The Role of Urine Drug Testing for Patients on Opioid Therapy

Comparative effectiveness of urine drug screening strategies alongside opioid agonist treatment in British Columbia, Canada: a population-based observational study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Urine drug tests (UDTs) are commonly used for monitoring opioid agonist treatment (OAT) responses, supporting the clinical decision for take-home doses and monitoring potential diversion. However, there is limited evidence supporting the utility of mandatory UDTs-particularly the impact of UDT frequency on OAT retention. Real-world evidence can inform patient-centred approaches to OAT and improve current strategies to address the ongoing opioid public health emergency. Our objective is to determine the safety and comparative effectiveness of alternative UDT monitoring strategies as observed in clinical practice among OAT clients in British Columbia, Canada from 2010 to 2020.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We propose a population-level retrospective cohort study of all individuals 18 years of age or older who initiated OAT from 1 January 2010 to 17 March 2020. The study will draw on eight linked health administrative databases from British Columbia. Our primary outcomes include OAT discontinuation and all-cause mortality. To determine the effectiveness of the intervention, we will emulate a 'per-protocol' target trial using a clone censoring approach to compare fixed and dynamic UDT monitoring strategies. A range of sensitivity analyses will be executed to determine the robustness of our results.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The protocol, cohort creation and analysis plan have been classified and approved as a quality improvement initiative by Providence Health Care Research Ethics Board and the Simon Fraser University Office of Research Ethics. Results will be disseminated to local advocacy groups and decision-makers, national and international clinical guideline developers, presented at international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals electronically and in print.

Variation in Nevada primary care clinicians' use of urine drug testing to mitigate opioid harm

INTRODUCTION

The prescription opioid epidemic led to federal, state, and health system guidelines and policies aimed at mitigating opioid misuse, including presumptive urine drug testing (UDT). This study identifies whether a difference exists in UDT use among different primary care medical license types.

METHODS

The study used January 2017-April 2018 Nevada Medicaid pharmacy and professional claims data to examine presumptive UDTs. We examined correlations between UDTs and clinician characteristics (medical license type, urban/rural status, care setting) along with clinician-level measures of patient mix characteristics (proportions of patients with behavioral health diagnoses, early refills). Adjusted odds ratios (AORs) and predicted probabilities (PPs) from a logistic regression with a binomial distribution are reported. The analysis included 677 primary care clinicians (medical doctors [MD], physician assistants [PA], nurse practitioners [NP]).

RESULTS

Of those in the study, 85.1 % of clinicians did not order any presumptive UDTs. NPs had the highest proportion of UDT use (21.2 % of NPs), followed by PAs (20.0 % of PAs), and MDs (11.4 % of MDs). Adjusted analyses showed that being a PA or NP was associated with higher odds of UDT (PA: AOR: 3.6; 95 % CI: 3.1-4.1; NP: AOR: 2.5; 95 % CI: 2.2-2.8) compared to being an MD. PAs had the highest PP for ordering UDTs (2.1 %, 95 % CI: 0.5 %-8.4 %). Among clinicians who ordered UDTs, midlevel clinicians had higher mean and median UDT use (PA and NP mean: 24.3 % vs. MDs: 19.4 %; PA and NP median: 17.7 % vs. MDs: 12.5 %).

CONCLUSION

In Nevada Medicaid, UDTs are concentrated among 15 % of primary care clinicians who are frequently non-MDs. More research should include PAs and NPs when examining clinician variation in mitigating opioid misuse.

Evaluating the Effects of Opioid Prescribing Policies on Patient Outcomes in a Safety-net Primary Care Clinic

BACKGROUND

After decades of liberal opioid prescribing, multiple efforts have been made to reduce reliance upon opioids in clinical care. Little is known about the effects of opioid prescribing policies on outcomes beyond opioid prescribing.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the combined effects of multiple opioid prescribing policies implemented in a safety-net primary care clinic in San Francisco, CA, in 2013-2014.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study and conditional difference-in-differences analysis of nonrandomized clinic-level policies.

