This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
Detecting z-drugs, a sedative-hypnotic medication, is also misused for criminal activities. Therefore, the analysis of urine samples is crucial for clinical and forensic purposes. We conducted a study where we developed, validated, and compared an analytical method for simultaneously detecting z-drugs in urine samples. Our approach uses the QuEChERS method for sample preparation, combined with liquid chromatography (LC) and gas chromatography (GC) coupled with tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS). We optimized the QuEChERS method to effectively extract z-drugs from urine samples while minimizing matrix effects and achieving high recovery rates. After extraction, we split the samples into two parts for analysis using LC-MS/MS and GC-MS/MS. We validated our methods, and the results showed good linearity over a broad concentration range (1-200 ng/mL) for each z-drug. The limits of detection and quantification were within clinically relevant ranges, ensuring sensitivity for detecting z-drugs in urine samples. We compared the two chromatographic techniques by analyzing a set of urine samples spiked with known concentrations of z-drugs using both LC-MS/MS and GC-MS/MS methods and then applied to the real samples. The results were statistically analyzed to assess any significant differences in accuracy and precision above 95 %, and both methods offered reliable and consistent results with the samples as well. In conclusion, our analytical method coupled with both LC-MS/MS and GC-MS/MS using the QuEChERS approach provides a comprehensive and robust solution for the simultaneous detection of z-drugs in urine samples. The choice between the two chromatographic techniques can be based on the specific z-drugs of interest and the required analytical performance. This method holds promise for applications in clinical toxicology, forensic analysis, and monitoring z-drug usage.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chauhan et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: