Characterization of the alcohol biomarker phosphatidylethanol in donor whole blood and apheresis red blood cells: Implications for transfusion recipients.

INTRODUCTION: Phosphatidylethanol (PEth) is a long-term marker of alcohol consumption used frequently in clinical scenarios such as liver transplant evaluation. Recent cases have demonstrated that packed red blood cell (pRBC) transfusion creates the potential for artificial elevation or decrease of observed PEth concentrations in recipients. Very little is known about the prevalence or stability of PEth in pRBCs. METHODS: Apheresis and whole-blood (WB) donations were tested for PEth using liquid chromatography - tandem mass spectrometry with limit of quantitation 10 ng/mL. Units were stored under routine blood bank conditions to evaluate the stability of PEth and the impact of irradiation. RESULTS: Over 40% of apheresis and WB donors had PEth ≥10 ng/mL (maximum observed 587 ng/mL). As WB units were processed into component pRBCs, PEth concentrations increased and were higher than donor WB levels (EDTA sample) prior to collection (maximum observed 711 ng/mL). Storage for up to 5 weeks post donation resulted in mean 17.3% decrease in PEth-positive units; in contrast to a prior report, we observed no PEth formation in units with negative (<10 ng/mL) baseline concentrations. Irradiation of pRBCs did not substantially affect PEth concentrations in either PEth-positive or PEth-negative units. DISCUSSION: PEth concentrations in healthy blood donors may potentially confound alcohol use or abstinence assessment in pRBC recipients. Transfusion medicine services and clinical practices such as transplantation and behavioral medicine should recognize this phenomenon and collaborate on testing protocols to appropriately interpret PEth in pRBC recipients.

Laboratorian Interpretation of Drug Testing Results in Pain Management: Lessons From College of American Pathologists Proficiency Testing.

CONTEXT.­: Accurate interpretation of drug test results is key to appropriate patient care in numerous settings including pain management. Despite recommendations that providers should consult laboratory professionals for guidance when necessary, literature demonstrating laboratorian expertise in drug test interpretation is lacking. OBJECTIVE.­: To evaluate participating laboratories' performance on the case-based, interpretive ("dry") challenge included with each Drug Monitoring for Pain Management proficiency testing program from 2012-2023. DESIGN.­: All challenges (n = 23) required participants to identify if drug test results were consistent or inconsistent with prescribed medications in the case history. Relevant medications, presumptive and confirmatory drug test results, and participant responses were extracted from program summary reports and examined for performance and common themes. RESULTS.­: Overall, 91.8% (6821 of 7431) of participant responses correctly identified whether drug testing was consistent with medications. There were 8 challenges with participant scores below 91.8% (range, 59.8% [49 of 82 responses] to 88.9% [193 of 217 responses]). Common knowledge gaps identified in these challenges included false-positive presumptive (screening) results, minor metabolism of opiates, and recognizing that presence of a nonprescribed drug is inconsistent with prescribed medications. Although some participants repeatedly responded incorrectly, there were no associations between laboratory type, personnel responding, or analytical performance with incorrect responses to interpretative challenges. CONCLUSIONS.­: Program participants performed well overall, but several concerning educational gaps were identified. Laboratorians have a role in providing interpretative guidance for drug testing and should emphasize ongoing education to ensure competence in the setting of constantly changing prescribed and nonprescribed drug use.