PATIENTS

273 patients prescribed opioids for chronic non-cancer pain in 2013 at either the treated (n=151) or control clinic (n=122) recruited and interviewed in 2017-2018.

INTERVENTIONS

Policies establishing standard protocols for dispensing opioid refills and conducting urine toxicology testing, and a new committee facilitating opioid treatment decisions for complex patient cases.

MAIN MEASURES

Opioid prescription (active prescription, mean dose in morphine milligram equivalents [MME]) from electronic medical charts, and heroin and opioid analgesics not prescribed to the patient (any use, use frequency) from a retrospective interview.

KEY RESULTS

The interventions were associated with a reduction in mean prescribed opioid dose in the first three post-policy years (year 1 conditional difference-in-differences estimate: -52.0 MME [95% confidence interval: -109.9, -10.6]; year 2: -106.2 MME [-195.0, -34.6]; year 3: -98.6 MME [-198.7, -23.9]; year 4: -72.6 MME [-160.4, 3.6]). Estimates suggest a possible positive association between the interventions and non-prescribed opioid analgesic use (year 3: 5.2 absolute percentage points [-0.1, 11.2]) and use frequency (year 3: 0.21 ordinal frequency scale points [0.00, 0.47]) in the third post-policy year.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinic-level opioid prescribing policies were associated with reduced dose, although the control clinic achieved similar reductions by the fourth post-policy year, and the policies may have been associated with increased non-prescribed opioid analgesic use. Clinicians should balance the urgency to reduce opioid prescribing with potential harms from rapid change.

Trends in Urine Drug Testing Among Long-term Opioid Users, 2012-2018

INTRODUCTION

Long-term opioid therapy increases the risk of opioid overdose death. Government agencies and medical societies, including the Center for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Society for Clinical Oncology, emphasized risk mitigation strategies, including urine drug testing, in published guidelines. Urine drug testing rates, time trends, and covariates among long-term opioid therapy users were examined to gauge guideline adherence.

METHODS

Using Optum's De-identified Clinformatics DataMart, an incidence cohort (n=28,790) and prevalence cohort (n=621,449) were created to measure baseline and annual urine drug testing, respectively, from 2012 to 2018. Urine drug testing time trends were evaluated by demographics, pain conditions, and Elixhauser comorbidity index. A multivariable generalized estimating model was developed in 2020 to examine the factors associated with urine drug testing.

RESULTS

Annual urine drug testing rates doubled from 25.6% in 2012 to 52.2% in 2018, whereas baseline urine drug testing also increased from 3.75% to 11.1%. Annual urine drug testing increased within each age group over time; however, older patients (OR=0.21, 95% CI=0.21, 0.22, aged >79 years) and patients with cancer (OR=0.82, 95% CI=0.80, 0.84) were less likely to receive urine drug testing. Patients residing in the South (OR=1.99, 95% CI=1.96, 2.01) and those with back pain (OR=2.04, 95% CI=2.02, 2.06) or with other chronic pain (OR=1.64, 95% CI=1.62, 1.66) were significantly more likely to be tested. Independent predictors of baseline urine drug testing were similar to predictors of annual urine drug testing.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite increasing urine drug testing trends from 2012 to 2018, annual and baseline urine drug testing remained low in 2018, relative to numerous guideline recommendations. Findings suggest a need for research on better guideline implementation strategies and the effectiveness of urine drug testing on patient outcomes.

Impact of the Opioid Epidemic on Drug Testing

BACKGROUND

This review provides a description of how the opioid epidemic has impacted drug testing.

METHODS

Four major service areas of drug testing were considered, including emergency response, routine clinical care, routine forensics, and death investigations.

RESULTS

Several factors that the opioid epidemic has impacted in drug testing are discussed, including specimens, breadth of compounds recommended for testing, time to result required for specific applications, analytical approaches, interpretive support requirements, and examples of published practice guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

Both clinical and forensic laboratories have adapted practices and developed new testing approaches to respond to the opioid epidemic. Such changes are likely to continue evolving in parallel with changes in both prescription and nonprescription opioid availability and use patterns, as well as emerging populations that are affected by the "waves" of the opioid epidemic.

