Optimizing urine drug testing for monitoring medication compliance in pain management

Evaluation of adherence monitoring in buprenorphine treatment: A pilot study using timed drug assays to determine accuracy of testing

AIMS

Buprenorphine is effective at reducing relapse to opioid misuse, morbidity and mortality in opioid-dependent patients. Urine drug screening (UDS) to assess adherence is used routinely in opioid agonist treatment (OAT). The primary aim of this study was to determine factors which may be associated with a negative qualitative urine drug screen for buprenorphine in OAT patients.

METHODS

This prospective pilot study was conducted at a tertiary addiction medicine centre. Twenty participants on stable treatment underwent supervised administration of sublingual buprenorphine. Matched urine and blood samples were collected prior to and 2, 4 and 6 hours after buprenorphine administration. Qualitative urine drug screen results were obtained using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS), while quantitative blood and urine results were obtained using ultra-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (UPLC-MS/MS).

RESULTS

Qualitative urine assay yielded a negative result for buprenorphine in 57% of tested samples. The median concentration of urinary buprenorphine was 167 mcg/L (range: 2-1730 mcg/L). Thirty percent of all blood samples did not detect buprenorphine (range 0-18 mcg/L). Positive qualitative urine drug screen results were associated with higher urine (343 mcg/L compared with 75 mcg/L; P < .05) and blood (4 mcg/L compared with 2 mcg/L; P < .05) buprenorphine concentrations. Median urine concentrations of buprenorphine were highest at 2 hours and were higher in participants receiving CYP3A4 inhibitors.

CONCLUSION

Interpretation of qualitative urine drug screens to assess adherence in OAT is complex. Poor adherence with treatment cannot be assumed in patients returning a negative qualitative GC-MS urine drug screen.

Bridging the gap: The critical role of laboratory developed tests in clinical toxicology

•Toxicology testing provides valuable information for patient management.•Current in vitro diagnostics (IVDs) are unable to meet all clinical needs.•Lab-developed tests (LDTs) in toxicology can be used to close clinical care gaps.•LDTs in clinical toxicology are almost exclusively mass spectrometry-based methods.

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.

Application and Clinical Value of Definitive Drug Monitoring in Pain Management and Addiction Medicine

OBJECTIVE

To assess routine application and clinical value of definitive urine drug monitoring (UDM) for drug detection, inconsistent drug use and prescription adherence, along with a comparison to immunoassay screening (IAS).

METHODS

Direct-to-definitive UDM performance was analyzed retrospectively in 5,000 patient specimens. Drug findings, medication inconsistencies and detection sensitivity were assessed, and definitive UDM versus IAS monitoring was studied.

RESULTS

Definitive testing resulted in 18,793 drug findings with 28,403 positive drug and metabolite tests. Definitive testing expanded monitoring with 11,396 drug findings that would not be tested by IAS. The opioids accounted for the highest frequency of inconsistent positive drug-use findings, at 12%. Conversely, inconsistent negative drug findings, used as an index of prescription non-adherence, were determined in 1,751 of 15,409 monitored medications and included a high frequency of antidepressants and antipsychotics inconsistencies. Direct comparison of definitive UDM and IAS showed false-positives by IAS as well as a high rate of false-negatives that would be missed using current confirmation protocols.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from routine application of direct-to-definitive UDM demonstrate the clinical value of drug-use identification and objective evaluation of inconsistencies in drug misuse and medication adherence in pain management and addiction medicine practice. Without conversion to direct-to-definitive UDM, continuing use of IAS will limit the scope of drugs being tested, will result in an indeterminate rate of false negatives and will require confirmation testing to eliminate the reporting of false positive IAS tests. The findings in this study provide evidence-based support for recommended use of a direct-to-definitive drug testing protocol.

