What Can a Urine Drug Screening Immunoassay Really Tell Us?

Substance Use Disorder

Substance use disorders (SUDs) present a challenge in the emergency department (ED) setting. This article provides an overview of SUDs, their clinical assessment, legal considerations in drug testing, diagnosis, and treatment approaches. SUDs are prevalent and coexist with mental health disorders, necessitating comprehensive evaluation and management. Clinical assessment involves screening tools, substance use history, and identification of comorbidities. Diagnosis relies on a thorough evaluation of substance abuse patterns and associated medical conditions. Treatment approaches encompass a multidisciplinary approach, incorporating counseling, medications, and social support. Effective management of SUDs in the ED requires a comprehensive understanding of these complex disorders.

Health disparities in ethnic and racial minority populations with pain and opioid use disorder

Healthcare providers are not prepared to address health disparities among ethnic and racial minority populations with either persistent and chronic pain or substance use disorder (SUD). Recognizing biases from policies to provide pain management and treatment for SUD in our healthcare systems, from our individual state laws and federal guidelines, is necessary. Biases are embedded in the screening and treatment of patients with chronic pain through the use of screening tools, opioid treatment agreements, and prescription drug monitoring programs. Additionally, the punitive treatment of people of ethnic and racial minority populations who experience persistent and chronic pain, opioid use disorders, or other SUDs needs to be redirected to facilitate solutions rooted in equity.

Accuracy of substance exposure history in patients attending emergency departments after substance misuse; a comparison with biological sample analysis

CONTEXT

Acute toxicity caused by illicit substance use is a common reason for emergency department (ED) presentation. Knowledge of the substances involved is helpful for predicting and managing potential toxicity, but limited information is available about the accuracy of patient-reported substance exposure. This study assessed the accuracy of the history of exposure in those reporting use of a single substance by comparison with those identified by detailed toxicological analysis, focusing on synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonists (SCRA).

METHODS

Adults (≥16 years) presenting between March 2015 and July 2021 to participating UK hospitals with toxicity after reporting use of a single illicit substance were included. Exposure details were documented from medical records and blood and/or urine samples analysed using high-resolution accurate mass liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (HRAM LCMS). Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the exposure history were calculated by comparison with biological sample analysis ("gold standard").

RESULTS

Single substance exposure was reported for 474 (median age 33 years, IQR: 18 range 16-75, 80% males) patients. Analysis commonly identified multiple substances (Median 3, IQR 2-5). A history of exposure was documented for 121 of 151 patients where a SCRA or metabolite was detected on analysis (sensitivity 80.1%, 95% CI 72.9, 86.2%). Corresponding proportions were lower for 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA, 44/70, 62.9%., 95% CI 50.5%, 74.1%), heroin 41/108 (38.0% 95% CI 28.8-47.8%) and cocaine (22/56, 31.3%, 95% CI 20.9, 43.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple undeclared substances were detected analytically in most patients reporting single substance use. Clinicians should be alert to the potential presence and toxicity of unreported substances when managing patients presenting after substance misuse.

A High-Throughput Ion Mobility Spectrometry-Mass Spectrometry Screening Method for Opioid Profiling

In 2017, the United States Department of Health and Human Services declared the widespread misuse and abuse of prescription and illicit opioids an epidemic. However, this epidemic dates back to the 1990s when opioids were extensively prescribed for pain management. Currently, opioids are still recommended for pain management, and given their abuse potential, rapid screening is imperative for patient treatment. Of particular importance is assessing pain management patient compliance, where evaluating drug use is crucial for preventing opioid abuse and potential overdoses. In this work, we utilized drift tube ion mobility spectrometry coupled with mass spectrometry (DTIMS-MS) to develop a rapid screening method for 33 target opioids and opioid urinary metabolites. Collision cross section values were determined for all target molecules using a flow-injection DTIMS-MS method, and clear differentiation of 27 out of the 33 opioids without prior chromatographic separation was observed when utilizing a high resolution demultiplexing screening approach. An automated solid phase extraction (SPE) platform was then coupled to DTIMS-MS for 10 s sample-to-sample analyses. This SPE-IMS-MS approach enabled the rapid screening of urine samples for opioids and presents a major improvement in sample throughput compared to traditional chromatographic analyses coupled with MS, which routinely take several minutes per sample. Overall, this vast reduction in analysis time facilitates a faster turn-around for patient samples, providing great benefits to clinical applications.

