4.7 Article

Disposition of MDMA and Metabolites in Human Sweat Following Controlled MDMA Administration

期刊

CLINICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 55, 期 3, 页码 454-462

出版社

AMER ASSOC CLINICAL CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2008.117093

关键词

-

资金

  1. Intramural NIH HHS [Z01 DA000468-04] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Understanding the excretion of 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) and metabolites in sweat is vital for interpretation of sweat tests in drug treatment, criminal justice, and workplace programs. METHODS: Placebo, low (1.0 mg/kg), and high (1.6 mg/kg) doses of oral MDMA were given double-blind in random order to healthy volunteers (n = 15) with histories of MDMA use. Participants resided on the closed clinical research unit for up to 7 days after each dose. Volunteers wore PharmChek (R) sweat patches (n = 640) before, during, and after controlled dosing. Patches were analyzed by solid phase extraction and GC-MS for MDMA, methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDA), 4-hydroxy-3-methoxyamphetamine (HMA), and 4hydroxy-3-methoxymethamphetamine (HMMA). Limits of quantification (LOQ) were 2.5 ng/patch for MDMA and 5 ng/patch for HMA, HMMA, and MDA. RESULTS: MDMA was the primary analyte detected in 382 patches (59.7%), with concentrations up to 3007 ng/patch. MDA was detected in 188 patches (29.4%) at <172 ng/patch, whereas no HMMA or HMA was detected; 224 patches (35.0%) and 60 patches (9.4%) were positive for MDMA and MDA, respectively, at the 25-ng/patch threshold proposed by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. CONCLUSIONS: Sweat testing was shown to be an effective and reliable method for monitoring MDMA use in this controlled MDMA administration study. However, variability in sweat excretion suggests that results should be interpreted qualitatively rather than quantitatively. These data provide a scientific database for interpretation of MDMA sweat test results. (C) 2008 American Association for Clinical Chemistry

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据