Laboratory-Generated Urine Toxicology Interpretations: A Mixed Methods Study

BACKGROUND

Clinicians frequently order urine drug testing (UDT) for patients on chronic opioid therapy (COT), yet often have difficulty interpreting test results accurately.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of a laboratory-generated urine toxicology interpretation service for clinicians prescribing COT.

STUDY DESIGN

Type II hybrid-convergent mixed methods design (implementation) and pre-post prospective cohort study with matched controls (effectiveness).

SETTING

Four ambulatory sites (2 primary care, 1 pain management, 1 palliative care) within 2 US academic medical institutions.

METHODS

Interpretative reports were generated by the clinical chemistry laboratory and were provided to UDT ordering providers via inbox message in the electronic health record (EHR). The Partners Institutional Review Board approved this study.Participants were primary care, pain management, and palliative care clinicians who ordered liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry UDT for COT patients in clinic. Intervention was a laboratory-generated interpretation service that provided an individualized interpretive report of UDT results based on the patient's prescribed medications and toxicology metabolites for clinicians who received the intervention (n = 8) versus matched controls (n = 18).Implementation results included focus group and survey feedback on the interpretation service's usability and its impact on workflow, clinical decision making, clinician-patient relationships, and interdisciplinary teamwork. Effectiveness outcomes included UDT interpretation concordance between the clinician and laboratory, documentation frequency of UDT results interpretation and communication of results to patients, and clinician prescribing behavior at follow-up.

RESULTS

Among the 8 intervention clinicians (median age 58 [IQR 16.5] years; 2 women [25%]) on a Likert scale from 1 ("strongly disagree") to 5 ("strongly agree"), 7 clinicians reported at 6 months postintervention that the interpretation service was easy to use (mean 5 [standard deviation {SD}, 0]); improved results comprehension (mean 5 [SD, 0]); and helped them interpret results more accurately (mean 5 [SD, 0]), quickly (mean 4.67 [SD, 0.52]), and confidently (mean 4.83 [SD, 0.41]). Although there were no statistically significant differences in outcomes between cohorts, clinician-laboratory interpretation concordance trended toward improvement (intervention 22/32 [68.8%] to 29/33 [87.9%] vs. control 21/25 [84%] to 23/30 [76.7%], P = 0.07) among cases with documented interpretations.

LIMITATIONS

This study has a low sample size and was conducted at 2 large academic medical institutions and may not be generalizable to community settings.

CONCLUSIONS

Interpretations were well received by clinicians but did not significantly improve laboratory-clinician interpretation concordance, interpretation documentation frequency, or opioid-prescribing behavior.

Trends in Urine Drug Monitoring Among Persons Receiving Long-Term Opioids and Persons with Opioid Use Disorder in the United States

BACKGROUND

Practice guidelines recommend urine drug monitoring (UDM) at least annually in the setting of chronic opioid therapy as an objective assessment of substance use. However, empirical evidence on who gets tested and how often testing occurs is lacking.

OBJECTIVES

This study investigates 10-year UDM trends in the United States based on 2 factors: (1) the duration of prescription opioid treatment, and (2) having an opioid use disorder (OUD) diagnosis and medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) prescriptions.

STUDY DESIGN

Observational cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Research was conducted using administrative claims data from Optum's deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart Database for the period 2007 to 2016. The dataset contained information on the plan enrollment and health care claims from 50 states and the District of Columbia.

METHODS

To examine trends in UDM based on the duration of prescription opioid treatment, persons receiving prescription opioid analgesics were categorized into 4 groups based on the number of days covered: (a) less than 90 days, (b) 90 to 179 days, (c) 180 to 269 days, and (d) at least 270 days. To examine trends based on an OUD diagnosis and MOUD prescriptions, persons diagnosed with OUD were identified and categorized based on the presence of MOUD prescriptions as follows: (a) OUD with buprenorphine (BPN) and naltrexone (NTX) in the same year; (b) OUD with BPN only; (c) OUD with NTX only; (d) OUD with chronic prescription opioid analgesics (>= 90 days); (e) OUD without prescription opioid analgesics, BPN, or NTX; and (f) chronic prescription opioid analgesics (>= 90 days) without an OUD diagnosis. For analysis, the percent receiving UDM was estimated per group per year. Then the data were restricted to those receiving at least one UDM to estimate the average number of UDM per person.

RESULTS

Data included an average of 364,485 persons per year receiving prescription opioid analgesics for chronic use, and 10,277 per year receiving an OUD diagnosis. Among those receiving prescription opioid analgesics, less than 50% received UDM. For those receiving at least one UDM, one additional UDM was performed per person as the duration of opioids increased by 90 days. Among persons with OUD, the percent receiving UDM was the highest for those receiving both BPN and NTX (87%), followed by those receiving BPN only (80%), chronic opioids (79%), NTX only (72%), and those not receiving any MOUD/opioids (54%).

LIMITATIONS

Methadone dispensing for OUD treatments was not captured in administrative claims data.

CONCLUSIONS

Although recommended for patients with chronic pain, UDM is provided less than half of the time for these patients. However, once patients received at least one UDM, they would continue to receive it on a fairly regular basis. Compared with those with chronic pain, persons diagnosed with OUD are more likely to receive UDM at a more frequent interval.