Urine drug testing in the context of opioid analgesic prescribing for chronic pain: a content analysis of U.S. state laws in 2022.

BACKGROUND: In response to the opioid crisis, U.S. states have passed laws requiring urine drug testing (UDT) when opioid analgesics are prescribed for chronic pain. We sought to identify state law UDT requirements. METHODS: We searched NexisUni legal database using terms related to UDT, chronic pain, and opioids. We included laws effective during spring 2022 that required UDT when opioids were prescribed for chronic pain. We performed deductive content analysis, coding laws for mandated UDT frequency, type of clinician and type of payer to whom the law applied, and circumstances under which UDT was mandated. RESULTS: We found 32 laws across 13 states that met our inclusion criteria. UDT requirements varied substantially by state, including with regard to the type of clinician to whom the law applied, the mandated frequency of UDT (eg, at initiation/assessment, at least annually, more than once per year), and the circumstances in which UDT was mandated (eg, patient had substance use disorder; dosage/day threshold). DISCUSSION: Relatively few states have UDT mandates associated with prescribing opioids as chronic pain treatment. When developing policy indicators for empirical studies, researchers evaluating how UDT policy affects health outcomes must consider the complexity and lack of uniformity of UDT requirements. In addition, even if states mandate UDT, it is unclear whether clinicians understand the best way to use the test results.

Racial and Ethnic Differences in Urine Drug Screening on Labor and Delivery.

INTRODUCTION: This study evaluates racial and ethnic differences in urine drug screening and patient consent to urine drug screening at a single tertiary care center. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all deliveries at a single tertiary care center from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2019. Medical records were queried for demographic data, performance of urine drug screening, commonly used diagnoses that prompted screening, documentation of patient consent, and result of screen. Associations between these outcomes were then assessed using Chi-square analysis and logistic regression. RESULTS: During the study period, 685 of 9953 (6.9%) of patients had a urine drug screen performed. Non-Hispanic Black patients comprised 33.6% of patients receiving screening, but only 16.6% of the total population. Of examined indications for urine drug screening, only insufficient prenatal care and trauma differed significantly between groups. After adjusting for commonly used diagnoses prompting screening, non-Hispanic black patients were significantly more likely to have urine drug screening performed (OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.6-2.4). Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients were not significantly more likely to have a positive screen result when compared to Non-Hispanic White patients. Consent to urine drug screening was poorly documented (only 11.7% of patients had documented consent). This did not differ significantly between the major racial or ethnic groups. CONCLUSION: Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients experience differences in urine drug screening during admission for delivery that cannot be solely explained by differences in incidence of diagnoses that typically trigger screening. Documentation of patient consent to urine drug screening is poor.

Demographic Discrepancies in Prenatal Urine Drug Screening in Washington State Surrounding Recreational Marijuana Legalization and Accessibility.

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated demographic patterns related to prenatal cannabinoid urine drug screening (UDS) over a 5-year period during which recreational marijuana was legalized and became accessible in Washington State. METHODS: Using electronic health record data, we performed a retrospective analysis for deliveries occurring over a 5-year period that encapsulated the transitions to marijuana legalization and legal access. For three cohorts of women delivering prior to legalization, between legalization and accessibility, and following accessibility, the UDS completion rate and screening demographic characteristics were assessed using Chi-squared tests and multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: 25,514 deliveries occurred between March 2011 and March 2016. A significantly higher percentage of women underwent UDS post-accessibility (24.5%) compared to pre-legalization (20.0%, p < 0.001). A corresponding increase was not observed in the percentage of marijuana-positive UDS in tested patients (22.7% vs. 23.3%, p = 0.86). African American women had 2.8 times higher odds than Latinas of being tested, 2.1 times higher odds than Asian women, 1.7 times higher odds than White women, and 1.4 times higher odds than women of other races (all p < 0.001). Subsidized insurance status was also strongly associated with increased likelihood of testing (aOR = 3.5, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS FOR PRACTICE: Prenatal UDS testing patterns changed as recreational marijuana possession and accessibility became legal. Demographic discrepancies in testing reveal biases related to race and insurance status, which may be a proxy for socioeconomic status. As such discrepancies are potential contributors to health outcome disparities, it is important for providers and health care systems to examine their practices and ensure they are being appropriately, equally, and justly applied.

