxicology. Biomedical Publications; Foster City, CA: 1984. pp. 198–254. [Google Scholar]

3. Schramm W, Smith RH, Craig PA, Kidwell DA. Drugs of abuse in saliva: a review. J Anal Toxicol. 1992;16:1–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

4. Idowu OR, Caddy B. A review of the use of saliva in the forensic detection of drugs and other chemicals. J Forensic Sci Soc. 1982;22:123–135. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

5. Mucklow JC, Bending MR, Kahn GC, Dollery CT. Drug concentration in saliva. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1978;24:563–570. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

6. Wylie FM, Torrance H, Seymour A, et al. Drugs in oral fluid. Part II Investigation of drugs in drivers. Forensic Sci Int. 2005;150:199–204. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

7. Verstraete AG. Detection times of drugs of abuse in blood, urine, and oral fluid. Ther Drug Monit. 2004;26:200–205. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

8. Choo RE, Huestis MA. Oral fluid as a diagnostic tool. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2004;42:1273–1287. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

9. Kadehjian L. Legal issues in oral fluid testing. Forensic Sci Int. 2005;150:151–160. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

10. Maurer HH. Advances in analytical toxicology: the current role of liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry in drug quantification in blood and oral fluid. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2005;381:110–118. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

11. Rivier L. Techniques for analytical testing of unconventional samples. Baillieres Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2000;14:147–165. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

12. Samyn N, Verstraete A, van Haeren C, Kintz P. Analysis of drugs of abuse in saliva. Forensic Sci Rev. 1999;11:1–19. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

13. Cone EJ. Saliva testing for drugs of abuse. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1993;694:91–127. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

14. Beckett AH, Rowland M. Urinary excretion kinetics of amphetamine in man. J Pharm Pharmacol. 1965;17:628–638. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

15. Cody JT. Determination of methamphetamine enantiomer ratios in urine by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr. 1992;580:77–95. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

16. Wan SH, Matin SB, Azarnoff DL. Kinetics, salivary excretion of amphetamine isomers, and effect of urinary pH. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1978;23:585–590. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

17. Cody JT. Precursor medications as a source of methamphetamine and/or amphetamine positive drug testing results. J Occup Environ Med. 2002;44:435–450. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

18. Kraemer T, Maurer HH. Toxicokinetics of amphetamines: metabolism and toxicokinetic data of designer drugs, amphetamine, methamphetamine, and their N-alkyl derivatives. Ther Drug Monit. 2002;24:277–289. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

19. Torre R de la, Farre M, Navarro M, et al. Clinical pharmacokinetics of amfetamine and related substances: monitoring in conventional and non-conventional matrices. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2004;43:157–185. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

20. Cho AK, Wright J. Minireview: pathways of metabolism of amphetamine. Life Sci. 1978;22:363–372. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

21. Poklis A, Moore KA. Response of EMIT amphetamine immunoassays to urinary desoxyephedrine following Vicks inhaler use. Ther Drug Monit. 1995;17:89–94. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

22. Kim I, Oyler JM, Moolchan ET, et al. Urinary pharmacokinetics of methamphetamine and its metabolite, amphetamine following controlled oral administration to humans. Ther Drug Monit. 2004;26:664–672. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

23. Cook CE, Jeffcoat AR, Hill JM, et al. Pharmacokinetics of methamphetamine self-administered to human subjects by smoking S-(+)-methamphetamine hydrochloride. Drug Metab Dispos. 1993;21:717–723. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

24. Schepers RJ, Oyler JM, Joseph RE, Jr, et al. Methamphetamine and amphetamine pharmacokinetics in oral fluid and plasma after controlled oral methamphetamine administration to human volunteers. Clin Chem. 2003;49:121–132. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

25. Caldwell J, Dring LG, Williams RT. Metabolism of [14C] methamphetamine in man, the guinea pig and the rat. Biochem J. 1972;129:11–22. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

26. Mas M, Farre M, Torre R de la, et al. Cardiovascular and neuroendocrine effects and pharmacokinetics of 3, 4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine in humans. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1999;290:136–145. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

27. Torre R de la, Farre M, Roset PN, et al. Human pharmacology of MDMA: pharmacokinetics, metabolism, and disposition. Ther Drug Monit. 2004;26:137–144. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

28. Torre R de la, Farre M, Ortuno J, et al. Non-linear pharmacokinetics of MDMA (‘ecstasy’) in humans. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2000;49:104–109. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

29. Fallon JK, Kicman AT, Henry JA, et al. Stereospecific analysis and enantiomeric disposition of 3, 4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (Ecstasy) in humans. Clin Chem. 1999;45:1058–1069. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