Urine Drug Screens in the Emergency Department: The Best Test May Be No Test at All

The manuscript purpose is to provide a resource for clinicians on the functionality and pitfalls of the rapid urine drug screen for clinical decision making. Many providers remain under-informed about the inherent inaccuracies. The rapid urine drug screen is the first, and often only, step of drug testing. In the majority of emergency departments the urine drug screen is a collection of immunoassays reliant on an interaction between the structure of a particular drug or metabolite and an antibody. Drugs in separate pharmacologic classes often have enough structural similarity to cause false positives. Conversely, drugs within the same pharmacologic class often have different enough structures that they may result in inappropriate negatives. This lack of sensitivity and specificity significantly reduces the test utility, and may cause decision-making confusion. The timing of the drug screen relative to the drug exposure also limits accuracy, as does detection threshold. Confirmatory steps following the initial immunoassay include chromatography and/or mass spectrometry. These are unavailable at many institutions and results rarely return while the patient is in the emergency department. In addition, institutional capabilities vary, even with confirmatory testing. Confirmation accuracy depends on a number of factors, including the extent of the catalog of drugs/metabolites that the facility is calibrated to detect and report. In summary, the standard emergency department urine drug screen is a test with extremely limited clinical utility with multiple properties contributing to poor sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. The test should be used rarely, if ever, for clinical decision making.

Hyphenated mass spectrometry techniques for assessing medication adherence: advantages, challenges, clinical applications and future perspectives

Nonadherence to prescribed pharmacotherapy is an understated public health problem globally and is costing many patients their chance to return to good health and healthcare systems billions. Clinicians need an accurate assessment of adherence to medications to aid the clinical decision-making process in the event of poor patient progress and to maximise the patient health outcomes from the drug therapies prescribed. An overview of indirect and direct methods used to measure medication adherence is presented, highlighting the potential for accurate measuring of drugs in biological samples using hyphenated mass spectrometry (MS) techniques to provide healthcare professionals with a reliable evidence base for clinical decision making. In this review we summarise published applications of hyphenated MS techniques for a diverse range of clinical areas demonstrating the rise in the use of such direct methods for assessing medication adherence. Although liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) methods using plasma, serum and urine samples are the most popular, in recent years increased attention has been given to liquid chromatography high-resolution mass spectrometry (LC-HRMS) methods and alternative biosample matrices including hair, saliva and blood microsamples. The advantages and challenges of using hyphenated MS techniques to address this healthcare problem are also discussed alongside future perspectives.

A Rapid Dilute-and-Shoot UPLC-MS/MS Assay to Simultaneously Measure 37 Drugs and Related Metabolites in Human Urine for Use in Clinical Pain Management

Background

Monitoring of medication compliance and drug abuse is used by clinicians to increase patient prescription drug compliance and reduce illicit drug abuse and diversion. Despite available immunoassays, chromatography-mass spectrometry–based methods are considered the gold standard for urine drug monitoring owing to higher sensitivities and specificities. Herein, we report a fast, convenient ultraperformance liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry (UPLC-MS/MS) assay to detect or quantify 37 clinically relevant prescription drugs, drugs of abuse, and related glucuronides and other metabolites in human urine by single diluted sample injection.

Methods

Analytes consisted of prescription and illicit opioids, benzodiazepines, and drugs of abuse, including parent compounds and glucuronidated and nonglucuronidated metabolites. Urine samples were diluted with water and supplemented with deuterated internal standards without enzymatic hydrolysis, analyte extraction, or sample purification. Analytes were separated by reversed-phase UPLC and quantified by positive-mode electrospray ionization and collision-induced dissociation MS. Assay validation followed Food and Drug Administration bioanalytical guidelines.

Results

Total analytical run time was 5.5 min. All analytes demonstrated acceptable inter- and intraassay accuracy, imprecision, and linearity throughout clinically relevant analytical ranges (1–2000 ng/mL, depending on analyte). All analytes demonstrated acceptable selectivity, stability, matrix effects, carryover, and performance compared to national reference laboratory or previously validated in-house methods. A total of 23 and 14 analytes were validated for quantitative and qualitative testing, respectively.

Conclusions

A convenient UPLC-MS/MS assay for simultaneously monitoring 37 analytes in human urine was validated for use in pain management testing. Advantages of this multiplex assay include facile sample preparation and higher-throughput definitive detection including glucuronide metabolite quantification.