A comparison of common practices for identifying substance use during pregnancy in obstetric clinics.

BACKGROUND: Substance use during pregnancy has been linked to adverse birth and other outcomes. Screening and intervention in the prenatal clinic are recommended, and reliance on patient reports or selective urine drug screening is inadequate. The aim of this prospective project was to determine substance use identification rates associated with common screening practices, compared to universal screening, among pregnant women seeking care at an urban, academic obstetric clinic. METHODS: Women attending their first prenatal visit (N = 275) completed a self-report questionnaire on lifetime and current substance use. A urine drug screening was also conducted, the results of which were not reported to providers. Participants' charts were reviewed to obtain the results of provider-ordered screens. RESULTS: The sample was primarily African-American and Latino, with Medicaid insurance. Ten women (4.6%) reported current marijuana use, while more than double that number (n = 27; 11.6%) screened positive for marijuana via universal screening. The majority of women who screened positive via universal screening did not have a provider-ordered urine drug screening, and less than one-third (29.3%) of clinician-ordered screens were positive for at least one substance. Finally, 90% of women who reported they were using marijuana were not selected by providers for a screen. DISCUSSION: Data demonstrate the high proportion of women using marijuana and the limitations of patient self-report and selective, nonroutine screening to identify substance use during pregnancy. Effective, standardized, clinic-wide strategies are needed to support providers in identifying pregnant women who use substances in order to increase the frequency of education and intervention.

Profiles of Urine Drug Test in Clinical Pain Patients vs Pain Research Study Subjects.

OBJECTIVE: To examine similarities and differences in urine drug test (UDT) results in clinical pain patients and pain subjects participating in pain research studies. DESIGN: An observational study with retrospective chart review and data analysis. METHODS: We analyzed 1,874 UDT results obtained from 1) clinical pain patients (Clinical Group; n = 1,529) and 2) pain subjects consented to participate in pain research studies (Research Group; n = 345). Since several medications such as opioids used in pain management are drugs of abuse (DOA) and can result in a positive UDT, we specifically identified those cases of positive UDT due to nonprescribed DOA and designated these cases as positive UDT with DOA (PUD). RESULTS: We found that 1) there was a higher rate of PUD in clinical pain patients (41.3%) than in pain research study subjects (14.8%); 2) although subjects in the Research Group were informed ahead of time that UDT will be conducted as a screening test, a substantial number (14.8%) of pain research study subjects still showed PUD; 3) there were different types of DOA between clinical pain patients (cannabinoids as the top DOA) and research study subjects (cocaine as the top DOA); and 4) a common factor associated with PUD was opioid therapy in both Clinical Group and Research Group. CONCLUSION: These results support previous findings that PUD is a common finding in clinical pain patients, particularly in those prescribed opioid therapy, and we suggest that UDT be used as routine screening testing in pain research studies.

Despite the improved clinical sensitivity of the Roche benzodiazepines II assay it cannot replace mass spectrometry in all patient populations.

Introduction: Benzodiazepines are frequently prescribed and misused therefore urine drug screening (UDS) is performed in many patient populations. Most current benzodiazepine immunoassays have poor sensitivity, particularly for detecting the metabolites of newer benzodiazepines such as lorazepam in urine. Objectives: We aimed to verify the clinical performance of the new qualitative Roche Benzodiazepines II (BNZ2) immunoassay, as well as compare its performance to the Roche Benzodiazepines Plus (BENZ) assay in two patient populations: UDS in the emergency department (ED) and compliance monitoring. Methods: An initial verification study was performed, selecting for samples containing clonazepam and lorazepam metabolites. Performance of the BNZ2 and BENZ assays was compared to liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) as the reference method. Sensitivity, specificity, false positive rate (FPR) and false negative rate (FNR) were determined. Results: We verified the performance claims in the initial verification and demonstrated similar precision, with coefficient of variations (CVs) of 12.8% and 7.7% for negative and positive controls, respectively. Furthermore, we observed higher clinical sensitivity and lower FNR with the BNZ2 assay in both the ED and compliance monitoring populations due to improved cross-reactivity for lorazepam and clonazepam metabolites. Despite these improvements, the BNZ2 assay was unable to detect 27% of specimens positive by LC-MS/MS, including specimens from patients using benzodiazepines without prescription. Discussion: Due to its improved performance and rapid turnaround time, the BNZ2 assay should be implemented for UDS in the ED. However, the assay should not replace LC-MS/MS testing for compliance monitoring, as unsuspected benzodiazepine use may go undetected.