30. Navarro M, Pichini S, Farre M, et al. Usefulness of saliva for measurement of 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine and its metabolites: correlation with plasma drug concentrations and effect of salivary pH. Clin Chem. 2001;47:1788–1795. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

31. Laloup M, Tilman G, Maes V, et al. Validation of an ELISA-based screening assay for the detection of amphetamine, MDMA and MDA in blood and oral fluid. Forensic Sci Int. 2005;153:29–37. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

32. Samyn N, van Haeren C. On-site testing of saliva and sweat with Drugwipe and determination of concentrations of drugs of abuse in saliva, plasma and urine of suspected users. Int J Legal Med. 2000;113:150–154. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

33. Freudenmann RW, Spitzer M. The neuropsychopharmacology and toxicology of 3,4-methylenedioxy-N-ethyl-amphetamine (MDEA) CNS Drug Rev. 2004;10:89–116. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

34. Ensslin HK, Maurer HH, Gouzoulis E, et al. Metabolism of racemic 3,4-methylenedioxyethylamphetamine in humans. Isolation, identification, quantification, and synthesis of urinary metabolites. Drug Metab Dispos. 1996;24:813–820. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

35. Samyn N, De Boeck G, Wood M, et al. Plasma, oral fluid and sweat wipe ecstasy concentrations in controlled and real life conditions. Forensic Sci Int. 2002;128:90–97. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

36. Inaba T, Kalow W. Salivary excretion of amobarbital in man. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1975;18:558–562. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

37. Dilli S, Pillai D. Analysis of trace amounts of barbiturates in saliva. J Chromatogr. 1980;190:113–118. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

38. van der Graaff M, Vermeulen NPE, Heij P, et al. Pharmacokinetics of orally administered hexobarbital in plasma and saliva of healthy subjects. Biopharm Drug Dispos. 1986;7:265–272. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

39. Tjaden UR, Kraak JC, Huber JFK. Rapid trace analysis of barbiturates in blood and saliva by high pressure liquid chromatography. J Chromatogr. 1977;143:183–194. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

40. Nishihara K, Uchino K, Saitoh Y, et al. Estimation of plasma unbound phenobarbital concentration by using mixed saliva. Epilepsia. 1979;20:37–45. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

41. Mucklow JC, Bacon CJ, Hierons AM, et al. Monitoring of phenobarbitone and phenytoin therapy in small children by salivary samples. Ther Drug Monit. 1981;3:275–277. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

42. Cook CE, Amerson E, Poole WK, et al. Phenytoin and phenobarbital concentrations in saliva and plasma measured by radioimmunoassay. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1975;18:742–747. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

43. Schmidt D, Kupferberg HJ. Diphenylhydantoin, phenobarbital, and primidone in saliva, plasma and cerebrospinal fluid. Epilepsia. 1975;16:735–741. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

44. Troupin AS, Friel P. Anti-convulsant level in saliva, serum, and cerebrospinal fluid. Epilepsia. 1975;16:223–227. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

45. Goldsmith RF, Ouvrier RA. Salivary anticonvulsant levels in children: a comparison of methods. Ther Drug Monit. 1981;3:151–157. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

46. Giles HG, Zilm DH, Frecker RC, et al. Saliva and plasma concentrations of diazepam after a single oral dose. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1977;4:711–712. [Google Scholar]

47. Di-Gregorio GJ, Piraino AJ, Ruch E. Diazepam concentrations in parotid saliva, mixed saliva, and plasma. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1978;24:720–725. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

48. De Gier JJ, ’t Hart BJ, Wilderink PF, Nelemans FA. Comparison of plasma and saliva levels of diazepam. J Clin Pharmacol. 1980;10:151–155. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

49. Hallstrom C, Lader MH, Curry SH. Diazepam and N-desmethyldiazepam concentrations in saliva, plasma and CSF. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1980;9:333–339. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

50. Kapas IK, Vereczkey L. A rapid capillary gas chromatographic method for the determination of diazepam in human plasma and saliva. Acta Pharmaceutics Hungarica. 1982;52:246–252. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

51. Tjaden UR, Meeles MTHA, Thys CP, Van Der Kaay M. Determination of some benzodiazepines and metabolites in serum, urine and saliva by high-performance liquid chromatography. J Chromatogr. 1980;181:227–241. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

52. Giles HG, Miller R, Macleod SM, Sellers EM. Diazepam and N-desmethyldiazepam in saliva of hospital inpatients. J Clin Pharmacol. 1980;20:71–76. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

53. Lucek R, Dixon R. Chlordiazepoxide concentrations in saliva and plasma measured by radioimmunoassay. Res Commun Chem Path Pharmacol. 1980;27:397–400. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