Effects of Solvent Vapor Modifiers for the Separation of Opioid Isomers in Micromachined FAIMS-MS

Opioid addiction is an escalating problem that is compounded by the introduction of synthetic opiate analogues such as fentanyl. Screening methods for these compound classes are challenged by the availability of synthetically manufactured analogues, including isomers of existing substances. High-field asymmetric-waveform ion mobility spectrometry (FAIMS) utilizes an alternating asymmetric electric field to separate ions by their different mobilities at high and low fields as they travel through the separation space. When coupled to mass spectrometry (MS), FAIMS enhances the separation of analytes from other interfering compounds with little to no increase in analysis time. Addition of solvent vapor into the FAIMS carrier gas has been demonstrated to enable and improve the separation of isomers. Here we investigate the effects of several solvents for the separation of four opioids. FAIMS-MS spectra with added solvent vapors show dramatic compensation field (CF) shifts for opioid [M+H]⁺ ions when compared to spectra acquired using dry nitrogen. Addition of vapor from aprotic solvents, such as acetonitrile and acetone, produces significantly improved resolution between the tested opioids, with baseline resolution achieved between certain opioid isomers. For protic solvents, notable CF shift differences were observed in FAIMS separations between addition of water vapor and vapors from small alcohols. Graphical Abstract.

Rational Urine Drug Monitoring in Patients Receiving Opioids for Chronic Pain: Consensus Recommendations

Objective

To develop consensus recommendations on urine drug monitoring (UDM) in patients with chronic pain who are prescribed opioids.

Methods

An interdisciplinary group of clinicians with expertise in pain, substance use disorders, and primary care conducted virtual meetings to review relevant literature and existing guidelines and share their clinical experience in UDM before reaching consensus recommendations.

Results

Definitive (e.g., chromatography-based) testing is recommended as most clinically appropriate for UDM because of its accuracy; however, institutional or payer policies may require initial use of presumptive testing (i.e., immunoassay). The rational choice of substances to analyze for UDM involves considerations that are specific to each patient and related to illicit drug availability. Appropriate opioid risk stratification is based on patient history (especially psychiatric conditions or history of opioid or substance use disorder), prescription drug monitoring program data, results from validated risk assessment tools, and previous UDM. Urine drug monitoring is suggested to be performed at baseline for most patients prescribed opioids for chronic pain and at least annually for those at low risk, two or more times per year for those at moderate risk, and three or more times per year for those at high risk. Additional UDM should be performed as needed on the basis of clinical judgment.

Conclusions

Although evidence on the efficacy of UDM in preventing opioid use disorder, overdose, and diversion is limited, UDM is recommended by the panel as part of ongoing comprehensive risk monitoring in patients prescribed opioids for chronic pain.

2017 HIVMA of IDSA Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Chronic Pain in Patients Living With HIV

Pain has always been an important part of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) disease and its experience for patients. In this guideline, we review the types of chronic pain commonly seen among persons living with HIV (PLWH) and review the limited evidence base for treatment of chronic noncancer pain in this population. We also review the management of chronic pain in special populations of PLWH, including persons with substance use and mental health disorders. Finally, a general review of possible pharmacokinetic interactions is included to assist the HIV clinician in the treatment of chronic pain in this population.It is important to realize that guidelines cannot always account for individual variation among patients. They are not intended to supplant physician judgment with respect to particular patients or special clinical situations. The Infectious Diseases Society of American considers adherence to these guidelines to be voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding their application to be made by the physician in the light of each patient's individual circumstances.