Association of random and observed urine drug screening with long-term retention in opioid treatment programs.

BACKGROUND: In the US, opioid treatment providers (OTPs) have wide latitude to perform urine drug screening (UDS) and discharge clients for positive results. OTP clients have identified randomized and directly observed UDS as potentially stigmatizing, but little research has examined the association between UDS modality and retention in OTPs. METHODS: This cross-sectional study uses the 2016-2017 NDATSS wave among OTPs that administered methadone. The exposure was a 4-level variable based on whether OTPs had a high percentage (≥ 90% of clients) who experienced randomized, observed, both, or neither modality of UDS. The outcome was the proportion of clients retained in treatment 1 year or longer (long-term retention). Analyses were conducted using fractional logit regression with survey weighting and presented as percentages and 95% confidence intervals. We also present how policies for involuntary clinic discharge modify these effects. RESULTS: 150 OTPs were eligible with a median of 310 clients. 40 (27%) OTPs did not highly utilize either randomized or observed UDS, 22 (15%) only highly utilized observed UDS, 42 (28%) only highly utilized randomized UDS and 46 (31%) utilized both practices on ≥ 90% of clients. Adjusted estimates for long-term retention ranged from 57.7% in OTPs that conducted both randomized and observed UDS on ≥ 90% of clients and 70.4% in OTPs that did not highly utilize these practices. Involuntary discharge may moderate this relationship. CONCLUSION: Findings showed an association between high utilization of randomized and observed UDS and decreased long-term retention, suggesting that UDS modality may impact long-term OTP retention.

Predictors and Correlates of Positive Urine Drug Screening in a Retrospective Cohort Analysis of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Inpatients Throughout the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Youth substance use is associated with significant psychological, neurological, and medical complications. Risk factors for substance use among children and adolescents in the general population include peer and/or parental substance use, certain psychiatric illnesses (eg, Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, depression), and history of maltreatment. Co-occurring substance use and psychiatric illness have been associated with increased suicidality, but few prior studies have characterized substance use among child/adolescent inpatients. As such, it remains unclear how substance use contributing to acute psychiatric presentations has changed since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of 816 unique child/adolescent psychiatry inpatients with urine drug screening (UDS) results from a diverse urban setting. Charts of patients hospitalized between June 1, 2018 and November 30, 2021 were reviewed for sociodemographic characteristics, indication for admission, psychiatric history, hospital course, treatment plan, and discharge diagnosis. Differences in sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, such as age, race, and diagnoses, between patients with and without positive UDS were explored throughout various periods of the COVID-19 pandemic. Descriptive and comparative statistics were performed, as well as a logistic regression model to identify the predictors of positive UDS. RESULTS: Of the study sample, 18% had a positive UDS. Older age, diagnosis of impulsive or behavioral disorder, and a history of violence were found to be predictors of positive UDS. Asian/South Asian or Hispanic/LatinX race and history of a developmental or intellectual disability were found to be negative predictors. The frequency of positive UDS in this population did not change based on COVID-19. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Multiple factors may predispose children and adolescents to substance use. Though no impact of COVID-19 was found in this sample, longer-term studies are needed. SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE: This study identifies independent predictors of active substance use in the child and adolescent psychiatric inpatient population.

Impurities in over-the-counter pseudoephedrine leading to methcathinone detection in urine.

Methcathinone, a psychoactive substance with stimulant properties, has raised concerns in recent years due to its presence in urine screenings, even among individuals with no history of drug abuse. To prevent misjudgment, this work aims to explore the source of methcathinone in urine. A total of 58 urine samples tested positive for methcathinone in the National Taiwan University Hospital cohort, with 27 linked to illicit drug use and 31 from individuals with no drug use history. Co-occurrence analysis revealed a strong association between methcathinone and over-the-counter cold medications containing pseudoephedrine or ephedrine. In an in vivo experiment, participants who consumed pseudoephedrine-containing drugs showed the presence of methcathinone in their urine, suggesting a connection between these substances. Additionally, tests on pharmaceutical products containing pseudoephedrine detected small amounts of methcathinone as impurities. The findings suggest that the presence of methcathinone in nonillicit drug users may be attributed to impurities in over-the-counter pseudoephedrine-containing medications. This raises concerns about potential misinterpretations of drug screening results and underscores the need for more comprehensive criteria for assessing drug use. This study contributes to our understanding of the origin of methcathinone in urine, which has implications for legal justice and drug screening practices.