54. Samyn N, De Boeck G, Cirimele V, et al. Detection of flunitrazepam and 7-aminoflunitrazepam in oral fluid after controlled administration of rohypnol. J Anal Toxicol. 2002;26:211–215. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

55. Quintela O, Cruz A, Concheiro M, et al. A sensitive, rapid and specific determination of midazolam in human plasma and saliva by liquid chromatography/electrospray mass spectrometry. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom. 2004;18:2976–2982. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

56. Kangas L, Allonen H, Lammintausta R, et al. Pharmacokinetics of nitrazepam in saliva and serum after a single oral dose. Acta Pharmacol Toxicol. 1979;45:20–24. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

57. Hart BJ, Wilting J, De Gier JJ. Complications in correlation studies between serum, free serum and saliva concentrations of nitrazepam. Meth Find Exp Clin Pharmacol. 1987;9:127–131. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

58. Costantino A, Schwartz RH, Kaplan P. Hemp oil ingestion causes positive urine tests for delta9-tetrahydrocanabinol carboxylic acid. J Anal Toxicol. 1997;21:482–485. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

59. Huestis MA, Sampson AH, Holicky BJ, et al. Characterization of the absorption phase of marijuana smoking. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1992;52:31–41. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

60. Alt A, Reinhardt G. Positive cannabis results in urine and blood samples after consumption of hemp food products. J Anal Toxicol. 1998;22:80–81. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

61. Cone EJ, Johnson RE, Paul BD, et al. Marijuana-laced brownies: behavioral effects, physiologic effects, and urinalysis in humans following ingestion. J Anal Toxicol. 1988;12:169–175. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

62. Niedbala RS, Kardos KW, Fritch EF, et al. Passive cannabis smoke exposure and oral fluid testing.II. Two studies of extreme cannabis smoke exposure in a motor vehicle. J Anal Toxicol. 2005;29:607–615. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

63. Niedbala S, Kardos K, Salamone S, et al. Passive cannabis smoke exposure and oral fluid testing. J Anal Toxicol. 2004;28:546–552. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

64. Niedbala RS, Kardos KW, Fritch DF, et al. Detection of marijuana use by oral fluid and urine analysis following single-dose administration of smoked and oral marijuana. J Anal Toxicol. 2001;25:289–303. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

65. Huestis MA, Cone EJ. Relationship of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in oral fluid to plasma after controlled administration of smoked cannabis. J Anal Toxicol. 2004;28:394–399. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

66. Darwin WD, Gustafson RA, Sklerov J, et al. Cannabinoid analysis of oral fluid collected from clinical subjects following oral tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) administration (hemp oil and dronabinol) abstract. 2004 Joint SOFT/TIAFT Meeting; Washington, DC. August 30–September 3, 2004; 2004. p. 300. [Google Scholar]

67. Kemp PM, Abukhalaf IK, Manno JE, et al. Cannabinoids in humans I. Analysis of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and six metabolites in plasma and urine using GC-MS. J Anal Toxicol. 1995;19:285–291. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

68. ElSohly MA, deWit H, Wachtel SR, et al. Delta9-tetrahydrocannabivarin as a marker for the ingestion of marijuana versus Marinol: results of a clinical study. J Anal Toxicol. 2001;25:565–571. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

69. Cone EJ, Sampson-Cone AH, Darwin WD, et al. Urine testing for cocaine abuse: metabolic and excretion patterns following different routes of administration and methods for detection of false-negative results. J Anal Toxicol. 2003;27:386–401. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

70. Cone EJ, Oyler J, Darwin WD. Cocaine disposition in saliva following intravenous, intranasal, and smoked administration. J Anal Toxicol. 1997;21:465–475. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

71. Cone EJ, Yousefnejad D, Hillsgrove MJ, et al. Passive inhalation of cocaine. J Anal Toxicol. 1995;19:399–411. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

72. Paul BD, Lalani S, Bosy T, et al. Concentration profiles of cocaine, pyrolytic methyl ecgonidine and thirteen metabolites in human blood and urine: determination by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. Biomed Chromatogr. 2005;19:677–688. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

73. Wall MA, Johnson J, Jacob P, Benowitz NL. Cotinine in the serum, saliva, and urine of nonsmokers, passive smokers, and active smokers. AJPH. 1988;78:699–701. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

74. Jenkins AJ, Henningfield JE, Cone EJ. Relationship between plasma and oral fluid nicotine concentrations in humans: a pilot study. Ther Drug Monit. 2005;27:345–348. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

75. Jarczyk L, Scherer G, Adlkofer F. Serum and saliva concentrations of cotinine in smokers and passive smokers. J Clin Chem Clin Biochem. 1989;27:230–231. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

