Review of the Current State of Urine Drug Testing in Chronic Pain: Still Effective as a Clinical Tool and Curbing Abuse, or an Arcane Test?

Rates and costs of drug testing practices for private payors in the outpatient setting in the United States, 2015-2019

INTRODUCTION

Clinical practice guidelines recommend drug testing patients who are receiving opioids chronically for pain or medication for a substance use disorder (SUD)-particularly opioid use disorder (OUD)-but practices vary due to a lack of consensus on testing frequency during follow-up. This study aimed to evaluate rates and costs of outpatient drug testing practices for patients receiving opioids for chronic pain or medication for an SUD.

METHODS

Using claims data from a large de-identified claims data warehouse, we conducted a retrospective cohort study of chronic opioid, buprenorphine, and naltrexone users between January 2015 and December 2019. We identified two cohorts-chronic opioid medication cohort (CO) and SUD-indicated medication cohort (SUD). We assessed drug testing rates during follow-up using procedure codes and costs using copayment, deductible, co-insurance, and out-of-pocket data.

RESULTS

Among 6,657,515 eligible claimants, 367,118 (5.5 %) received opioids chronically and 73,303 (1.1 %) received an SUD-indicated medication. The cumulative proportion of drug testing during follow-up was similar between cohorts (CO: 36 %; SUD: 35 %), but rate of testing was consistently twice as frequent for the SUD cohort. All cost variables for the first drug test were higher on average in the SUD cohort than the CO cohort except copay: deductible (SUD: $18.54; CO: $7.33); co-insurance (SUD: $10.36; CO: $2.53); out-of-pocket (SUD: $29.39; CO: $10.57); copay (CO: $0.71; SUD: $0.49) (all p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall proportion of drug testing was similar between cohorts, but testing frequency was at least double during follow-up in the SUD cohort. Most cost variables were higher in the SUD cohort. Whether the high cost of drug testing is a barrier to medication use or is associated with treatment discontinuation should be evaluated.

Should Urine Drug Screen be Done Universally or Selectively in Palliative Care Patients on Opioids?

Urine drug screen (UDS) is a useful test conducted in patients receiving opioids for chronic pain to aid in validating patient adherence to opioid treatment and to detect any nonmedical opioid use (NMOU). One controversial topic regarding its use in palliative care is whether to conduct the test universally and randomly in all patients who are receiving opioids for chronic pain irrespective of their level of risk for NMOU, or to conduct the test selectively in only those with a high risk for engaging in NMOU behaviors. In this "Controversies in Palliative Care" article, 3 expert clinicians independently answer this question. Specifically, each expert provides a synopsis of the key studies that inform their thought processes, share practical advice on their clinical approach, and highlight the opportunities for future research. They all agreed that UDS has some utility in routine palliative care practice but acknowledged the insufficient existing evidence supporting its efficacy. They also underscored the need to improve clinician proficiency in UDS interpretation to enhance its utility. Two experts endorsed random UDS in all patients receiving opioids regardless of their risk profile while the other expert recommended targeted UDS until there is more clinical evidence to support universal, random testing. Use of more methodologically robust study designs in UDS research, examination of the cost-effectiveness of UDS tests, development of innovative programs to manage NMOU behaviors, and investigation of the impact of improved clinician proficiency in UDS interpretation on clinical outcomes, were important areas of future research that the experts identified.

Opioid Therapy in Cancer Patients and Survivors at Risk of Addiction, Misuse or Complex Dependency

A clinical conundrum can occur when a patient with active opioid use disorder (OUD) or at elevated risk for the condition presents with cancer and related painful symptoms. Despite earlier beliefs that cancer patients were relatively unaffected by opioid misuse, it appears that cancer patients have similar risks as the general population for OUD but are more likely to need and take opioids. Treating such patients requires an individualized approach, informed consent, and a shared decision-making model. Tools exist to help stratify patients for risk of OUD. While improved clinician education in pain control is needed, patients too need to be better informed about the risks and benefits of opioids. Patients may fear pain more than OUD, but opioids are not always the most effective pain reliever for a given patient and some patients do not tolerate or want to take opioids. The association of OUD with mental health disorders (dual diagnosis) can also complicate delivery of care as patients with mental health issues may be less adherent to treatment and may use opioids for “chemical coping” as much as for pain control.

The North American opioid epidemic: opportunities and challenges for clinical laboratories

Since 1999, the opioid epidemic in North America has resulted in over 1 million deaths, and it continues to escalate despite numerous efforts in various arenas to combat the upward trend. Clinical laboratories provide drug testing to support practices such as emergency medicine, substance use disorder treatment, and pain management; increasingly, these laboratories are collaborating in novel partnerships including drug-checking services (DCS) and multidisciplinary treatment teams. This review examines drug testing related to management of licit and illicit opioid use, new technologies and test strategies employed by clinical laboratories, barriers hindering laboratory response to the opioid epidemic, and areas for improvement and standardization within drug testing. Literature search terms included combinations of "opioid," "opiate," "fentanyl," "laboratory," "epidemic," "crisis," "mass spectrometry," "immunoassay," "drug screen," "drug test," "guidelines," plus review of PubMed "similar articles" and references within publications. While immunoassay (IA) and point-of-care (POC) test options for synthetic opioids are increasingly available, mass spectrometry (MS) platforms offer the greatest flexibility and sensitivity for detecting novel, potent opioids. Previously reserved as a second-tier application in most drug test algorithms, MS assays are gaining a larger role in initial screening for specific patients and DCS. However, there are substantial differences among laboratories in terms of updating test menus, algorithms, and technologies to meet changing clinical needs. While some clinical laboratories lack the resources and expertise to implement MS, many are also slow to adopt available IA and POC tests for newer opioids such as fentanyl. MS-based testing also presents challenges, including gaps in available guidance for assay validation and ongoing performance assessment that contribute to a dramatic lack of standardization among laboratories. We identify opportunities for improvement in laboratory operations, reporting, and interpretation of drug test results, including laboratorian and provider education and laboratory-focused guidelines. We also highlight the need for collaboration with providers, assay and instrument manufacturers, and national organizations to increase the effectiveness of clinical laboratory and provider efforts in preventing morbidity and mortality associated with opioid use and misuse.