Role of Urine Drug Testing in the Current Opioid Epidemic

While the evidence for urine drug testing for patients on chronic opioid therapy is weak, the guidelines created by numerous medical societies and state and federal regulatory agencies recommend that it be included as one of the tools used to monitor patients for compliance with chronic opioid therapy. To get the most comprehensive results, clinicians should order both an immunoassay screen and confirmatory urine drug test. The immunoassay screen, which can be performed as an in-office point-of-care test or as a laboratory-based test, is a cheap and convenient study to order. Limitations of an immunoassay screen, however, include having a high threshold of detectability and only providing qualitative information about a select number of drug classes. Because of these restrictions, clinicians should understand that immunoassay screens have high false-positive and false-negative rates. Despite these limitations, though, the results can assist the clinician with making preliminary treatment decisions. In comparison, a confirmatory urine drug test, which can only be performed as a laboratory-based test, has a lower threshold of detectability and provides both qualitative and quantitative information. A urine drug test's greater degree of specificity allows for a relatively low false-negative and false-positive rate in contrast to an immunoassay screen. Like any other diagnostic test, an immunoassay screen and a confirmatory urine drug test both possess limitations. Clinicians must keep this in mind when interpreting an unexpected test result and consult with their laboratory when in doubt about the meaning of the test result to avoid making erroneous decisions that negatively impact both the patient and clinician.

Patients' Knowledge and Attitudes Towards Regular Alcohol Urine Screening: A Survey Study

BACKGROUND

Despite its wide implementation, there is a paucity of data supporting the effectiveness of regular alcohol urine screening (RAUS) in maintaining abstinence. This study aims at investigating if RAUS serves other purposes, what attitudes patients display towards it, and patients' technical knowledge about basic screening notions.

METHOD

We conducted a cross-sectional survey among adults with alcohol dependence, attending outpatient alcohol-dependence treatment. It aimed at investigating patients' attitudes and beliefs towards RAUS, and technical notions of alcohol urine screening. For attitude assessment, we adapted the Drug Attitude Inventory (DAI-10) to the field of alcohol urine screening. Internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and concurrent validity were evaluated for the adapted questionnaire.

RESULTS

In all, 128 patients completed the questionnaire. Patients rated RAUS as high. The DAI-10 mean score was 7.2 (SD = 3.6). Internal consistency analysis revealed a Cronbach alpha of 0.718. Test-retest reliability evaluation yielded an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.932. The score of a single Likert-type question about overall perceived value was 8.5 (SD = 2). Their correlation with mean DAI-10 score was of r = 0.254, with P = 0.009. Apart from relapse prevention, patients frequently reported other functions such as showing professionals and family members that they do not drink, or having a closer contact with professionals. A majority of patients believed alcohol use goes undetected after 48 hours from last ingestion.

CONCLUSION

Regular alcohol screening is highly valued by alcohol outpatients. It seems that apart from relapse prevention, other functions related to therapeutic alliance building, social desirability, and impression management also play a key role.

CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain - United States, 2016

This guideline provides recommendations for primary care clinicians who are prescribing opioids for chronic pain outside of active cancer treatment, palliative care, and end-of-life care. The guideline addresses 1) when to initiate or continue opioids for chronic pain; 2) opioid selection, dosage, duration, follow-up, and discontinuation; and 3) assessing risk and addressing harms of opioid use. CDC developed the guideline using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework, and recommendations are made on the basis of a systematic review of the scientific evidence while considering benefits and harms, values and preferences, and resource allocation. CDC obtained input from experts, stakeholders, the public, peer reviewers, and a federally chartered advisory committee. It is important that patients receive appropriate pain treatment with careful consideration of the benefits and risks of treatment options. This guideline is intended to improve communication between clinicians and patients about the risks and benefits of opioid therapy for chronic pain, improve the safety and effectiveness of pain treatment, and reduce the risks associated with long-term opioid therapy, including opioid use disorder, overdose, and death. CDC has provided a checklist for prescribing opioids for chronic pain (http://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/38025) as well as a website (http://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/prescribingresources.html) with additional tools to guide clinicians in implementing the recommendations.