Prescription patterns of pain medicine physicians.

OBJECTIVES: Our study surveyed physician members of 3 American pain societies to determine prescription patterns and whether these practices reflect current expert opinion. METHODS: We sent 3 mailings to 2938 physicians from January 2010 to January 2011. The questionnaire contained 49 questions on topics related to opioids, antidepressants, anticonvulsants, and preferences for the different pain syndromes. RESULTS: A total of 474 physicians responded, representing a 16% return. Seventy-two percent ask patients to sign an opioid agreement, 59% order random urine drug testing, 13% wait until the dose of methadone is between 100 and 150 mg before converting the drug to another opioid, and 85% do not think there is a maximum dose of opioids with respect to driving. Most responders prescribe codeine to Caucasians and Asians. While 42% stated that the maximum daily dose of acetaminophen is 3000 mg, 75% would decrease the dose in patients who are moderate or heavy drinkers. Fifty-four percent do not order an ECG at all when prescribing tricyclic antidepressants. CONCLUSIONS: The responses pertaining to opioid agreements, urine drug testing, acetaminophen, and treatment for neuropathic pain are reassuring in that they prevent misuse and abuse of opioids, prevent acetaminophen-induced hepatotoxicity, and reflect evidence-based treatments. However, we identified gaps in knowledge, including the prescription of codeine in certain populations and the use of electrocardiogram in patients on antidepressants. Further education of physicians who treat chronic pain pharmacologically is warranted.

Trends in Drug Tests among Children: A 22-Year Retrospective Analysis.

There are several pathophysiological outcomes associated with substance abuse including metabolic disbalance, neurodegeneration, and disordered redox. Drug use in pregnant women is a topic of great concern due to developmental harm which may occur during gestation and the associated complications in the neonate after delivery. We sought to determine what the trajectory of drug use is like in children aged 0-4 years and mothers of neonates. Urine drug screen (UDS) results were obtained of our target demographic during 1998-2011 and 2012-2019 from LSU Health Sciences Center in Shreveport (LSUHSC-S). Statistical analysis was performed using R software. We observed an increase in cannabinoid-positive UDS results in both Caucasian (CC) and African American (AA) groups between 1998-2011 and 2012-2019 periods. Cocaine-positive UDS results decreased in both cohorts. CC children had higher UDS positive results for opiates, benzodiazepines, and amphetamines, while AA children had a higher percentage for illicit drugs such as cannabinoids and cocaine. Neonate's mothers had similar UDS trends to that in children during 2012-2019. Overall, while percentage of positive UDS results for both AA and CC 0-4 year old children started to decline for opiate, benzodiazepine, and cocaine during 2012-2019, cannabinoid- and amphetamine (CC)-positive UDS steadily increased. These results suggest a shift in the type of drug use by mothers from opiates, benzodiazepines, and cocaine to cannabinoids and/or amphetamines. We also observed that 18-year-old females who tested positive for opiates, benzodiazepine, or cocaine had higher than average chances of testing positive for cannabinoids later in life.

Psychiatric and non-psychiatric drugs causing false-positive amphetamines urine test in psychiatric patients: a pharmacovigilance analysis using FAERS.

INTRODUCTION: Immunoassay urine drug screen (UDS) is frequently used in clinical practice for initial screening process, being generally available, fast, and inexpensive. Exposure to widely prescribed drugs might determine false-positive UDS amphetamines, leading to diagnostic issues, wrong therapeutic choices, impairment of physician-patient relationship, and legal implications. AREAS COVERED: To summarize and comment on a comprehensive list of compounds responsible for UDS false positives for amphetamines, we conducted a literature review on PubMed along with a comparison with Real-World Data from the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database analysis between 2010 and 2022. Forty-four articles and 125 Individual Case Safety Reports (ICSR) involving false-positive amphetamine UDS in psychiatric patients were retrieved from FAERS. EXPERT OPINION: False-positive results were described in literature for antidepressants, atomoxetine, methylphenidate, and antipsychotics, but also for non-psychiatric drugs of common use, such as labetalol, fenofibrate, and metformin. Immunoassay method is usually responsible for false-positive results, and in most cases, mass spectrometry (MS) does not eventually confirm the UDS positivity. Physicians should be aware of immunoassays' limitations and when turning to a confirmatory test. Any new cross-reaction should be reported to pharmacovigilance activities.