Increased frequency of urine drug testing in chronic opioid therapy: rationale for strategies for enhancing patient adherence and safety

OBJECTIVE

To determine the average amount of time required to detect opioid aberrancy based upon varying frequencies of urine drug testing (UDT) in a community-based, tertiary care pain management center.

SUBJECTS

This study was a retrospective analysis of 513 consecutive patients enrolled in a medication management program, receiving chronic opioid therapy between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2018.

METHODS

Data were extracted from medical records including age at start of the study period, sex, ethnicity, marital status, and smoking status. UDT was performed at each prescribing visit via semi-quantitative immunoassay, and at the discretion of the clinician, a sample was sent for external confirmation using gas chromatography or mass spectrometry testing to clarify questions of inconsistency with patients' reports or prescribed medications. For purposes of the study, "opioid aberrancy" was defined through inconsistent UDT.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifteen patients (22.4%) had at least one inconsistent UDT during the study period, and 160 (2.8%) of all UDTs were inconsistent. At this rate of inconsistency, it was determined that with monthly screening, it would require up to 36 months to detect a single aberrancy, and semi-annual testing would require as long as 216 months to detect an aberrancy.

CONCLUSIONS

More frequent UDT can be helpful in terms of earlier detection of opioid aberrancy. This has significant implications for helping avoid misuse, overdose, and potential diversion. Furthermore, early detection will ideally result in earlier implementation of treatment of the emotional and behavioral factors causing aberrancy. Such early intervention is more likely to be successful in terms of reducing substance misuse in a chronic pain population, providing a higher degree of patient adherence and safety, as well as producing superior overall patient outcomes. Finally, economic benefits may include substantial savings through avoidance of the necessity for drug rehabilitation and the empirically established higher costs of treating opioid misuse comorbidities.

Compliance with Opioid Therapy: Distinguishing Clinical Characteristics and Demographics Among Patients with Cancer Pain

Background

Because an increase of patients who misuse opioids has been identified in our cancer clinical setting through urine drug testing (UDT) and the Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patient's with Pain-Short Form (SOAPP-SF), we conducted this retrospective cohort study to identify patient characteristics that are associated with UDT that indicates noncompliance.

Methods

Over a two-year period, 167 of 8,727 patients (2.4%) seen in the pain clinic and who underwent UDT were evaluated to determine compliance with prescribed opioid regimens. Descriptive clinical and demographic data were collected, and group differences based on compliance with opioid therapy were evaluated.

Results

Fifty-eight percent of the patients were noncompliant with their prescribed opioid therapy. Noncompliant patients were younger than compliant patients, with a median age of 46 vs 49 years (P = 0.0408). Noncompliant patients were more likely to have higher morphine equivalent daily doses; however, the difference was not statistically significant. Patients with a history of alcohol (ETOH) (P = 0.0332), illicit drug use (P = 0.1014), and smoking (P = 0.4184) were more likely noncompliant. Univariate regression analysis showed that a history of ETOH use (P = 0.034), a history of anxiety (P = 0.027), younger age (P = 0.07), and a SOAPP-SF score of 4 or higher (P = 0.05) were associated with an abnormal UDT.

Conclusions

History of ETOH use, anxiety, high SOAPP-SF score, and younger age were associated with UDT that indicates noncompliance. Given the very small percentage of UDT testing, it is quite likely that a significant number of patients who did not undergo UDT were also nonadherent with treatment recommendations.

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.

Quantitation of Benzodiazepines and Metabolites in Urine by Liquid Chromatography–Tandem Mass Spectrometry

Background

Benzodiazepines (BZDs) are central nervous system depressants that are prescribed to prevent seizures, manage anxiety, or help sleep. When misused, BZDs can lead to addiction and sometimes cause death. Measurement of BZDs in urine is used to identify their use, especially in pain management settings. LC-MS/MS is preferred for these measurements because of its high sensitivity and specificity. Here, we report an LC-MS/MS assay for measuring 7 BZDs and metabolites in urine.