A Guide for Pain Management in Low and Middle Income Communities. Managing the Risk of Opioid Abuse in Patients with Cancer Pain

Most patients who present with cancer have advanced disease and often suffer moderate to severe pain. Opioid therapy can be safe and effective for use in cancer patients with pain, but there are rightful concerns about inappropriate opioid use even in the cancer population. Since cancer patients live longer than ever before in history (and survivors may have long exposure times to opioid therapy), opioid misuse among cancer patients is an important topic worthy of deeper investigation. Cancer patients with pain must be evaluated for risk factors for potential opioid misuse and aberrant drug-taking behaviors assessed. A variety of validated screening tools should be used. Of particular importance is the fact that pain in cancer patients changes frequently, whether it is related to their underlying disease (progression or remission), pain related to treatment (such as painful chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy), and concomitant pain unrelated to cancer (such as osteoarthritis, headache, or back pain). Fortunately, clinicians can use universal precautions to help reduce the risk of opioid misuse while still assuring that cancer patients get the pain therapy they need. Another important new “tool” in this regard is the emergence of abuse-deterrent opioid formulations.

Baseline Variation in Use of VA/DOD Clinical Practice Guideline Recommended Opioid Prescribing Practices Across VA Health Care Systems

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to determine baseline adherence to key recommendations from the 2010 VA/DOD Clinical Practice Guideline for Opioid Therapy for Chronic Pain at Veterans Health Administration (VA) facilities. We hoped to understand practice patterns at the time of guideline release to guide quality improvement and implementation efforts.

METHODS

Overall practice patterns were examined at each of the 140 VA Health Care Systems based on quality metrics developed to assess adherence to the VA/DOD Clinical Practice Guideline.

RESULTS

Clinical practice varied widely across facilities on measures of use of urine drug screens, substance use disorder treatment for diagnosed substance use disorder patients, and use of rehabilitative treatments. Less variation was observed in measures of sedative coprescription and use of adjunctive pharmacotherapy. Use of guideline recommended practices was generally more frequent for patients prescribed long-acting opioid formulations and those with chronic use. Relative facility-level implementation was correlated across most measures. Overall implementation of guideline recommended practices was lower at less complex facilities and facilities in the Western United States.

DISCUSSION

In 2010, guideline-recommended practices for opioid prescribing were variably used across VA health care systems. Efforts to disseminate practices used at high-performing sites, and increase consistency of use of recommended practices across patients and facilities should be considered to improve pain management and reduce adverse events.

Trends and risk factors for HIV, HCV and syphilis seroconversion among drug users in a methadone maintenance treatment programme in China: a 7-year retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

This study explores the trends and associated factors of HIV, hepatitis C virus (HCV) and syphilis seroconversion among Chinese methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) clients over a follow-up period of up to 7 years.

DESIGN

Drug users from 14 MMT clinics in Guangdong Province were recruited during 2006-2014. Participants were seronegative with at least one HIV, HCV or syphilis infection at baseline and had completed at least one follow-up test during the study period. We estimated HIV, HCV and syphilis seroconversion rates in follow-up years and identified the underlying predictors using a multivariate Cox regression model.

RESULTS

Among 9240 participants, the overall HIV seroconversion rate was 0.20 (0.13 to 0.28)/100 person-years (pys), 20.54 (18.62 to 22.46)/100 pys for HCV and 0.77 (0.62 to 0.93)/100 pys for syphilis, over the study period. HIV seroconversion rate showed a moderate but non-significant annual decline of 13.34% (-42.48% to 30.56%) (χ(2) trend test; p=0.369), whereas the decline of HCV seroconversion was 16.12% (5.53% to 25.52%) per annum (p<0.001). Syphilis seroconversion rate remained stable (p=0.540). Urine results positive for opioid predicted HIV seroconversion (≥ 60% vs <60%; HR=3.40, 1.07 to 10.85), being unmarried (HR=1.59, 1.15 to 2.20), injection drug use in the past 30 days (HR=2.17, 1.42 to 3.32), having sexual intercourse in the past 3 months (HR=1.74, 1.22 to 2.47) and higher daily dosage of methadone (≥ 60 mL vs <60 mL; HR=1.40, 1.01 to 1.94) predicted HCV seroconversion. Being female (HR=3.56, 2.25 to 5.64) and infected with HCV at baseline (HR=2.40, 1.38 to 8.36) were associated with subsequent syphilis seroconversion.

