Svante Vikingsson, Ruth E Winecker, Edward J Cone, David J Kuntz, Eugene D Hayes, Ronald R Flegel, Lisa S Davis
{"title":"Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol and 11-hydroxy-Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol as markers of cannabis use in urinary drug testing.","authors":"Svante Vikingsson, Ruth E Winecker, Edward J Cone, David J Kuntz, Eugene D Hayes, Ronald R Flegel, Lisa S Davis","doi":"10.1093/jat/bkae070","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>With some exceptions, California Assembly Bill 2188 will preclude the use of ∆9-tetrahydrocannabinol-9-carboxylic acid (Δ9-THC-COOH) as a marker of cannabis use in urinary workplace drug testing. The bill allows for the use of psychoactive cannabis markers, which include Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ9-THC) and the metabolite 11-hydroxy-Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (11-OH-Δ9-THC). Both analytes are present in urine mainly as conjugated metabolites and will require hydrolysis prior to analysis, but very little is known about expected concentrations in urine. The aim of this study was to report the concentrations from two large datasets comprising 1411 workplace drug-testing urine specimens that tested positive by immunoassay (50 ng/mL cutoff) and discuss strategies for using 11-OH-Δ9-THC and/or Δ9-THC to detect cannabis use. Median 11-OH-Δ9-THC and Δ9-THC concentrations were 28%-35% and 1.1%-1.6% of those of Δ9-THC-COOH, respectively, and correlations between the analytes were observed. To avoid the risk of positives from passive exposure, laboratories could use a cutoff with equivalent sensitivity to cannabis exposure. A 5 ng/mL cutoff for 11-OH-Δ9-THC showed 92% agreement with a 15 ng/mL cutoff for Δ9-THC-COOH, with only 0.9% of specimens being positive only for 11-OH-Δ9-THC. It was not possible to propose an estimated cutoff for Δ9-THC, due to the constraints of the limit of detection used in this study.</p>","PeriodicalId":14905,"journal":{"name":"Journal of analytical toxicology","volume":" ","pages":"710-714"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of analytical toxicology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jat/bkae070","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, ANALYTICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
With some exceptions, California Assembly Bill 2188 will preclude the use of ∆9-tetrahydrocannabinol-9-carboxylic acid (Δ9-THC-COOH) as a marker of cannabis use in urinary workplace drug testing. The bill allows for the use of psychoactive cannabis markers, which include Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ9-THC) and the metabolite 11-hydroxy-Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (11-OH-Δ9-THC). Both analytes are present in urine mainly as conjugated metabolites and will require hydrolysis prior to analysis, but very little is known about expected concentrations in urine. The aim of this study was to report the concentrations from two large datasets comprising 1411 workplace drug-testing urine specimens that tested positive by immunoassay (50 ng/mL cutoff) and discuss strategies for using 11-OH-Δ9-THC and/or Δ9-THC to detect cannabis use. Median 11-OH-Δ9-THC and Δ9-THC concentrations were 28%-35% and 1.1%-1.6% of those of Δ9-THC-COOH, respectively, and correlations between the analytes were observed. To avoid the risk of positives from passive exposure, laboratories could use a cutoff with equivalent sensitivity to cannabis exposure. A 5 ng/mL cutoff for 11-OH-Δ9-THC showed 92% agreement with a 15 ng/mL cutoff for Δ9-THC-COOH, with only 0.9% of specimens being positive only for 11-OH-Δ9-THC. It was not possible to propose an estimated cutoff for Δ9-THC, due to the constraints of the limit of detection used in this study.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Analytical Toxicology (JAT) is an international toxicology journal devoted to the timely dissemination of scientific communications concerning potentially toxic substances and drug identification, isolation, and quantitation.
Since its inception in 1977, the Journal of Analytical Toxicology has striven to present state-of-the-art techniques used in toxicology labs. The peer-review process provided by the distinguished members of the Editorial Advisory Board ensures the high-quality and integrity of articles published in the Journal of Analytical Toxicology. Timely presentation of the latest toxicology developments is ensured through Technical Notes, Case Reports, and Letters to the Editor.