Methods

Urine sample was incubated at 60 °C for 30 min after addition of internal standards and a β-glucuronidase solution. After centrifugation, the supernatant was diluted with methanol and water before being injected onto a C18 analytical column in an LC-MS/MS system for quantification. The analytical time between injections was 4.35 min. The analytes included 7-aminoclonazepam, α-hydroxyalprazolam, α-hydroxytriazolam, oxazepam, lorazepam, nordiazepam, and temazepam.

Results

The lower limit of quantification ranged from 30 ng/mL to 50 ng/mL with an analytical recovery &gt;80% for all 7 analytes. Total CV was &lt;10% for all analytes (3 concentration levels of 100, 2500, and 5000 ng/mL; n = 30 each). This method had 100% agreement with a GC-MS method offered by an independent laboratory for negative urine samples. For the positive urine samples, this method showed a strong correlation (R &gt; 0.96) with the GC-MS method.

Conclusions

The LC-MS/MS assay allows accurate and precise measurement of 7 BZDs and metabolites in a single analytical run with a short analytical run time and broad measuring ranges.

Improved Clinical Sensitivity of a Reflexive Algorithm to Minimize False-Negative Test Results by a Urine Benzodiazepine Immunoassay Screen

BACKGROUND

Urine drug testing is an essential component of treating patients for chronic pain and/or anxiety and is used to monitor compliance during treatment. A common algorithm is to use an immunoassay as a urine drug screen (UDS), followed by mass spectrometry to confirm all presumptive positive samples. Many UDSs, however, have significant limitations, and false-negative test results can be common due to lack of antibody specificity.

METHODS

Urine samples were screened by a benzodiazepine immunoassay followed by confirmatory testing using LC-MS/MS to determine an initial false-negative test rate for the screen. Attempts to improve the false-negative test rate included hydrolysis before screening and optimization of the absorbance cutoff required for a positive result.

RESULTS

Hydrolysis corrected 41% of false-negative test results in samples containing parent benzodiazepines and/or metabolites but had no effect on samples containing only clonazepam. Of the confirmed false-negative test results, 85% (17 of 20) demonstrated absorbance values between 20 and 100, with 100 being the cutoff for a positive result. Implementing an optimized absorbance cutoff of 20, rather than 100, for a reflexive confirmation testing algorithm decreases the false-negative test rate of detecting benzodiazepine from 47% to 2%.

CONCLUSIONS

Hydrolyzing samples before the benzodiazepine screen provided a modest improvement in the false-negative test rate; however, the screen still missed samples containing clonazepam. Optimization of the absorbance cutoff to reflex samples to LC-MS/MS markedly improved the false-negative test rate for all benzodiazepines.

Urine and oral fluid drug testing in support of pain management

In recent years, the abuse of opioid drugs has resulted in greater prevalence of addiction, overdose, and deaths attributable to opioid abuse. The epidemic of opioid abuse has prompted professional and government agencies to issue practice guidelines for prescribing opioids to manage chronic pain. An important tool available to providers is the drug test for use in the initial assessment of patients for possible opioid therapy, subsequent monitoring of compliance, and documentation of suspected aberrant drug behaviors. This review discusses the issues that most affect the clinical utility of drug testing in chronic pain management with opioid therapy. It focuses on the two most commonly used specimen matrices in drug testing: urine and oral fluid. The advantages and disadvantages of urine and oral fluid in the entire testing process, from specimen collection and analytical methodologies to result interpretation are reviewed. The analytical sensitivity and specificity limitations of immunoassays used for testing are examined in detail to draw attention to how these shortcomings can affect result interpretation and influence clinical decision-making in pain management. The need for specific identification and quantitative measurement of the drugs and metabolites present to investigate suspected aberrant drug behavior or unexpected positive results is analyzed. Also presented are recent developments in optimization of test menus and testing strategies, such as the modification of the standard screen and reflexed-confirmation testing model by eliminating some of the initial immunoassay-based tests and proceeding directly to definitive testing by mass spectrometry assays.