76. Jarvis MJ, Tunstall-Pedoe H, Feyerabend C, et al. Comparison of tests used to distinguish smokers from nonsmokers. AJPH. 1987;77:1435–1438. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

77. Etzel RA. A review of the use of saliva cotinine as a marker of tobacco smoke exposure. Prev Med. 1990;19:190–197. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

78. Kim I, Wtsadik A, Choo RE, et al. Usefulness of salivary trans-3′-hydroxycotinine concentration and trans-3′-hydroxycotinine/cotinine ratio as biomarkers of cigarette smoke in pregnant women. J Anal Toxicol. 2005;29:689–695. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

79. Benowitz NL. Cotinine as a biomarker of environmental tobacco smoke exposure. Epidemiol Rev. 1996;18:188–204. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

80. Rook EJ, van Ree JM, van den BW, et al. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of high doses of pharmaceutically prepared heroin, by intravenous or by inhalation route in opioid-dependent patients. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2006;98:86–96. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

81. Jenkins AJ, Oyler JM, Cone EJ. Comparison of heroin and cocaine concentrations in saliva with concentrations in blood and plasma. J Anal Toxicol. 1995;19:359–374. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

82. O’Neal CL, Poklis A. The detection of acetylcodeine and 6-acetylmorphine in opiate positive urines. Forensic Sci Int. 1998;95:1–10. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

83. Chen ZR, Irvine RJ, Somogyi AA, Bochner F. Mu receptor binding of some commonly used opioids and their metabolites. Life Sci. 1991;48:2165–2171. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

84. Cone EJ. Ephemeral profiles of prescription drug and formulation tampering: evolving pseudoscience on the Internet. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2006;83(Suppl 1):S31–S39. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

85. Kopecky EA, Jacobson S, Klein J, et al. Correlation of morphine sulfate in blood plasma and saliva in pediatric patients. Ther Drug Monit. 1997;19:530–534. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

86. Rohrig TP, Moore C. The determination of morphine in urine and oral fluid following ingestion of poppy seeds. J Anal Toxicol. 2003;27:449–452. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

87. Kim I, Barnes AJ, Oyler JM, et al. Plasma and oral fluid pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics after oral codeine administration. Clin Chem. 2002;48:1486–1496. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

88. Cone EJ, Dickerson S, Paul BD, Mitchell JM. Forensic drug testing for opiates V. Urine testing for heroin, morphine, and codeine with commercial opiate immunoassays. J Anal Toxicol. 1993;17:156–164. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

89. Johansen M, Rasmussen KE, Christophersen AS. Determination of pholcodine and its metabolites in urine by capillary gas chromatography. J Chromatogr. 1990;532:277–284. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

90. Johansen M, Rasmussen KE, Christophersen AS, Skuterud B. Metabolic study of pholcodine in urine using enzyme multiplied immunoassay technique (EMIT) and capillary gas chromatography. Acta Pharm Nord. 1991;3:91–94. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

91. Meadway C, George S, Braithwaite R. Interpretation of GC-MS opiate results in the presence of pholcodine. Forensic Sci Int. 2002;127:131–135. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

92. Yeh SY, Gorodetzky CW, Krebs HA. Isolation and identification of morphine 3-and 6-glucuronides, morphine 3,6-diglucuronide, morphine 3-ethereal sulfate, normorphine, and normorphine 6-glucuronide as morphine metabolites in humans. J Pharm Sci. 1977;66:1288–1293. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

93. Cone EJ. Testing human hair for drugs of abuse. I. Individual dose and time profiles of morphine and codeine in plasma, saliva, urine, and beard compared to drug-induced effects on pupils and behavior. J Anal Toxicol. 1990;14:1–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

94. Dams R, Choo RE, Lambert WE, et al. Oral fluid as an alternative matrix to monitor opiate and cocaine use in substance abuse treatment patients. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2007;87:258–267. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

95. Vallner JJ, Stewart JT, Kotzan JA, et al. Pharmacokinetics and bioavailability of hydromorphone following intravenous and oral administration to human subjects. J Clin Pharmacol. 1981;21:152–156. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

96. Ritschel W, Parab PV, Denson DD, et al. Absolute bioavailability of hydromorphone after peroral and rectal administration in humans: saliva/plasma ratio and clinical effects. J Clin Pharmacol. 1987;27:647–653. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

97. Cone EJ, Phelps BA, Gorodetzky CW. Urinary excretion of hydromorphone and metabolites in humans, rats, dogs, guinea pigs, and rabbits. J Pharm Sci. 1977;66:1709–1713. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

