Definitive LC-MS/MS Drug Monitoring Impacts Substance-use Treatment Planning and Patient Outcomes: A Brief Report

Urine drug testing in the context of opioid analgesic prescribing for chronic pain: a content analysis of U.S. state laws in 2022

BACKGROUND

In response to the opioid crisis, U.S. states have passed laws requiring urine drug testing (UDT) when opioid analgesics are prescribed for chronic pain. We sought to identify state law UDT requirements.

METHODS

We searched NexisUni legal database using terms related to UDT, chronic pain, and opioids. We included laws effective during spring 2022 that required UDT when opioids were prescribed for chronic pain. We performed deductive content analysis, coding laws for mandated UDT frequency, type of clinician and type of payer to whom the law applied, and circumstances under which UDT was mandated.

RESULTS

We found 32 laws across 13 states that met our inclusion criteria. UDT requirements varied substantially by state, including with regard to the type of clinician to whom the law applied, the mandated frequency of UDT (eg, at initiation/assessment, at least annually, more than once per year), and the circumstances in which UDT was mandated (eg, patient had substance use disorder; dosage/day threshold).

DISCUSSION

Relatively few states have UDT mandates associated with prescribing opioids as chronic pain treatment. When developing policy indicators for empirical studies, researchers evaluating how UDT policy affects health outcomes must consider the complexity and lack of uniformity of UDT requirements. In addition, even if states mandate UDT, it is unclear whether clinicians understand the best way to use the test results.

Polydrug use among patients on methadone medication treatment: Evidence from urine drug testing to inform patient safety

AIMS

Patients in methadone medication treatment for opioid use disorder (M-MOUD) typically have a complex history of opioid use, often in combination with other drugs. It is unknown how frequently M-MOUD patients experience persistent substance or polysubstance use. We measured trends in illicit substance use in a large, multistate population of M-MOUD patients and persistence of substance use in the first year of treatment.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study of United States (US) M-MOUD patients from 2017 to 2021, focused on urine drug specimens provided for testing to Millennium Health, a third-party laboratory. Specimens were analyzed using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to estimate the average trends in positivity during time in treatment.

SETTING

Specimens were obtained from clinics in 10 US states that provided at least 300 unique patients during the study period (Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Minnesota, New Mexico, Ohio, Virginia and Washington).

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with opioid use disorder receiving M-MOUD (n = 16 386).

MEASUREMENTS

Positivity rates for heroin, fentanyl, methamphetamine and cocaine.

FINDINGS

From 2017 to 2021, yearly crude positivity rates for first collected specimens increased for fentanyl (13.1%-53.0%, P < 0.001), methamphetamine (10.6%-27.2%, P < 0.001) and cocaine (13.8%-19.5%, P < 0.001); for heroin positivity did not significantly change (6.9%-6.5%, P = 0.74). In regression models estimating patient trajectories from week 1 to week 52, marginal fentanyl positivity declined from 21.8% to 17.1% (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 0.78, P < 0.001) and heroin positivity declined from 8.4% to 4.3% (IRR = 0.51, P < 0.001), but positivity for methamphetamine and cocaine did not significantly change, remaining at an average of 17.7% (IRR = 0.98, P = 0.53) and 9.2% (IRR = 0.96, P = 0.36), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Between 2017 and 2021, United States patients presenting to opioid treatment programs increasingly tested positive for fentanyl, methamphetamine and cocaine. Methadone medication treatment for opioid use disorder appears to remain an effective intervention for reducing illicit opioid use.

Does the perceived accuracy of urine drug testing impact clinical decision-making?

Background: Urine drug testing techniques have different rates of false-positive and false-negative test results. However, clinicians may have highly varying perceptions of test accuracy and may compensate for perceived inaccuracy by incorporating other factors into their interpretation of observed test results. Thus, there is the potential for adverse consequences from decisions based on inaccurate test results or interpretation. Methods: We surveyed 466 members of the American Society of Addiction Medicine to examine clinicians' perceptions of the accuracy of 2 types of urine drug tests, immunoassay (IA) and liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS), and the extent to which behavioral and demographic factors influence the interpretation of test results. Participants read 4 brief vignettes describing positive and negative test results in hypothetical patients who differed along several dimensions (gender, age, race/ethnicity, comorbid mental disorder, court-ordered versus voluntary status, treatment compliance). Outcome variables include likelihood of renewed drug use, likelihood of test error, whether to request additional testing, and whether to report the violation to a probation officer. Results: The strongest predictor of study outcomes was treatment compliance (consistent versus inconsistent attendance), as this was the only independent variable to generate effect sizes of medium strength. Significant effect sizes were also found for type of test used (IA versus LC-MS/MS), legal status (court-mandated versus voluntary), presence of a comorbid mental disorder, treatment history, and race, although effect sizes for these variables were small and less consistently observed. Conclusions: These results highlight the potential for error in clinician judgments about urine drug testing. Not only were participants likely to underestimate the accuracy of "confirmatory" LC-MS/MS testing, but vignettes suggested that a number of historical and demographic factors may influence interpretation of test results.

Positivity rates of drugs in patients treated for opioid dependence with buprenorphine: A comparison of oral fluid and urine using paired collections and LC-MS/MS

BACKGROUND

Drug testing is recommended as part of comprehensive monitoring for medication-assisted treatment. Alternative matrices including oral fluid offer a number of advantages when compared with conventional urine testing but are not as well characterized. This study aims to compare positivity rates of drugs and drug classes in oral fluid and urine as a measure of the clinical utility of oral fluid in the evaluation and treatment of patients with opioid use disorders.

METHODS

A retrospective review of paired oral fluid and urine test results from Millennium Health's laboratory database was performed for 2746 patients with reported prescriptions for buprenorphine products used in the treatment of opioid dependence. Specimens were tested using quantitative LC-MS/MS for 34 medications, metabolites and illicit drugs.

RESULTS

A number of medications and illicit drugs were detected at comparable or higher rates in oral fluid vs. urine such as cocaine (15.7% vs. 7.9%), opiates (13.4% vs. 10.0%), oxycodone (8.6% vs. 3.7%), hydrocodone (3.0% vs. 1.2%) and others. Lower detection rates were observed in oral fluid vs. urine for benzodiazepines (6.6% vs. 8.7%), cannabinoids (15.5% vs. 19.5%), oxymorphone (1.8% vs. 3.1%) and hydromorphone (0.8% vs. 4.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians may find oral fluid advantageous for detection of specific drugs and medications in certain clinical situations. Understanding the relative differences between urine and oral fluid can help clinicians carefully select tests best suited for detection in their respective matrix. To our knowledge, this is the largest inter-matrix patient comparison study using paired collections and direct to definitive testing.