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.

Comparison of different methods used in drugs of abuse for sample validity testing including pH methods, specific gravity methods, TECO™ Drug Adulteration Test Strip and oxidant assay.

Objectives: In the absence of sample validity testing, a healthcare provider may fail to identify a patient's adulteration of their urine sample. This study compared different methods for specific gravity (SG), pH, TECO™ Drug Adulteration Test Strip (dipstick) and oxidant assay to explain the differences and also make an informative decision on method selection. Methods: Creatinine, SG and pH measurements are essential in sample validity testing. SG and pH automated chemical methods are compared against pH meter method, SG refractometer and dipstick method. Also, oxidant assay was compared against dipstick method. Results: SG chemical method agreement with refractometer is 81.9% and with dipstick method is 64.7%. The refractometer method agreement with dipstick method is 66.1%. pH chemical method agreement with pH Meter method is 74.3% and with dipstick method is 81.4%. pH meter method agreement is 85.7% with dipstick method. Results were analysed using Deming regression analysis and F-test. SG chemical method correlated better with refractometer than the dipstick method. Oxidant assay correlated well with dipstick method in detecting adulterants such as pyridinium chlorochromate, nitrite and bleach. Conclusions: Varying degrees of differences were seen in the SG and pH measurements. These differences were both method and instrument dependent. The automated chemical methods are recommended alongside oxidant assay for consistency, accuracy and faster turn-around time as part of sample validity testing for drugs of abuse.