CONCLUSIONS

MMT in China has demonstrated moderate-to-good effectiveness in reducing HIV and HCV incidence but not syphilis infection among participating drug users.

Decision support for chronic pain care: how do primary care physicians decide when to prescribe opioids? a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Primary care physicians struggle to treat chronic noncancer pain while limiting opioid misuse, abuse, and diversion. The objective of this study was to understand how primary care physicians perceive their decisions to prescribe opioids in the context of chronic noncancer pain management. This question is important because interventions, such as decision support tools, must be designed based on a detailed understanding of how clinicians use information to make care decisions.

METHODS

We conducted in-depth qualitative interviews with family medicine and general internal medicine physicians until reaching saturation in emergent themes. We used a funneling approach to ask a series of questions about physicians' general decision making challenges and use of information when considering chronic opioids. We then used an iterative, open-coding approach to identify and characterize themes in the data.

RESULTS

We interviewed fifteen physicians with diverse clinical experiences, demographics, and practice affiliations. Physicians said that general decision making challenges in providing pain management included weighing risks and benefits of opioid therapies and time and resource constraints. Also, some physicians described their active avoidance of chronic pain treatment due to concerns about opioid risks. In their decision making, physicians described the importance of objective and consistent information, the importance of identifying "red flags" related to risks of opioids, the importance of information about physical function as an outcome, and the importance of information that engenders trust in patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified and described primary care physicians' struggles to deliver high quality care as they seek and make decisions based on an array of incomplete, conflicting, and often untrusted patient information. Decision support systems, education, and other interventions that address these challenges may alleviate primary care physicians' struggles and improve outcomes for patients with chronic pain and other challenging conditions.

Utilization management in toxicology

Recent upward trends in the prevalence of abuse of prescription drugs and illicit substances have resulted in increased demands for toxicology testing to support the emergency department and drug treatment in pain management programs. This review will discuss the challenges faced by clinical laboratories to manage the utilization of toxicology tests, particularly those ordered in managing poisoned patients in the emergency department and chronic pain patients on opioid therapy. Optimal utilization of toxicology tests to support the emergency department relies on selecting the appropriate tests for the patient, and the availability of the results in a timely fashion. Two tiers of toxicology testing systems with different requirements for turnaround time will be discussed. In patients with chronic pain urine drug testing, including screening and confirmation testing are used extensively in pain management to monitor patient compliance. A thorough understanding of the performance characteristics of the test methodologies and drug metabolism is a key to making a proper analytical and clinical interpretation of the test results and will contribute to effective utilization of these tests. In addition, the reimbursement system is an important factor in the decision making process for test selection utilization as significant costs can be incurred by both payers and patients. Collaboration, trust, and effective communication among clinicians, patients, and clinical laboratory professionals are essential for effective utilization of toxicology testing.

Opioids for the treatment of chronic noncancer pain

Increasingly, opioids are used to treat chronic noncancer pain. While opioids are well recognized for their effectiveness in treating acute pain, the evidence supporting the benefits for the treatment of chronic pain is less well established. Improvement of both pain and function should be considered goals of therapy. Patients with chronic pain have a higher incidence of preexisting psychological disorders. Adverse effects of opioid therapy include dependence, overdose, and withdrawal. Risk factors for poor outcomes with opioid therapy are identified, and include preexisting mental illness and dose prescribed. Recommended strategies to more safely use opioids are discussed, including tools for identifying high-risk patients. The evidence supporting the use of treatment agreements and urine drug testing to reduce the effects of adverse outcomes is limited.

They don't know what they don't know: internal medicine residents' knowledge and confidence in urine drug test interpretation for patients with chronic pain

BACKGROUND

Urine drug testing (UDT) can help identify misuse or diversion of opioid medications among patients with chronic pain. However, misinterpreting results can lead to false reassurance or erroneous conclusions about drug use.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the relationship between resident physicians' knowledge about UDT interpretation and confidence in their ability to interpret UDT results.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey.