98. Cone EJ, Heit HA, Caplan YH, Gourlay D. Evidence of morphine metabolism to hydromorphone in pain patients chronically treated with morphine. J Anal Toxicol. 2006;30:1–5. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

99. Otton SV, Schadel M, Cheung SW, et al. CYP2D6 phenotype determines the metabolic conversion of hydrocodone to hydromorphone. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1993;54:463–472. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

100. Cone EJ, Darwin WD, Gorodetzky CW, Tan T. Comparative metabolism of hydrocodone in man, rat, guinea pig, rabbit, and dog. Drug Metab Dispos. 1978;6:488–493. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

101. Oyler JM, Cone EJ, Joseph RE, Jr, Huestis MA. Identification of hydrocodone in human urine following controlled codeine administration. J Anal Toxicol. 2000;24:530–535. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

102. Balikova M, Maresova V, Habrdova V. Evaluation of urinary dihydrocodeine excretion in human by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr B Biomed Sci Appl. 2001;752:179–186. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

103. Smith ML, Hughes RO, Levine B, et al. Forensic drug testing for opiates. VI. Urine testing for hydromorphone, hydrocodone, oxymorphone, and oxycodone with commercial opiate immunoassays and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. J Anal Toxicol. 1995;19:18–26. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

104. Heiskanen T, Olkkola KT, Kalso E. Effects of blocking CYP2D6 on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of oxycodone. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1998;64:603–611. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

105. Beaver WT, Wallenstein SL, Houde RW, Rogers A. Comparisons of the analgesic effects of oral and intramuscular oxymorphone and of intramuscular oxymorphone and morphine in patients with cancer. J Clin Pharmacol. 1977;17:186–198. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

106. Adams MP, Ahdieh H. Pharmacokinetics and dose-proportionality of oxymorphone extended release and its metabolites: results of a randomized crossover study. Pharmacotherapy. 2004;24:468–476. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

107. Cone EJ, Darwin WD, Buchwald WF, Gorodetzky CW. Oxymorphone metabolism and urinary excretion in human, rat, guinea pig, rabbit, and dog. Drug Metab Dispos. 1983;11:446–450. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

108. Takala A, Kaasalainen V, Seppala T, et al. Pharmacokinetic comparison of intravenous and intranasal administration of oxycodone. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1997;41:309–312. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

109. Baldacci A, Thormann W. Analysis of oxycodol and noroxycodol stereoisomers in biological samples by capillary electrophoresis. Electrophoresis. 2005;26:1969–1977. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

110. Baselt RC, Casarett LJ. Urinary excretion of methadone in man. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1971;13:64–70. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

111. Preston KL, Epstein DH, Davoudzadeh D, Huestis MA. Methadone and metabolite urine concentrations in patients maintained on methadone. J Anal Toxicol. 2003;27:332–341. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

112. Bermejo AM, Lucas ACS, Tabernero MJ. Saliva/plasma ratio of methadone and EDDP. J Anal Toxicol. 2000;24:70–72. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

113. Mendelson J, Upton RA, Everhart ET, et al. Bioavailability of sublingual buprenorphine. J Clin Pharmacol. 1997;37:31–37. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

114. Nath RP, Upton RA, Everhart ET, et al. Buprenorphine pharmacokinetics: relative bioavailability of sublingual tablet and liquid formulations. J Clin Pharmacol. 1999;39:619–623. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

115. Cone EJ, Gorodetzky CW, Yousefnejad D, et al. The metabolism and excretion of buprenorphine in humans. Drug Metab Dispos. 1984;12:577–581. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

116. Cone EJ, Dickerson SL, Darwin WD, et al. Elevated drug saliva levels suggest a “depot-like” effect in subjects treated with sublingual buprenorphine. NIDA Res Monogr. 1991;105:569. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

117. Kuhlman JJ, Lalani S, Magluilo J, et al. Human pharmacokinetics of intravenous, sublingual, and buccal buprenorphine. J Anal Toxicol. 1996;20:369–378. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

118. Kuhlman JJ, Levine B, Johnson RE, et al. Relationship of plasma buprenorphine and norbuprenorphine to withdrawal symptoms during dose induction, maintenance and withdrawal from sublingual buprenorphine. Addiction. 1998;93:549–559. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

119. Pitts FN, Jr, Allen RE, Aniline O, Yago LS. Occupational intoxication and long-term persistence of phencyclidine (PCP) in law enforcement personnel. Clin Toxicol. 1981;18:1015–1020. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

120. Cook CE, Perez-Reyes M, Jeffcoat AR, Brine DR. Phencyclidine disposition in humans after small doses of radiolabeled drug. Fed Proc. 1983;42:2566–2569. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

