Economics of Pain Management Testing

Direct-To-Definitive Urine and Oral Fluid Test Results for Unscreened and Rarely Screened Drugs in Individuals Applying for Methadone Treatment in 7 U.S. States

The standard protocol in addiction treatment/pain management is to conduct immunoassay screens for major drugs subject to misuse, followed by confirmatory testing of positive results. However, this may miss unscreened or rarely screened drugs that could pose risks, especially to polydrug users. We sought to determine the prevalences of unscreened/rarely screened drugs in a sample of individuals misusing drugs in 7 U.S. states, and to compare the results of urine vs. oral testing for these drugs by direct-to-definitive liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS-MS). The five drugs with the highest prevalences were: gabapentin (16.8%), quetiapine (6.2%), chlorpheniramine (5.3%), hydroxyzine (4.9%), and ephedrine (3.5%). All have clinical significance as indicated by severity of possible side effects, interactions with other drugs, and/or misuse potential. Drugs were generally detected more frequently in oral fluid than urine, but gabapentin was more frequently detected in urine. The prevalences of the included drugs seem high enough, and their clinical significance important enough, to warrant consideration of expanding clinical drug test panels, either by direct-to-definitive testing or the addition of selected immunoassay screens when available. Oral fluid was usually more suitable than urine as the test matrix, given the higher rates of detection in oral fluid for most substances included in this study.

Advances in fentanyl testing

Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid that was approved by the FDA in the late 1960s. In the decades since, non-prescription use of fentanyl, its analogs, and structurally unrelated novel synthetic opioids (NSO) has become a worsening public health crisis. There is a clear need for accessible testing for these substances in biological specimens and in apprehended drugs. Immunoassays for fentanyl in urine are available but their performance is restricted to facilities that hold moderate complexity laboratory licenses. Immunoassays for other matrices such as oral fluid (OF), blood, and meconium have been developed but are not widely available. Point of care tests (POCT), such as lateral flow immunoassays or fentanyl test strips (FTS), are widely available but not approved by the FDA for clinical use. All immunoassays are vulnerable to false positive and false negative results. Immunoassays may or may not be able to detect fentanyl analogs and NSOs. Mass spectrometry (MS) can accurately and reliably measure fentanyl and its major metabolite norfentanyl in urine and oral fluid. MS is available at reference laboratories and large hospitals. Liquid chromatography paired with tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) is the most widely used method and has outstanding specificity and sensitivity for fentanyl and norfentanyl. When compared to immunoassays, MS is more expensive, requires more technical skill, and takes longer to result. Newer mass spectrometry methods can measure fentanyl analogs and NSO. Both mass spectrometry assays and immunoassays [in the form of fentanyl test strips (FTS)] have potential use in harm reduction programs.

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.

Random urine drug testing among patients receiving opioid therapy for cancer pain

BACKGROUND

There is limited information regarding the true frequency of nonmedical opioid use (NMOU) among patients receiving opioid therapy for cancer pain. Data to guide patient selection for urine drug testing (UDT) as well as the timing and frequency of ordering UDT are insufficient. This study examined the frequency of abnormal UDT among patients with cancer who underwent random UDT and their characteristics.

METHODS

Demographic and clinical information for patients with cancer who underwent random UDT were retrospectively reviewed and compared with a historical cohort that underwent targeted UDT. Random UDT was ordered regardless of a patient's risk potential for NMOU. Targeted UDT was ordered on the basis of a physician's estimation of a patient's risk for NMOU.

RESULTS

In all, 552 of 573 eligible patients (96%) underwent random UDT. Among these patients, 130 (24%) had 1 or more abnormal results; 38 of the 88 patients (43%) who underwent targeted UDT had 1 or more abnormal results. When marijuana was excluded, 15% of the random group and 37% of the targeted group had abnormal UDT findings (P < .001). It took a shorter time from the initial consultation to detect 1 or more abnormalities with the random test than the targeted test (median, 130 vs 274 days; P = .02). Abnormal random UDT was independently associated with younger age (P < .0001), male sex (P = .03), Cut Down, Annoyed, Guilty, and Eye Opener-Adapted to Include Drugs positivity (P = .001), and higher Edmonton Symptom Assessment System anxiety (P = .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately 1 in 4 patients receiving opioids for cancer pain at a supportive care clinic who underwent random UDT had 1 or more abnormalities. Random UDT detected abnormalities earlier than the targeted test. These findings suggest that random UDT is justified among patients with cancer pain.

Urine Drug Testing in Cancer Pain Management

Urine drug test (UDT) is an effective tool used in chronic opioid therapy to ensure patient adherence to treatment and detect nonmedical opioid use. The two main types of UDT used in routine clinical practice are the screening tests or immunoassays and the confirmatory tests or laboratory-based specific drug identification tests such as gas chromatography-mass spectrometry, liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry, or tandem mass spectrometry. UDT produces objective data on some nonmedical opioid use that may otherwise go undetected, such as the use of undisclosed medications, the nonuse of prescribed medications, and the use of illegal drugs. It allows clinicians to initiate an open and effective conversation about nonmedical opioid use with their patients. However, the test has certain limitations that sometimes compromise its use. Its interpretation can be challenging to clinicians because of the complexity of the opioid metabolic pathways. Clear guidelines or recommendations regarding the use of UDT in cancer pain is limited. As a result, UDT appears to be underused among patients with cancer pain receiving opioid therapy. More studies are needed to help standardize the integration and use of UDT in routine cancer pain management. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Despite its potential benefits, urine drug testing (UDT) appears to be underused among patients with cancer pain receiving opioid therapy. This is partly because its interpretation can be challenging owing to the complexity of the opioid metabolic pathways. Information regarding the use of UDT in opioid therapy among patients with cancer is limited. This review article will improve clinician proficiency in UDT interpretation and assist oncologists in developing appropriate treatment plans during chronic opioid therapy.