Association of Cannabis Legalization with Cannabis Positive Drug Screening in US Veterans.

Background: Although cannabis legalization is associated with increases in self-report cannabis use, biological measures of cannabis use are needed to address potential bias introduced by improved self-reporting of cannabis use in states enacting medical cannabis laws (MCL) and recreational cannabis laws (RCL). Objective: Quantify the role of MCL and RCL enactment in cannabis positive urine drug screen (UDS) prevalence among Veterans Health Administration (VHA) emergency department (ED) patients from 2008 to 2019. Design: Staggered-adoption difference-in-difference analysis were used to estimate the role of MCL and RCL in cannabis positive UDS data, fitting adjusted linear binomial regression models to estimate the association between MCL and RCL enactment and prevalence of cannabis positive UDS. Participants: VHA enrolled veterans aged 18-75 years with ≥1 ED visit in a given year from 2008 to 2019. Main Measures: Receipt of ≥1 cannabis positive UDS during an ED visit were analyzed. Key Results: From 2008 to 2019, adjusted cannabis positive UDS prevalences increased from 16.4% to 25.6% in states with no cannabis law, 16.6% to 27.6% in MCL-only enacting states, and 18.2% to 33.8% in RCL-enacting states. MCL-only and MCL/RCL enactment was associated with a 0.8% (95% CI, 0.4-1.0) and 2.9% (95% CI, 2.5-3.3) absolute increase in cannabis positive UDS, respectively. Significant effect sizes were found for MCL and RCL, such that 7.0% and 18.5% of the total increase in cannabis positive UDS prevalence in MCL-only and RCL states could be attributed to MCLs and RCLs. Conclusions: In this study of VHA ED patients, MCL and RCL enactment played a significant role in the overall increases in cannabis positive UDS. The increase in a biological measure of cannabis use reduces concerns that previously documented increases in self-reported cannabis use from surveys are due to changes in patient willingness to report use as it becomes more legal.

Evaluating interventions to facilitate opioid agonist treatment access among people who inject drugs in Toronto, Ontario during COVID-19 pandemic restrictions.

BACKGROUND: In March 2020, following a provincial COVID-19 emergency declaration, modifications to opioid agonist treatment (OAT) were introduced in Ontario, Canada to promote treatment access amid the pandemic and ongoing opioid overdose crisis. Modifications included federal exemptions to facilitate OAT prescription re-fills, extensions, and deliveries and interim treatment guidance emphasizing take-home (non-observed) doses and reduced urine drug screening for OAT patients. METHODS: We conducted an interrupted time series study using health administrative data from September 17th, 2019-September 21st, 2020, on 359 people who inject drugs with suspected opioid use disorder in Toronto, Ontario. We used segmented regression analyses to evaluate the joint effects of the provincial COVID-19 emergency declaration, federal OAT exemptions, and interim treatment guidance-all implemented between March 17th-23rd, 2020-on the weekly proportion of participants enrolled in OAT (i.e., ≥1 day(s) covered with methadone or buprenorphine/naloxone), with an opioid-related overdose (based on emergency department visits and hospitalizations), and who died (all-cause), and the weekly proportion of OAT-enrolled participants receiving take-home doses (i.e., ≥1 day(s) covered) and undergoing urine drug screening. RESULTS: Post-implementation, the interventions were associated with immediate absolute changes in OAT enrollment (+1.95%; 95% CI=0.04%-3.85%), receipt of take-home doses (+18.3%; 95% CI=13.2%-23.4%), and urine drug screening (-22.4%; 95% CI=[-26.9%]-[-17.9%]) and a gradual absolute increase of 0.56% in urine drug screening week-to-week (95% CI=0.27%-0.86%) beyond the pre-implementation trend. At 26 weeks post-implementation, OAT enrollment and urine drug screening approached pre-implementation levels whereas the increase in take-home doses was largely sustained (+15.0%; 95% CI=4.33%-25.6%). No post-implementation increases in opioid-related overdoses were observed. Death was not modelled (low event frequency). CONCLUSION: Changes to OAT provision following provincial COVID-19 restrictions were associated with an immediate and sustained increase in take-home dose coverage among OAT-enrolled participants, without corresponding increases in opioid-related overdoses among all participants.