121. Perez-Reyes M, Di Guiseppi S, Brine DR, et al. Urine pH and phencyclidine excretion. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1982;32:635–641. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

122. Domino EF, Wilson AE. Effects of urine acidification on plasma and urine phencyclidine levels in overdosage. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1977;22:421–424. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

123. McCarron MM, Walberg CB, Soares JR, et al. Detection of phencyclidine usage by radioimmunoassay of saliva. J Anal Toxicol. 1984;8:197–201. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

124. Cook CE, Brine DR, Jeffcoat AR, et al. Phencyclidine disposition after intravenous and oral doses. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1982;31:625–634. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

125. Kato K, Hillsgrove M, Weinhold L, et al. Cocaine and metabolite excretion in saliva under stimulated and nonstimulated conditions. J Anal Toxicol. 1993;17:338–341. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

126. Binnie V, McHugh S, Macpherson L, et al. The validation of self-reported smoking status by analysing cotinine levels in stimulated and unstimulated saliva, serum and urine. Oral Dis. 2004;10:287–293. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

127. Nakahara Y, Takahashi K, Kikura R. Hair analysis for drugs of abuse X. Effect of physiochemical properties of drugs on the incorporation rates into hair. Biol Pharm Bull. 1995;18:1223–1227. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

128. Braithwaite RA, Jarvie DR, Minty PSB, et al. Screening for drugs of abuse. I: Opiates, amphetamines and cocaine. Ann Clin Biochem. 1995;32:123–153. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

129. Smith-Kielland A, Skuterud B, Morland J. Urinary excretion of amphetamine after termination of drug abuse. J Anal Toxicol. 1997;21:325–329. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

130. Baselt RC. Disposition of Toxic Drugs and Chemicals in Man. Chemical Toxicology Institute; Foster City, CA: 2000. [Google Scholar]

131. Cook CE, Jeffcoat AR, Sadler BM, et al. Pharmacokinetics of oral methamphetamine and effects of repeated daily dosing in humans. Drug Metab Dispos. 1992;20:856–862. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

132. Oyler JM, Cone EJ, Joseph RE, Jr, et al. Duration of detectable methamphetamine and amphetamine excretion in urine after controlled oral administration of methamphetamine to humans. Clin Chem. 2002;48:1703–1714. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

133. Garrett ER, Seyda K, Marroum P. High performance liquid chromatographic assays of the illicit designer drug “ecstasy” a modified amphetamine, with applications to stability, partitioning and plasma protein binding. Acta Pharm Nordica. 1991;3:9–14. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

134. Barfknecht CF, Nichols DE. Correlation of psychotomimetic activity of phenethylamines and amphetamines with 1-octanol-water partition coefficients. J Med Chem. 1975;18:208–210. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

135. Spitzer M, Franke B, Walter H, et al. Enantio-selective cognitive and brain activation effects of N-ethyl-3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine in humans. Neuropharmacology. 2001;41:263–271. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

136. Ensslin HK, Kovar KA, Maurer HH. Toxicological detection of the designer drug 3,4-methylenedioxyethylamphetamine (MDE, “Eve”) and its metabolites in urine by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry and fluorescence polarization immunoassay. J Chromatogr Biomed Appl. 1996;683:189–197. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

137. Grove J, Toseland PA. The excretion of hydroxyamylobarbitone in man after oral administration of amylobarbitone and hydroxyamylobarbitone. J Pharm Pharmacol. 1971;23:936–940. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

138. Kaplan SA, Jack ML, Alexander K, Weinfeld RE. Pharmacokinetic profile of diazepam in man following single intravenous and oral and chronic oral administration. J Pharm Sci. 1973;62:1789–1796. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

139. Verebey K, Jukofsky D, Mule SJ. Confirmation of EMIT benzodiazepine assay with GLC/NPD. J Anal Toxicol. 1982;6:305–308. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

140. Dixon R, Crews T. Diazepam: determination in micro samples of blood, plasma, and saliva by radioimmunoassay. J Anal Toxicol. 1978;2:210–213. [Google Scholar]

141. Sharp ME, Wallace SM, Hindmarsh KW, Peel HW. Monitoring saliva concentrations of methaqualone, codeine, secobarbital, diphenhydramine and diazepam after single oral doses. J Anal Toxicol. 1983;7:11–14. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

142. Etzel RA, Carlsson S, Kanter SL, et al. Urinary metabolites of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in man. Arzneimittelforchung. 1982;32:764–768. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

143. Garrett ER, Hunt CA. Physicochemical properties, solubility, and protein binding of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol. J Pharm Sci. 1974;63:1056–1064. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

