Determination of Lysergic Acid Diethylamide and 2-Oxo-3-Hydroxy-LSD in Blood: Validation and Comparison of Two Liquid Chromatography–Tandem Mass Spectrometry Methods
Alexandra Dimitrova, Maria Grazia di Milia, Regina Rensi, Simone Grassi, Barbara Gualco, Fabio Vaiano
Separations September 27, 2023 Peer reviewed DOI: 10.3390/separations10090502 via DOAJ
Summary
Two methods for detecting LSD and its metabolite O-H-LSD in blood were validated. Method #1 is an upgraded screening procedure with a limit of quantification (LOQ) of 0.0375 ng/mL for LSD and 0.01875 ng/mL for O-H-LSD. Method #2, specific for LSD and O-H-LSD, has lower LOQs of 0.025 ng/mL for LSD and 0.0125 ng/mL for O-H-LSD. Both methods showed good linearity and sensitivity, with successful application in two real cases.
Study at a glance
| Sample size | 2 |
|---|---|
| Population | blood samples from two real cases |
| Key finding | Both validated methods demonstrated good sensitivity and reliability for the detection of LSD and O-H-LSD in blood. |
Abstract
Lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) is a powerful hallucinogen. Its detection is limited by its low dosage; moreover, LSD is rapidly metabolized into 2-oxo-3-hydroxy-LSD (O-H-LSD). In this study we validated two methods for determination of LSD and O-H-LSD in blood. Method #1 consisted in the upgrade of a previously developed procedure for detection of 163 compounds. Method #2 was specific for LSD and O-H-LSD. Analyses were performed through LC-MS/MS by dynamic (#1) and/or MRM mode (#2), in positive ionization. Transitions were: 324→223,208 m/z for LSD; 356→237,222 m/z for O-H-LSD. Validations were performed following the AAFS’s guidelines. Linearity was good for both methods. Sensitivity was in line with previously validated methods with LOQs at 0.0375 (#1) and 0.025 (#2) ng/mL for LSD and 0.01875 (#1) and 0.0125 (#2) ng/mL for O-H-LSD. Bias and %CV always met the acceptance criteria. RRs were >83%, except for O-H-LSD with method #1. The methods were successfully applied to two real cases. Method #1 proved to be useful for screening purposes, while method #2 can represent a sensitive and reliable tool for confirmation procedures.