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.

Factors Compromising Glucuronidase Performance in Urine Drug Testing Potentially Resulting in False Negatives

Next generation β-glucuronidases can effectively cleave glucuronides in urine at room temperature. However, during the discovery studies, additional challenges were identified for urine drug testing across biologically relevant pH extremes and patient urine specimens. Different enzymes were evaluated across clinical urine specimens and commercially available urine control matrices. Each enzyme shows distinct substrate preferences, pH optima, and variability across clinical specimens. These results demonstrate how reliance on a single glucuronidated substrate as the internal hydrolysis control cannot ensure performance across a broader panel of analytes. Moreover, sample specific urine properties compromise β-glucuronidases to varying levels, more pronounced for some enzymes, and thereby lower the recovery of some drug analytes in an enzyme-specific manner. A minimum of 3-fold dilution of urine with buffer yields measurable improvements in achieving target pH and reducing the impact of endogenous compounds on enzyme performance. After subjecting the enzymes to pH extremes and compromising chemicals, one particular β-glucuronidase was identified that addressed many of these challenges and greatly lower the risk of failed hydrolyses. In summary, we present strategies to evaluate glucuronidases that aid in higher accuracy urine drug tests with lower potential for false negatives.