RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Co-use of stimulants and opioids is often deliberate. However, the possibility remains that some people are unintentionally consuming fentanyl. To advance understanding of overdose risk, we examined the rate of concordance between self-reported fentanyl use and corresponding urine toxicology screen results. METHODS: Between August 2022-August 2023, 411 participants (adults who reported any non-medical drug use in the past three months) in Nevada and New Mexico completed a cross-sectional survey, of whom 64% (n = 270; the analytical sample) also completed a urine toxicology screen, which detects fentanyl use in the past three days. Positive predictive value, negative predictive value, sensitivity, and specificity were calculated using self-reported past three-day fentanyl use (yes/no) and urine toxicology screen results for the presence of fentanyl (positive/negative). RESULTS: Of the 270 participants who provided a urine sample, 268 are included in the descriptive statistics (two with inconclusive urine toxicology screen results were excluded). Of the 268 participants, 146 (54.5%) had a fentanyl-positive urine toxicology screen result, 122 (45.5%) had a fentanyl-negative urine toxicology screen result, 137 (51.1%) reported past three-day fentanyl use, and 130 (48.5%) reported no past three-day fentanyl use. Only 6.9% of those with a fentanyl-positive urine toxicology screen did not report recent fentanyl use. The sensitivity of self-reported fentanyl use was 93%, specificity was 97%, positive predictive value was 97%, and negative predictive value was 92%. DISCUSSION: The rate of unanticipated exposure to fentanyl (that is, positive urine screen and negative self-report) in this sample was low, at 6.9%. This runs counter to the national narrative that there is widespread unknown contamination of fentanyl in the drug supply. CONCLUSION: Future research is needed to further explore how people who use multiple substances interpret their overdose risk and what harm reduction methods they employ.
RESUMO
Successful surgical management of patients with facial fractures requires a detailed preoperative evaluation and postoperative management that differs from elective surgical patients. This review presents evidence-based recommendations from the surgical and anesthesiology literature that address many of the clinical questions that arise during the perioperative management of this group of patients. Surgeons and anesthesiologists must work together at numerous points and make joint decisions, especially where airway and pain management challenges may arise. The multidisciplinary nature of the decision-making process is emphasized.
Assuntos
Anestesiologia , Cuidados Pré-Operatórios , Humanos , Anestesiologistas , Manejo da Dor , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos EletivosRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Guideline recommendations to reduce prescription opioid misuse among patients with chronic noncancer pain include the routine use of urine toxicology tests for high-risk patients. Yet little is known about how the implementation of urine toxicology tests among patients with co-occurring chronic noncancer pain and substance use impacts primary care providers' management of misuse. Clinicians' perspectives on the benefits and challenges of implementing urine toxicology tests in the monitoring of opioid misuse and substance use in safety net health care settings are presented in this paper. METHODS: Twenty-three primary care providers from 6 safety net health care settings whose patients had a diagnosis of co-occurring chronic noncancer pain and substance use were interviewed. Interviews were transcribed, coded, and analyzed using grounded theory methodology. RESULTS: The benefits of implementing urine toxicology tests for primary care providers included less reliance on intuition to assess for misuse and the ability to identify unknown opioid misuse and/or substance use. The challenges of implementing urine toxicology tests included insufficient education and training about how to interpret and implement tests, and a lack of clarity on how and when to act on tests that indicated misuse and/or substance use. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that primary care clinicians' lack of education and training to interpret and implement urine toxicology tests may impact their management of patient opioid misuse and/or substance use. Clinicians may benefit from additional education and training about the clinical implementation and use of urine toxicology tests. Additional research is needed on how primary care providers implementation and use of urine toxicology tests impacts chronic noncancer pain management in primary care and safety net health care settings among patients with co-occurring chronic non cancer pain and substance use.
Assuntos
Analgésicos Opioides/uso terapêutico , Dor Crônica/tratamento farmacológico , Transtornos Relacionados ao Uso de Opioides/diagnóstico , Transtornos Relacionados ao Uso de Opioides/urina , Atenção Primária à Saúde/métodos , Provedores de Redes de Segurança , Detecção do Abuso de Substâncias/estatística & dados numéricos , Testes de Toxicidade/estatística & dados numéricos , Analgésicos Opioides/urina , Atitude do Pessoal de Saúde , Dor Crônica/complicações , Dor Crônica/urina , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Transtornos Relacionados ao Uso de Opioides/complicações , Transtornos Relacionados ao Uso de Opioides/prevenção & controle , Detecção do Abuso de Substâncias/métodosRESUMO
Inaccuracies in self-reports may lead to duplication of therapy, failure to appreciate non-compliance leading to exacerbation of chronic medical conditions, or inaccurate research conclusions. Our objective is to determine the accuracy of self-reported drug ingestion histories in patients presenting to an urban academic emergency department (ED). We conducted a prospective cohort study in ED patients presenting for pain or nausea. We obtained a structured drug ingestion history including all prescription drugs, over-the-counter medication (OTC) drugs, and illicit drugs for the 48 hours prior to ED presentation. We obtained urine comprehensive drug screens (CDS) and determined self-report/CDS concordance. Fifty-five patients were enrolled. Self-reported drug ingestion histories were poor in these patients; only 17 (30.9%) of histories were concordant with the CDS. For the individual drug classes, prescription drug-CDS was concordant in 32 (58.2%), OTC-CDS was concordant in 33 (60%), and illicit drug-CDS was concordant in 45 (81.8%) of subjects. No demographic factors predicted an accurate self-reported drug history. Sixteen patients had drugs detected by CDS that were unreported by history. Nine of these 16 included an unreported opioid. In conclusion, self-reported drug ingestion histories are often inaccurate and resources are needed to confirm compliance and ensure unreported drugs are not overlooked.