Cost and Efficacy Assessment of an Alternative Medication Compliance Urine Drug Testing Strategy

Objective

This study investigates the frequency at which quantitative results provide additional clinical benefit compared to qualitative results alone. A comparison between alternative urine drug screens and conventional screens including the assessment of cost-to-payer differences, accuracy of prescription compliance or polypharmacy/substance abuse was also included.

Setting and Methods

In a reference laboratory evaluation of urine specimens from across the United States, 213 urine specimens with provided prescription medication information (302 prescriptions) were analyzed by two testing algorithms: 1) conventional immunoassay screen with subsequent reflexive testing of positive results by quantitative mass spectrometry; and 2) a combined immunoassay/qualitative mass-spectrometry screen that substantially reduced the need for subsequent testing.

Results

The qualitative screen was superior to immunoassay with reflex to mass spectrometry in confirming compliance per prescription (226/302 vs 205/302), and identifying non-prescription abuse (97 vs 71). Pharmaceutical impurities and inconsistent drug metabolite patterns were detected in only 3.8% of specimens, suggesting that quantitative results have limited benefit. The percentage difference between the conventional testing algorithm and the alternative screen was projected to be 55%, and a 2-year evaluation of test utilization as a measure of test order volume follows an exponential trend for alternative screen test orders over conventional immunoassay screens that require subsequent confirmation testing.

Conclusion

Alternative, qualitative urine drug screens provide a less expensive, faster, and more comprehensive evaluation of patient medication compliance and drug abuse. The vast majority of results were interpretable with qualitative results alone indicating a reduced need to automatically reflex to quantitation or provide quantitation for the majority of patients. This strategy highlights a successful approach using an alternative strategy for both the laboratory and physician to align clinical needs while being mindful of costs.

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

Clinical drug monitoring has an increasingly important role in the treatment of substance use disorders. Through semistructured interviews, we asked substance-use counselors about the clinical impact of drug tests on patients' treatment planning and outcomes. This study was conducted around the time of a facility-wide switch to a laboratory utilizing definitive liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry from a laboratory that had utilized the less-sensitive, presumptive immunoassay-based drug-testing methodology. Twelve counselors volunteered to be interviewed, and each counselor chose 2 patients to discuss. Counselors reported that the facility-wide switch to definitive drug testing revealed some patients with newly identified relapses and substance use. They also reported that, as a result of the new information provided by definitive liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry monitoring, 75% of the patients they discussed had a change made to their treatment plan, 79% were provided enhanced education, and 63% had an increase in their treatment intensity. Counselors also reported that 58% of these patients reduced their illicit drug and nonmedical prescription medication use as a result of treatment changes associated with the newly implemented definitive testing. Improvements in therapeutic relationships and honesty were also reported. These preliminary data are consistent with previous data and guidelines, suggesting that the results of definitive drug monitoring inform clinical decision-making and can help clinicians enhance treatment outcomes.

Profiles of Urine Drug Test in Clinical Pain Patients vs Pain Research Study Subjects

OBJECTIVE

To examine similarities and differences in urine drug test (UDT) results in clinical pain patients and pain subjects participating in pain research studies.

DESIGN

An observational study with retrospective chart review and data analysis.

METHODS

We analyzed 1,874 UDT results obtained from 1) clinical pain patients (Clinical Group; n = 1,529) and 2) pain subjects consented to participate in pain research studies (Research Group; n = 345). Since several medications such as opioids used in pain management are drugs of abuse (DOA) and can result in a positive UDT, we specifically identified those cases of positive UDT due to nonprescribed DOA and designated these cases as positive UDT with DOA (PUD).

RESULTS

We found that 1) there was a higher rate of PUD in clinical pain patients (41.3%) than in pain research study subjects (14.8%); 2) although subjects in the Research Group were informed ahead of time that UDT will be conducted as a screening test, a substantial number (14.8%) of pain research study subjects still showed PUD; 3) there were different types of DOA between clinical pain patients (cannabinoids as the top DOA) and research study subjects (cocaine as the top DOA); and 4) a common factor associated with PUD was opioid therapy in both Clinical Group and Research Group.