PARTICIPANTS

Internal medicine residents in a university health system in the Bronx, from 2010 to 2011.

MAIN MEASURES

We assessed knowledge using a 7-item scale (UDT knowledge score), and confidence in UDT interpretation using a single statement ("I feel confident in my ability to interpret the results of urine drug tests"). We conducted chi-square tests, t-tests, and logistic regression to determine the association between knowledge and confidence, and in exploratory analyses to examine whether resident characteristics (gender, training level, and UDT use) moderated the relationship between knowledge and confidence.

KEY RESULTS

Among 99 residents, the mean UDT knowledge score was 3.0 out of 7 (SD 1.2). Although 55 (56 %) of residents felt confident in their ability to interpret UDT results, 40 (73 %) of confident residents had a knowledge score of 3 or lower. Knowledge score was not associated with confidence among the full sample or when stratified by training level or UDT use. The association between knowledge and confidence differed significantly by gender (interaction term p<0.01). Adjusting for training level and UDT use, knowledge was positively associated with confidence among females (AOR 1.79, 95 % CI: 1.06, 3.30), and negatively associated with confidence among males (AOR 0.47, 95 % CI: 0.23, 0.98).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite poor knowledge about UDT interpretation, most resident physicians felt confident in their ability to interpret UDT results. Gender differences warrant further exploration, but even confident physicians who use UDT should evaluate their proficiency in interpreting UDT results. Educational initiatives should emphasize the complexities of UDT interpretation.

Receiver-operating characteristics of adjusted urine measurements of oxycodone plus metabolites to distinguish between three different rates of oxycodone administration

OBJECTIVES

In a study by Couto et al. (Use of an algorithm applied to urine drug screening to assess adherence to an oxycontin regimen. J Opioid Manag 2009;5:359-64), adjusted urine measurements of oxycodone plus metabolites noroxycodone and oxymorphone were determined among volunteer subjects in three groups according to oxycodone administration rates (A: 80 mg/day; B: 160 mg/day; C: 240 mg/day). We performed receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analyses of the distribution data from this study to determine the ability to correctly categorize individual measurements with respect to each group.

DESIGN AND METHODS

For groups A-C, assumed reference ranges were defined as median-centered intervals encompassing a designated central percentage of the group's distribution. By varying assumed reference ranges across all possible reference ranges, ROC analyses of the ability of each group's reference ranges to appropriately include or exclude members of all groups were calculated. This generated six ROC curves (sensitivity vs. specificity): A vs. (B or C); B vs. (A or C); C vs. (A or B).

RESULTS

Overlaps of distributions A, B, and C were large, such that none of the ROC curves exceeded areas-under-curves of 0.8. The greatest sensitivity-specificity combination had a sensitivity of 74% for C with specificity of 75% for A, for which oxycodone administration rates were different by a factor of 3.

CONCLUSIONS

ROC analyses of data from a previous study demonstrated that, even under experimentally controlled conditions, adjusted urine drug measurements could not be used reliably to correctly categorize individual subjects' results according to their known oxycodone administration rates in the range of 80-240 mg/day. Misclassifications of results were 25% or greater.

Dynamic risk factors in the misuse of opioid analgesics

OBJECTIVE

Identify the risk factors for prescription opioid misuse among patients taking prescription opioids to deal with chronic pain.

METHODS

We examined the literature for a variety of dynamic risk factors associated with opioid misuse among the chronic pain population in order to present a narrative review. Considered were: taking single or multiple opioids, pain intensity, mental health disorders, including a history of preadolescent sexual abuse, personal and familial history of substance abuse, a history of legal problems, being a crime victim, drug-seeking behaviors, drug craving, and age.

RESULTS

A variety of risk factors have been studied in the literature. Risk factors in chronic opioid therapy patients are dynamic in that they can change with disease progression, tolerance, changes in pain quality, mental health, comorbidities, other drug therapies or drug interactions, and changes in the patient's lifestyle.

CONCLUSION

Opioid analgesic therapy must be tailored to carefully monitor all patients in order to minimize misuse and abuse, since the risk is constant and dynamic and therefore every patient is at some degree of risk for opioid misuse.