144. Ohlsson A, Lindgren JE, Wahlen A, et al. Single dose kinetics of deuterium labelled delta-1-tetrahydrocannabinol in heavy and light cannabis users. Biomed Environ Mass Spectrom. 1982;9:6–10. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

145. Grotenhermen F. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of cannabinoids. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2003;42:327–360. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

146. Kelly P, Jones RT. Metabolism of tetrahydrocannabinol in frequent and infrequent marijuana users. J Anal Toxicol. 1992;16:228–235. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

147. Huestis MA, Mitchell JM, Cone EJ. Detection times of marijuana metabolites in urine by immunoassay and GC-MS. J Anal Toxicol. 1995;19:443–449. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

148. Ellis GM, Mann MA, Judson BA, et al. Excretion patterns of cannabinoid metabolites after last use in a group of chronic users. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1985;38:572–578. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

149. Thompson LK, Cone EJ. Determination of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in human blood and saliva by high-performance liquid chromatography with amperometric detection. J Chromatogr. 1987;421:91–97. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

150. Kintz P, Cirimele V, Ludes B. Detection of cannabis in oral fluid (saliva) and forehead wipes (sweat) from impaired drivers. J Anal Toxicol. 2000;24:557–561. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

151. Garrett ER, Seyda K. Prediction of stability in pharmaceutical preparations. XX: Stability evaluation and bioanalysis of cocaine and benzoylecgonine by high-performance liquid chromatography. J Pharm Sci. 1983;72:258–271. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

152. Jufer RA, Wstadik A, Walsh SL, et al. Elimination of cocaine and metabolites in plasma, saliva, and urine following repeated oral administration to human volunteers. J Anal Toxicol. 2000;24:467–477. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

153. Cone EJ, Kumor K, Thompson LK, Sherer M. Correlation of saliva cocaine levels with plasma levels and with pharmacologic effects after intravenous cocaine administration in human subjects. J Anal Toxicol. 1988;12:200–206. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

154. Cone EJ. Personal communication. 2006 [Google Scholar]

155. Jufer R, Walsh SL, Cone EJ, Sampson-Cone AH. Effect of repeated cocaine administration on detection times in oral fluid and urine. J Anal Toxicol. 2006;30:458–462. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

156. Preston KL, Epstein DH, Cone EJ, et al. Urinary elimination of cocaine metabolites in chronic cocaine users during cessation. J Anal Toxicol. 2002;26:393–400. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

157. Svensson CK. Clinical pharmacokinetics of nicotine. Clin Pharmacokinet. 1987;12:30–40. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

158. Behera D, Uppal R, Majumdar S. Urinary levels of nicotine & cotinine in tobacco users. Indian J Med Res. 2003;118:129–133. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

159. Curvall M, Enzell CR. Monitoring absorption by means of determination of nicotine and cotinine. Arch Toxicol. 1986;9:88–102. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

160. Jarvis MJ, Russell MAH, Benowitz NL, Feyerabend C. Elimination of cotinine from body fluids: implications for noninvasive measurement of tobacco smoke exposure. AJPH. 1988;78:696–698. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

161. Gorrod JW, Jacob P III, editors. Analytical Determination of Nicotine and Related Compounds and Their Metabolites. Elsevier; Amsterdam: 1999. [Google Scholar]

162. Carey KB, Abrams DB. Properties of saliva cotinine in young adult light smokers. AJPH. 1988;78:842–843. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

163. Beckett AH, Gorrod JW, Jenner P. A possible relation between pKa, and lipid solubility and the amounts excreted in urine of some tobacco alkaloids given to man. J Pharm Pharmacol. 1972;24:115–120. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

164. Buchhalter AR, Acosta MC, Evans SE, et al. Tobacco abstinence symptom suppression: the role played by the smoking-related stimuli that are delivered by denicotinized cigarettes. Addiction. 2005;100:550–559. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

165. Murray DM, McBride C, Lindquist R, Belcher JD. Sensitivity and specificity of saliva thiocyanate and cotinine for cigarette smoking: a comparison of two collection methods. Addict Behav. 1991;16:161–166. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

166. McNeill AD, Jarvis MJ, West R, et al. Saliva cotinine as an indicator of cigarette smoking in adolescents. Br J Addict. 1987;82:1355–1360. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

167. Galeazzi RL, Daenens P, Gugger M. Steady-state concentration of cotinine as a measure of nicotine-intake by smokers. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1985;28:301–304. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

168. Cone EJ, Jufer R, Darwin WD. Forensic drug testing for opiates. VII. Urinary excretion profile of intranasal (snorted) heroin. J Anal Toxicol. 1996;20:379–391. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

169. Cohn GL, Cramer JA, McBride W, et al. Heroin and morphine binding with human serum proteins and red blood cells. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1974;147:664–666. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