CONCLUSION

These results support previous findings that PUD is a common finding in clinical pain patients, particularly in those prescribed opioid therapy, and we suggest that UDT be used as routine screening testing in pain research studies.

Comparison of Response of DRI Oxycodone Semiquantitative Immunoassay With True Oxycodone Values Determined by Liquid Chromatography Combined With Tandem Mass Spectrometry: Sensitivity of the DRI Assay at 100 ng/ml Cut-Off and Validity of Semiquantitative Value

OBJECTIVE

Oxycodone is a widely used opioid for pain management and patient's compliance with therapy is often monitored by using oxycodone immunoassay. The performance of the DRI oxycodone immunoassay was compared with liquid chromatography combined with tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) assay.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In 48 urine specimens collected from patients taking oxycodone, urinary oxycodone concentrations were determined using LC/MS/MS and the DRI oxycodone immunoassay for application on the Cobas c 501 analyzer (Roche Diagnostics, Indianapolis, IN).

RESULTS

Out of 48 specimens, 14 specimens showed oxycodone value less than 100 ng/ml, seven specimens had low positive values (between 101 and 165 ng/ml) and all other specimens had values 165 to 1789 ng/ml using the LC/MS/MS assay. The DRI oxycodone assay successfully identified all oxycodone specimens with oxycodone concentrations over the 100 ng/ml. In addition, the DRI assay also showed positive response in 11 out of 14 specimens with oxycodone values less than 100 ng/ml. However, semiquantitative values obtained by the DRI assay did not match with true oxycodone and metabolite oxymorphone concentrations combined obtained by using LC/MS/MS.

CONCLUSIONS

DRI oxycodone immunoassay at 100 ng/ml is a reliable immunoassay for analysis of oxycodone in urine.

A hybrid approach to urine drug testing using high-resolution mass spectrometry and select immunoassays

OBJECTIVES

The major objective of this research was to propose a simplified approach for the evaluation of medication adherence in chronic pain management patients, using liquid chromatography time-of-flight (TOF) mass spectrometry, performed in parallel with select homogeneous enzyme immunoassays (HEIAs). We called it a "hybrid" approach to urine drug testing.

METHODS

The hybrid approach was defined based on anticipated positivity rates, availability of commercial reagents for HEIAs, and assay performance, particularly analytical sensitivity and specificity for drug(s) of interest. Subsequent to implementation of the hybrid approach, time to result was compared with that observed with other urine drug testing approaches.

RESULTS

Opioids, benzodiazepines, zolpidem, amphetamine-like stimulants, and methylphenidate metabolite were detected by TOF mass spectrometry to maximize specificity and sensitivity of these 37 drug analytes. Barbiturates, cannabinoid metabolite, carisoprodol, cocaine metabolite, ethyl glucuronide, methadone, phencyclidine, propoxyphene, and tramadol were detected by HEIAs that performed adequately and/or for which positivity rates were very low. Time to result was significantly reduced compared with the traditional approach.

CONCLUSIONS

The hybrid approach to urine drug testing provides a simplified and analytically specific testing process that minimizes the need for secondary confirmation.

Pathology consultation on urine compliance testing and drug abuse screening

OBJECTIVES

Compliance testing in pain management requires a distinct approach compared with classic clinical toxicology testing. Differences in the patient populations and clinical expectations require modifications to established reporting cutoffs, assay performance expectations, and critical review of how best to apply the available testing methods. Although other approaches to testing are emerging, immunoassay screening followed by mass spectrometry confirmation remains the most common testing workflow for pain management compliance and drug abuse testing.

METHODS

A case-based approach was used to illustrate the complexities inherent to and uniqueness of pain management compliance testing for both clinicians and laboratories.

RESULTS

A basic understanding of the inherent strengths and weaknesses of immunoassays and mass spectrometry provides the clinician a better understanding of how best to approach pain management compliance testing.

CONCLUSIONS

Pain management compliance testing is a textbook example of an emerging field requiring open communication between physician and performing laboratory to fully optimize patient care.