Buprenorphine, Norbuprenorphine, and Naloxone Levels in Adulterated Urine Samples: Can They be Detected When Buprenorphine/Naloxone Film is Dipped into Urine or Water?

Reportedly, various urine manipulations can be performed by opioid use disorder (OUD) patients who are on buprenorphine/naloxone medications to disguise their non-compliance to the treatment. One type of manipulation is known as "spiking" adulteration, directly dipping a buprenorphine/naloxone film into urine. Identifying this type of urine manipulation has been the aim of many previous studies. These studies have revealed urine adulterations through inappropriately high levels of "buprenorphine" and "naloxone" and a very small amount of "norbuprenorphine." So, does the small amount of "norbuprenorphine" in the adulterated urine samples result from dipped buprenorphine/naloxone film, or is it a residual metabolite of buprenorphine in the patient's system? This pilot study utilized 12 urine samples from 12 participants, as well as water samples as a control. The samples were subdivided by the dipping area and time, as well as the temperature and concentration of urine samples, and each sublingual generic buprenorphine/naloxone film was dipped directly into the samples. Then, the levels of "buprenorphine," "norbuprenorphine," "naloxone," "buprenorphine-glucuronide" and "norbuprenorphine-glucuronide" were examined by Liquid Chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). The results of this study showed that high levels of "buprenorphine" and "naloxone" and a small amount of "norbuprenorphine" were detected in both urine and water samples when the buprenorphine/naloxone film was dipped directly into these samples. However, no "buprenorphine-glucuronide" or "norbuprenorphine-glucuronide" were detected in any of the samples. In addition, the area and timing of dipping altered "buprenorphine" and "naloxone" levels, but concentration and temperature did not. This study's findings could help providers interpret their patients' urine drug test results more accurately, which then allows them to monitor patient compliance and help them identify manipulation by examining patient urine test results.

Association Between Buprenorphine Dose and the Urine "Norbuprenorphine" to "Creatinine" Ratio: Revised.

Background: Utilizing a 1-year chart review as the data, Furo et al. conducted a research study on an association between buprenorphine dose and the urine "norbuprenorphine" to "creatinine" ratio and found significant differences in the ratio among 8-, 12-, and 16-mg/day groups with an analysis of variance (ANOVA) test. This study expands the data for a 2-year chart review and is intended to delineate an association between buprenorphine dose and the urine "norbuprenorphine" to "creatinine" ratio with a higher statistical power. Methods: This study performed a 2-year chart review of data for the patients living in a halfway house setting, where their drug administration was closely monitored. The patients were on buprenorphine prescribed at an outpatient clinic for opioid use disorder (OUD), and their buprenorphine prescription and dispensing information were confirmed by the New York Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP). Urine test results in the electronic health record (EHR) were reviewed, focusing on the "buprenorphine," "norbuprenorphine," and "creatinine" levels. The Kruskal-Wallis H and Mann-Whitney U tests were performed to examine an association between buprenorphine dose and the "norbuprenorphine" to "creatinine" ratio. Results: This study included 371 urine samples from 61 consecutive patients and analyzed the data in a manner similar to that described in the study by Furo et al. This study had similar findings with the following exceptions: (1) a mean buprenorphine dose of 11.0 ± 3.8 mg/day with a range of 2 to 20 mg/day; (2) exclusion of 6 urine samples with "creatinine" level <20 mg/dL; (3) minimum "norbuprenorphine" to "creatinine" ratios in the 8-, 12-, and 16-mg/day groups of 0.44 × 10-4 (n = 68), 0.1 × 10-4 (n = 133), and 1.37 × 10-4 (n = 82), respectively; however, after removing the 2 lowest outliers, the minimum "norbuprenorphine" to "creatinine" ratio in the 12-mg/day group was 1.6 × 10-4, similar to the findings in the previous study; and (4) a significant association between buprenorphine dose and the urine "norbuprenorphine" to "creatinine" ratios from the Kruskal-Wallis test (P < .01). In addition, the median "norbuprenorphine" to "creatinine" ratio had a strong association with buprenorphine dose, and this association could be formulated as: [y = 2.266 ln(x) + 0.8211]. In other words, the median ratios in 8-, 12-, and 16-mg/day groups were 5.53 × 10-4, 6.45 × 10-4, and 7.10 × 10-4, respectively. Therefore, any of the following features should alert providers to further investigate patient treatment compliance: (1) inappropriate substance(s) in urine sample; (2) "creatinine" level <20 mg/dL; (3) "buprenorphine" to "norbuprenorphine" ratio >50:1; (4) buprenorphine dose >24 mg/day; or (5) "norbuprenorphine" to "creatinine" ratios <0.5 × 10-4 in patients who are on 8 mg/day or <1.5 × 10-4 in patients who are on 12 mg/day or more. Conclusion: The results of the present study confirmed those of the previous study regarding an association between buprenorphine dose and the "norbuprenorphine" to "creatinine" ratio, using an expanded data set. Additionally, this study delineated a clearer relationship, focusing on the median "norbuprenorphine" to "creatinine" ratios in different buprenorphine dose groups. These results could help providers interpret urine test results more accurately and apply them to outpatient opioid treatment programs for optimal treatment outcomes.

Association Between Opioid Use Disorder and Seizure Incidents Among Alcohol Use Disorder Patients.