Development of a high-throughput differential mobility separation-tandem mass spectrometry (DMS-MS/MS) method for clinical urine drug testing.

INTRODUCTION: Differential mobility separation (DMS) is an analytical technique used for rapid separation of ions and isomers based on gas phase mobility prior to entering a mass spectrometer for analysis. The entire DMS process is accomplished in fewer than 20 ms and can be used as a rapid alternative to chromatographic separation. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective was to evaluate the utility of DMS-tandem mass spectrometry (DMS-MS/MS) as a replacement for immunoassay-based clinical toxicology testing. METHODS: A sensitive DMS-MS/MS method was developed and validated for simultaneous identification of 33 drugs and metabolites in human urine samples. After DMS optimization, the method was validated and used to screen 56 clinical urine samples. These results were compared to results obtained by immunoassay. RESULTS: The DMS-MS/MS method achieved limits of detection ranging from 5 to 100 ng/mL. Moreover, the total analysis time was 2 min per sample. For the method performance evaluation, DMS-MS/MS results were compared with previously obtained urine toxicology immunoassay results. DMS-MS/MS showed higher sensitivity and identified 20% more drugs in urine, which were confirmed by LC-MS/MS. CONCLUSION: The DMS-MS/MS as applied in our lab demonstrated the capability for rapid drug screening and provided better analytical performance than immunoassay.

Gabapentin prevalence: clinical and forensic experience in St. Louis, Missouri, USA.

Gabapentin (Neurontin) is an anti-epileptic drug that has had wide off-label prescription use since market release due to presumed negligible abuse potential. However, trends in drug misuse have demonstrated that gabapentin misuse is occurring, particularly in those with a history of opioid misuse. This is concerning, because although gabapentin has no direct ligand activity at opioid receptors, it does potentiate the analgesic effect of opioids, and concurrent use of gabapentin and opioids may increase the risk of respiratory depressive effects of opioids. This study investigates the incidence of gabapentin detected in urine samples collected for clinical drug screening purposes in a local hospital emergency department and in postmortem samples submitted by medical examiners in the St. Louis metropolitan area. The prevalence of gabapentin and co-detected drugs in both populations is contrasted, compared, and discussed. This study found that 30% of urine samples collected from patients with suspected drug intoxication presenting to SSM Health Saint Louis University Hospital, a quaternary care medical center, were positive for gabapentin, and nearly two thirds of those were also positive for oxycodone. Over a 6-month period, the incidence of gabapentin positive postmortem cases increased from 18% to 20%. Nearly all gabapentin positive postmortem cases were also positive for an opioid, the most significant being fentanyl, suggesting that gabapentin misuse may be due to its potentiating effect of opioid drug action. This study also highlights the limited utility of immunoassay-based urine drug screens.