Chronic pain: reducing costs through early implementation of adherence testing and recognition of opioid misuse

OBJECTIVE

To review the literature on costs associated with chronic pain therapy and to identify key contributing factors. Also, to assess the potential cost-saving benefits of monitoring pain treatment adherence using urine drug tests (UDTs), emphasizing their use in opioid therapy.

RESULTS

Reduced productivity, compensation costs, and treatment of comorbid conditions related to chronic pain contribute to the substantial financial burden of chronic pain management in the United States. The growing use of opioids for chronic pain increases the risk for drug nonadherence and associated drug abuse, potential addiction, and aberrant drug-related behaviors (ADRBs). Treatment of drug abuse increases health care costs; opioid abusers are 25 times more likely to require hospitalization than nonopioid abusers. Early detection of patient nonadherence using UDTs could significantly reduce costs of chronic pain therapy by allowing the physician to identify and treat patients' ADRBs related to controlled substances and drug addiction and abuse problems. Adherence in chronic pain may be determined by point-of-care (POC) tests, and more sensitive laboratory urine tests employing gas chromatography/mass spectrometry with high-performance liquid chromatography tests (LUTs). Cost-benefit studies suggest that the cost of LUTs to optimize adherence may reduce costs associated with nonadherence, such as inpatient clinical care and patient self-release. Current estimates indicate that appropriate use of LUTs could produce decreases up to 14.8-fold in the cost of chronic pain therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The cost benefits of UDTs can only be fully realized if physicians know how to define and detect various types of drug abuse, addiction, and diversion. Physicians should be educated on the proper implementation of POC tests and LUTs, and interpretation of adherence data. Early monitoring of drug adherence using POC tests and follow-up LUTs may provide substantial cost savings associated with health care issues incurred in nonadherent chronic pain patients, especially those taking opioid therapy.

Primary care providers’ judgments of opioid analgesic misuse in a community-based cohort of HIV-infected indigent adults

BACKGROUND

Primary care providers (PCPs) must balance treatment of chronic non-cancer pain with opioid analgesics with concerns about opioid misuse.

OBJECTIVE

We co-enrolled community-based indigent adults and their PCPs to determine PCPs’ accuracy of estimating opioid analgesic misuse and illicit substance use.

DESIGN

Patient-provider dyad study.

PARTICIPANTS

HIV-infected, community-based indigent adults (‘patients’) and their PCPs.

MAIN MEASURES

Using structured interviews, we queried patients on use and misuse of opioid analgesics and illicit substances. PCPs completed patient- and provider-specific questionnaires. We calculated the sensitivity, specificity, and measures of agreement between PCPs’ judgments and patients’ reports of opioid misuse and illicit substance use. We examined factors associated with PCPs’ thinking that their patients had misused opioid analgesics and determined factors associated with patients’ misuse.

KEY RESULTS

We had 105 patient-provider dyads. Of the patients, 21 had misused opioids and 45 had used illicit substances in the past year. The sensitivity of PCPs’ judgments of opioid analgesic misuse was 61.9% and specificity, 53.6% (Kappa score 0.09, p = 0.10). The sensitivity of PCPs’ judgments of illicit substance use was 71.1% and specificity, 66.7% (Kappa score 0.37, p <0.001). PCPs were more likely to think that younger patients (Adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 0.89, 95% CI 0.84-0.97), African American patients (AOR 2.53, 95% CI 1.05-6.07) and those who had used illicit substances in the past year (AOR 3.33, 95% CI 1.35-8.20) had misused opioids. Younger (AOR 0.94, 95% CI 0.86-1.02) and African American (AOR 0.71, 95% CI 0.25-1.97) patients were not more likely to report misuse, whereas persons who had used illicit substances were (AOR 3.01, 95% CI 1.04-8.76).

CONCLUSION

PCPs’ impressions of misuse were discordant with patients’ self-reports of opioid analgesic misuse. PCPs incorrectly used age and race as predictors of misuse in this high-risk cohort.