Many previous studies have discussed an association between alcohol use disorder (AUD) and seizure incidents. There are also case reports of seizures during opioid withdrawals. Therefore, it is possible that AUD patients may have a higher risk of seizures if they also have opioid use disorder (OUD). However, it remains unproven whether AUD patients with a dual diagnosis of OUD have higher seizure incidents, to our knowledge. This study explored seizure incidents among the patients with a dual diagnosis of AUD and OUD as well as seizures among AUD only or OUD only patients. This study utilized de-identified data from 30 777 928 hospital inpatient encounters at 948 healthcare systems over 4 years (9/1/2018-8/31/2022) from the Vizient® Clinical Database for this study. Applying the International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision (ICD-10) diagnostic codes, AUD (1 953 575), OUD (768 982), and seizure (1 209 471) encounters were retrieved from the database to examine the effects of OUD on seizure incidence among AUD patients. This study also stratified patient encounters for demographic factors such as gender, age, and race, as well as the Vizient-categorized primary payer. Greatest gender differences were identified among AUD followed by OUD, and seizure patient groups. The mean age for seizure incidents was 57.6 years, while that of AUD was 54.7 years, and OUD 48.9 years. The greatest proportion of patients in all 3 groups were White, followed by Black, with Medicare being the most common primary payer in all 3 categories. Seizure incidents were statistically more common (P < .001, chi-square) in patients with a dual diagnosis of AUD and OUD (8.07%) compared to those with AUD only (7.55%). The patients with the dual diagnosis had a higher odd ratio than those with AUD only or OUD only. These findings across more than 900 health systems provide a greater understanding of seizure risks. Consequently, this information may help in triaging AUD and OUD patients in certain higher-risk demographic groups.

Buprenorphine Dosage and Urine Quantitative Buprenorphine, Norbuprenorphine, and Creatinine Levels in an Office-Based Opioid Treatment Program.

BACKGROUND: Treatment progress is routinely monitored by urine testing in patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) undergoing buprenorphine medication-assisted treatment (MAT). However, interpretation of urine test results could be challenging. This retrospective study aims to examine the results of quantitative buprenorphine, norbuprenorphine, and creatinine levels in urine testing in relation to sublingual buprenorphine dosage to facilitate an accurate interpretation of urine testing results. METHODS: We reviewed the medical charts of 41 consecutive patients, who were residing in halfway houses where their medication intake was closely monitored and who had enrolled in an office-based MAT program at an urban clinic between July 2018 and June 2019. The patients' urine testing results were reviewed, and demographic variables were recorded. We focused on the patients treated with 8-, 12-, or 16-mg/day of buprenorphine, examining their urine buprenorphine, norbuprenorphine, and creatinine levels. Analysis of variance tested the statistical association between the dosage and urine testing results on the norbuprenorphine-to-creatinine ratio. RESULTS: A total of 240 urine samples from 41 patients were included for this study. The 41 patients received a mean buprenorphine dose of 10.5 ± 3.7 mg/day (range, 4-20 mg/day). Then, this study examined the distribution of the 240 urine samples and then focused on 184 urine samples that came from the 33 patients who were treated with 8-, 12-, and 16-mg/day of buprenorphine, the 3 most common dosages. All of the 184 urine samples had a creatinine level of >20 mg/dL and buprenorphine-to-norbuprenorphine ratio <50:1. The average norbuprenorphine-to-creatinine ratio in the 8 mg/day dosage group was 3.85 ± 2.24 × 10-4 (n = 66; range, 0.44-11.12). The respective ratios in the 12- and 16-mg dosage groups were 5.64 ± 3.40 × 10-4 (n = 83; range, 1.55-22.72) and 6.23 ± 4.92 × 10-4 (n = 35; range, 1.37-27.12). The 3 dosage groups differed significantly in the mean ratios (P < .01), except when the 12- and 16-mg dosage groups were compared (P = .58). The results of this study thus suggest that prescribers should pay attention to the following features: (1) unexpected substance(s) in urine testing, (2) creatinine level under 20 mg/dL, (3) buprenorphine-to-creatinine ratio over 50:1, (4) buprenorphine dosage over 24 mg/day, and (5) norbuprenorphine-to-creatinine ratio consistently under 0.5 × 10-4 in patients treated with 8 mg/day or 1.5 × 10-4 in patients treated with 12 mg/day or more. CONCLUSION: This study suggested parameters for interpreting quantitative urine test results in relation to buprenorphine intake dose in office-based opioid treatment programs.

Current Molecularly Targeting Therapies in NSCLC and Melanoma.

Surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy are the traditional options to control tumor progression. However, these strategies are fraught with harmful side effects and are ineffective in metastatic and advanced cancers. Biomarkers that are overexpressed in cancers and are involved in cell growth, proliferation, migration, and survival have recently become the focus of new molecular targeting therapies. Novel therapies targeting biomarkers have roles in tumorigenesis that are overexpressed in cancers may be more efficacious and less toxic in comparison to traditional therapies. These therapies include the use of tyrosine kinase inhibitors and monoclonal antibodies for the treatment of cancer. However, the efficacy of these therapies is limited due to the development of drug resistance after prolonged treatment. Current research is focused on understanding mechanisms of resistance to overcome the barriers limiting the use of these targeting therapies in the treatment of cancer. In this review, we will discuss the clinical status of tyrosine kinase inhibitors and monoclonal antibodies against several prevalent biomarkers that are candidates for therapy in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and melanoma.