170. Olsen GD. Morphine binding to human plasma proteins. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1975;17:31–35. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

171. Judis J. Binding of codeine, morphine, and methadone to human serum proteins. J Pharm Sci. 1977;66:802–806. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

172. Avdeef A, Barrett DA, Shaw PN, et al. Octanol-, chloroform-, and propylene glycol dipelargonat-water partitioning of morphine-6-glucuronide and other related opiates. J Med Chem. 1996;39:4377–4381. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

173. Dahlstrom B. Pharmacokinetics of morphine in relation to the analgesic effect. In: Barnett G, Chiang CN, editors. Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Psychoactive Drugs. Biomedical Publications; Foster City: 1985. pp. 185–208. [Google Scholar]

174. Smith ML, Shimomura ET, Summers J, et al. Detection times and analytical performance of commercial urine opiate immunoassays following heroin administration. J Anal Toxicol. 2000;24:522–529. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

175. Reiter A, Hake J, Meissner C, et al. Time of drug elimination in chronic drug abusers. Case study of 52 patients in a “low-step” detoxification ward. Forensic Sci Int. 2001;119:248–253. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

176. Stanski DR, Greenblatt DJ, Lowenstein E. Kinetics of intravenous and intramuscular morphine. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1978;24:52–59. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

177. Cone EJ, Welch P, Paul BD, Mitchell JM. Forensic drug testing for opiates. III. Urinary excretion rates of morphine and codeine following codeine administration. J Anal Toxicol. 1991;15:161–166. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

178. Kintz P, Cirimele V, Ludes B. Codeine testing in sweat and saliva with the Drugwipe. Int J Leg Med. 1998;111:82–84. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

179. Adams MP, Ahdieh H. Single- and multiple-dose pharmacokinetic and dose-proportionality study of oxymorphone immediate-release tablets. Drugs R D. 2005;6:91–99. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

180. Leow KP, Cramond T, Smith MT. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of oxycodone when given intravenously and rectally to adult patients with cancer pain. Anesth Analg. 1995;80:296–302. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

181. Tien JH. Transdermal-controlled administration of oxycodone. J Pharm Sci. 1991;80:741–743. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

182. Jones J, Tomlinson K, Moore C. The simultaneous determination of codeine, morphine, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, 6-acetylmorphine, and oxycodone in hair and oral fluid. J Anal Toxicol. 2002;26:171–175. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

183. Sullivan HR, Due SL. Urinary metabolites of dl-methadone in maintenance subjects. J Med Chem. 1973;16:909–913. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

184. Wilkins JN, Ashofteh A, Setoda D, et al. Ultrafiltration using the Amicon MPS-1 for assessing methadone plasma protein binding. Ther Drug Monit. 1997;19:83–87. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

185. Wolff K, Rostami-Hodjegan A, Shires S, et al. The pharmacokinetics of methadone in healthy subjects and opiate users. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1997;44:325–334. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

186. Garrido MJ, Troconiz IF. Methadone: a review of its pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic properties. J Pharmacol Toxicol. 1999;42:61–66. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

187. Wolff K, Hay A, Raistrick D. Methadone in saliva. Clin Chem. 1991;37:1297–1298. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

188. Kang GI, Abbott FS. Analysis of methadone and metabolites in biological fluids with gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr. 1982;231:311–319. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

189. Simpson D, Braithwaite RA, Jarvie DR, et al. Screening for drugs of abuse (II): cannabinoids, lysergic acid diethylamide, buprenorphine, methadone, barbiturates, benzodiazepines and other drugs. Ann Clin Biochem. 1997;34:460–510. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

190. Garrett ER, Chandran VR. Pharmacokinetics of morphine and its surrogates VI: bioanalysis, solvolysis kinetics, solubility, pKa values, and protein binding of buprenorphine. J Pharm Sci. 1985;74:515–524. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

191. Cone EJ, Gorodetzky CW, Yousefnejad D, Darwin WD. Ni electron-capture gas-chromatographic assay for buprenorphine and metabolites in human urine and feces. J Chromatogr. 1985;337:291–300. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

192. Vincent F, Bessard J, Vacheron J, et al. Determination of buprenorphine and norbuprenorphine in urine and hair by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. J Anal Toxicol. 1999;23:270–279. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

193. Wall ME, Brine DR, Jeffcoat AR, et al. Phencyclidine metabolism and disposition in man following a 100 ug intravenous dose. Res Commun Subst Abuse. 1981;2:161–172. [Google Scholar]

194. Simpson GM, Khajawall AM, Alatorre E, Staples FR. Urinary phencyclidine excretion in chronic abusers. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol. 1982;19:1051–1059. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]