Clinical management of withdrawal from benzodiazepine anxiolytic and hypnotic medications

Benzodiazepines continue to be prescribed widely in the management of patients with insomnia or anxiety disorders, despite the availability and acceptability of alternative pharmacological and psychological treatments. Many patients will experience adverse effects during treatment and considerable distress when the dosage is reduced and stopped. Management of benzodiazepine withdrawal includes measures to prevent the development of dependence, careful attention to underlying medical conditions, medication consolidation and gradual dosage reduction, accompanying psychological interventions, occasional prescription of concomitant medication, and relapse prevention with on-going support to address psychosocial stressors. There are needs for easier patient access to services with refined expertise and for further research to optimise strategies for preventing dependence and facilitating withdrawal.

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.

How to interpret urine toxicology tests

A 13-year-old girl presents to the emergency department for the second time with an unresponsive episode. She has a GCS (Glasgow Coma Scale) score of 11 on arrival and all other observations are normal. The story is unclear, but there are ongoing safeguarding concerns and the family are known to social services. All investigations are normal. After a period of observation on the ward, her GCS returns to normal and she appears well. Both on the first presentation and this presentation ingestion of a toxin was suspected. However, this was denied by the patient and urine toxicology screen was negative. Does this rule out toxin ingestion? Will this change your management?

Are Intoxicated Trauma Patients at an Increased Risk for Intraoperative Anesthetic Complications? A Retrospective Study

Background

The purpose of this study was to correlate intraoperative anesthetic complications of trauma patients with their respective urine toxicology results.

Methods

This retrospective, single-center cohort study at a Level 1 trauma center included patients with the following criteria: (1) trauma admission between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2016, (2) required surgical intervention, (3) are age 18 and older, and (4) urine toxicology screening was completed. Anesthetic records were evaluated for intraoperative complications.

Results

The final analysis included 847 patients. The mean anesthesia time, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification scores, change in body temperature, anesthetic complication rate, and mortality were not significantly different between urine toxicology positive and negative patients. Of note, a significantly lower proportion of the urine toxicology positive patients were extubated postoperatively in comparison to urine toxicology negative patients (57.32% vs 63.83%).

Conclusions

Trauma patients who presented with a positive urine toxicology screening are not at an increased risk for intraoperative anesthetic complications compared to those with a negative urine toxicology screening. However, our results indicated that the need for postoperative mechanical ventilation increased in the acutely intoxicated trauma patients when compared to those without preinjury intoxication.

Maternity Care for Pregnant Women with Opioid Use Disorder: A Review

Opioid misuse is a problem that is complex and widespread. Opioid misuse rates are rising across all US demographics, including among pregnant women. The opioid epidemic brings a unique set of challenges for maternity health care providers, ranging from ethical considerations to the complex health needs and risks for both woman and fetus. This article addresses care for pregnant women during the antepartum, intrapartum, and postpartum periods through the lens of the opioid epidemic, including screening and counseling, an interprofessional approach to prenatal care, legal considerations, and considerations for care during labor and birth and postpartum. Providers can be trained to identify at-risk women through the evidence-based process of Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) and connect them with the appropriate care to optimize outcomes. Women at moderate risk of opioid use disorder can be engaged in a brief conversation with their provider to discuss risks and enhance motivation for healthy behaviors.  Women with risky opioid use can be given a warm referral to pharmacologic treatment programs, ideally comprehensive prenatal treatment programs where available (a warm referral is a term used when a provider, with the patient's permission, contacts another provider or another service him or herself rather than providing a phone number and referral number). Evidence regarding care for the pregnant woman with opioid use disorder and practical clinical recommendations are provided.

