Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2022 Oct 1;44(5):599-605.
doi: 10.1097/FTD.0000000000000974.

New Psychoactive Substances: Which Biological Matrix Is the Best for Clinical Toxicology Screening?

Affiliations
Review

New Psychoactive Substances: Which Biological Matrix Is the Best for Clinical Toxicology Screening?

Lea Wagmann et al. Ther Drug Monit. .

Abstract

Background: Every year, more new psychoactive substances (NPSs) emerge in the market of the drugs of abuse. NPSs belong to various chemical classes, such as synthetic cannabinoids, phenethylamines, opioids, and benzodiazepines. The detection of NPSs intake using different types of biological matrices is challenging for clinical toxicologists because of their structural diversity and the lack of information on their toxicokinetics, including their metabolic fate.

Methods: PubMed-listed articles reporting mass spectrometry-based bioanalytical approaches for NPSs detection published during the past 5 years were identified and discussed. Furthermore, the pros and cons of using common biological matrices in clinical toxicology (CT) settings to screen for NPSs are highlighted in this review article.

Results: Twenty-six articles presenting multianalyte screening methods for use in the field of CT were considered. The advantages and disadvantages of different biological matrices are discussed with a particular view of the different analytical tasks in CT, especially emergency toxicology. Finally, an outlook introduces the emerging trends in biosamples used in CT, such as the exhaled breath.

Conclusions: Blood and urine represent the most common biological matrices used in a CT setting; however, reports concerning NPSs detection in alternative matrices are also available. Noteworthy, the selection of the biological matrix must depend on the clinician's enquiry because the individual advantages and disadvantages must be considered.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. EMCDDA. European Drug Report 2020. Publications of of the European Union; 2020. Available at: http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/edr2020_en . Accessed October 08, 2021.
    1. Flanagan RJ, Taylor A, Watson ID, et al. Analytical toxicology: overview. In: Fundamentals of Analytical Toxicology. Chichester, United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 2008:1–19.
    1. Brent J, Burkhart K, Dargan P, et al. Critical Care Toxicology. Basel, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 2017.
    1. Meyer MR, Maurer HH. Review: LC coupled to low- and high-resolution mass spectrometry for new psychoactive substance screening in biological matrices—where do we stand today? Anal Chim Acta. 2016;927:13–20.
    1. Wagmann L, Richter LHJ, Kehl T, et al. In vitro metabolic fate of nine LSD-based new psychoactive substances and their analytical detectability in different urinary screening procedures. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2019;411:4751–4763.

LinkOut - more resources