Prevalence of heroin markers in urine for pain management patients.

Surveys of current trends indicate heroin abuse is associated with nonmedical use of pain relievers. Consequently, there is an interest in evaluating the presence of heroin-specific markers in chronic pain patients who are prescribed controlled substances. A total of 926,084 urine specimens from chronic pain patients were tested for heroin/diacetylmorphine (DAM), 6-acetylmorphine (6AM), 6-acetylcodeine (6AC), codeine (COD), and morphine (MOR). Heroin and markers were analyzed using liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS-MS). Opiates were analyzed following hydrolysis using LC-MS-MS. The prevalence of heroin use was 0.31%, as 2871 were positive for one or more heroin-specific markers including DAM, 6AM, or 6AC (a known contaminant of illicit heroin). Of these, 1884 were additionally tested for the following markers of illicit drug use: 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), 3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDA), methamphetamine (MAMP), 11-nor-9-carboxy-Δ(9)-tetracannabinol (THCCOOH), and benzoylecgonine (BZE); 654 (34.7%) had positive findings for one or more of these analytes. The overall prevalence of heroin markers were as follows: DAM 1203 (41.9%), 6AM 2570 (89.5%), 6AC 1082 (37.7%). MOR was present in 2194 (76.4%) and absent (

Normalization of urinary drug concentrations with specific gravity and creatinine.

Excessive fluid intake can substantially dilute urinary drug concentrations and result in false-negative reports for drug users. Methods for correction ("normalization") of drug/metabolite concentrations in urine have been utilized by anti-doping laboratories, pain monitoring programs, and in environmental monitoring programs to compensate for excessive hydration, but such procedures have not been used routinely in workplace, legal, and treatment settings. We evaluated two drug normalization procedures based on specific gravity and creatinine. These corrections were applied to urine specimens collected from three distinct groups (pain patients, heroin users, and marijuana/ cocaine users). Each group was unique in characteristics, study design, and dosing conditions. The results of the two normalization procedures were highly correlated (r=0.94; range, 0.78-0.99). Increases in percent positives by specific gravity and creatinine normalization were small (0.3% and -1.0%, respectively) for heroin users (normally hydrated subjects), modest (4.2-9.8%) for pain patients (unknown hydration state), and substantial (2- to 38-fold increases) for marijuana/cocaine users (excessively hydrated subjects). Despite some limitations, these normalization procedures provide alternative means of dealing with highly dilute, dilute, and concentrated urine specimens. Drug/metabolite concentration normalization by these procedures is recommended for urine testing programs, especially as a means of coping with dilute specimens.