Substance misuse in patients who have comorbid chronic pain in a clinical population receiving methadone maintenance therapy for the treatment of opioid dependence

AIMS

To compare specific substance misuse in treatment-seeking, opioid-dependent patients with and without comorbid chronic pain, and to assess the respective value of urinalysis and patient reports in assessing substance misuse.

METHODS

Participants comprised a clinical population in a regional NHS Substance Misuse Service in the East of Scotland (N = 521). The Brief Pain Inventory - Short Form was used to assess pain, and the Maudsley Addiction Profile and urinalysis were used to assess substance misuse at study inception. Urinalysis was used to assess substance misuse during the 5-year follow-up period. Data were hosted, linked, anonymized and analyzed within a national Safe Haven.

RESULTS

Compared with opioid-dependent patients with no pain, a significantly higher proportion of treatment-seeking, opioid-dependent patients with chronic pain were engaged in non-medical benzodiazepine use (69% versus 58%; p = 0.016) and illicit cannabinoid use (84% versus 65%; p = 0.025) at study inception. Furthermore, a significantly higher proportion of this group was shown to continue non-medical benzodiazepine use (70% versus 42%; p = 0.037) and illicit cannabinoid use (100% versus 31%; p = 0.002) during the 5-year follow-up period. There were significant correlations between drug screen results and patient-reported use of opioids (Tetrachoric ϱ = 0.4944; p < 0.001), benzodiazepines (Tetrachoric ϱ = 0.2641; p = 0.001) and cannabinoids (Tetrachoric ϱ = 0.8384; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Whilst gaining control of illicit opioid use during treatment, opioid-dependent patients with comorbid chronic pain demonstrated persistent problematic use of benzodiazepines and cannabinoids. This pattern of misuse was shown to persist during the 5-year follow-up period.

Early-Life Trauma in Hospitalized Patients With Mood Disorders and Its Association With Clinical Outcomes

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of childhood trauma and its impact on clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with mood disorders is unknown. We studied the frequency of childhood trauma among inpatient adults with mood disorders and its association with clinical outcomes.

METHODS

Patients admitted to our hospital with a primary diagnosis of mood disorders completed the short form of the Early Trauma Inventory-Self-Report (ETISR-SF), the Sheehan Disability Scale, and the Clinician-Rated Dimensions of Psychosis Symptom Severity scale. A regression model adjusted for multiple comparisons was used to examine the association between scores on the ETISR-SF and clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

Subjects were 167 patients, all of whom reported ≥1 types of childhood trauma: 90% general trauma, 75% physical abuse, 71% emotional abuse, 50% sexual abuse, and 35% all 4 types of abuse. The subtypes of abuse did not differ by sex or race. Diagnoses in the sample were bipolar disorder 56%, major depressive disorder 24%, schizoaffective disorder 14%, and substance-induced mood disorder 5%. The mean age in the sample was 35±11.5 years, 53% were male, and 64% also had substance abuse disorders. Higher scores on the ETISR-SF were associated with longer hospital stays [odds ratio (OR)=1.13; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.05-1.22], and greater disruption of work/school life (OR=1.12; 95% CI, 1.04-1.21). There was also a trend for higher ETISR-SF scores to be associated with more severe psychotic symptoms (OR=1.13; 95% CI, 1.01-1.27) and more disruption in social (OR=1.14; 95% CI, 1.06-1.22) and family life (OR=1.09; 95% CI, 1.02-1.17).

CONCLUSION

Childhood trauma was reported by all of the 167 patients, with general trauma the most common and approximately half reporting sexual abuse. Childhood trauma was associated with poor clinical outcomes. Early recognition of trauma and trauma-related therapeutic interventions may improve outcomes.