Trends in Urine Drug Monitoring Among Persons Receiving Long-Term Opioids and Persons with Opioid Use Disorder in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Practice guidelines recommend urine drug monitoring (UDM) at least annually in the setting of chronic opioid therapy as an objective assessment of substance use. However, empirical evidence on who gets tested and how often testing occurs is lacking. OBJECTIVES: This study investigates 10-year UDM trends in the United States based on 2 factors: (1) the duration of prescription opioid treatment, and (2) having an opioid use disorder (OUD) diagnosis and medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) prescriptions. STUDY DESIGN: Observational cross-sectional study. SETTING: Research was conducted using administrative claims data from Optum's deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart Database for the period 2007 to 2016. The dataset contained information on the plan enrollment and health care claims from 50 states and the District of Columbia. METHODS: To examine trends in UDM based on the duration of prescription opioid treatment, persons receiving prescription opioid analgesics were categorized into 4 groups based on the number of days covered: (a) less than 90 days, (b) 90 to 179 days, (c) 180 to 269 days, and (d) at least 270 days. To examine trends based on an OUD diagnosis and MOUD prescriptions, persons diagnosed with OUD were identified and categorized based on the presence of MOUD prescriptions as follows: (a) OUD with buprenorphine (BPN) and naltrexone (NTX) in the same year; (b) OUD with BPN only; (c) OUD with NTX only; (d) OUD with chronic prescription opioid analgesics (>= 90 days); (e) OUD without prescription opioid analgesics, BPN, or NTX; and (f) chronic prescription opioid analgesics (>= 90 days) without an OUD diagnosis. For analysis, the percent receiving UDM was estimated per group per year. Then the data were restricted to those receiving at least one UDM to estimate the average number of UDM per person. RESULTS: Data included an average of 364,485 persons per year receiving prescription opioid analgesics for chronic use, and 10,277 per year receiving an OUD diagnosis. Among those receiving prescription opioid analgesics, less than 50% received UDM. For those receiving at least one UDM, one additional UDM was performed per person as the duration of opioids increased by 90 days. Among persons with OUD, the percent receiving UDM was the highest for those receiving both BPN and NTX (87%), followed by those receiving BPN only (80%), chronic opioids (79%), NTX only (72%), and those not receiving any MOUD/opioids (54%). LIMITATIONS: Methadone dispensing for OUD treatments was not captured in administrative claims data. CONCLUSIONS: Although recommended for patients with chronic pain, UDM is provided less than half of the time for these patients. However, once patients received at least one UDM, they would continue to receive it on a fairly regular basis. Compared with those with chronic pain, persons diagnosed with OUD are more likely to receive UDM at a more frequent interval.

Drug screening during pregnancy: Urine dip cups measure up.

BACKGROUND: Substance use during pregnancy is a major medical and public health concern. Determination of the most appropriate screening protocol remains a clinical conundrum. Interviews and/or laboratory drug screens may be costly, inaccurate, and are frequently inadequate to identify patterns of substance use for a given population or geographic area. We compared commercially available urine "dip cup" toxicology screens obtained in the clinic to university hospital drug toxicology results. METHODS: 267 observed urine samples were collected from pregnant women with known substance use disorders enrolled in a specialized treatment program that included access to buprenorphine medication-assisted treatment. Each urine sample was tested by commercial dip cup with temperature confirmation and then sent to the university hospital laboratory for analyses. The number of substances detected and cost for each screening method were compared. RESULTS: Uniformly, the dip cup had comparable detection of amphetamines, barbiturates, cocaine, methadone, opiates, and tetrahydrocannabinol to the university hospital laboratory with the exception of benzodiazepines. In addition, the dip cup detected use of buprenorphine (a commonly misused opiate receptor ligand not included in the hospital screen) and was significantly less expensive. CONCLUSIONS: Commercially available urine dip cups are cost-effective, equally comparable to hospital based screening, and provide 'real time' results germane to clinical care and treatment planning.

Opioid Screening Practices in the Cancer Pain Patient.

BACKGROUND: Despite the growing use of opioids to treat cancer pain and the probability of opioid aberrancy in the cancer setting, clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) or recommendations for active screening and monitoring of opioid compliance are lacking. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the current practices and attitudes clinicians have toward monitoring and prescribing opioids in patients with cancer; to describe the current practice of screening and monitoring opioid compliance in the cancer setting; to provide insight into the role that CPGs may have in addressing opioid aberrancy in the oncologic population. HYPOTHESIS: Clinicians adopt diverse clinical practices and attitudes toward opioid screening and monitoring based on cancer status. DESIGN: A 24-question survey that evaluated the practices and attitudes that clinicians have when screening, monitoring, and prescribing opioids in patients with active cancer and history of cancer was completed by 105 pain management physicians. A comprehensive literature review was completed, evaluating the current state of available literature regarding opioid aberrancy and opioid risk in the cancer setting and CPGs for opioid monitor compliance in the cancer setting. SETTING: Multicenter, survey-based study to clinicians regarding pain management strategies in patients with active cancer, patients with a history of cancer, and patients with no history of cancer. RESULTS: Cancer status plays a role in the clinician's decision to screen and monitor opioid compliance in the oncologic population. For patients with active cancer, clinicians are more likely to prescribe opioids despite patient refusal for toxicology screen as well as history of substance abuse. For patients with no history of cancer, clinicians are more likely to refuse a prescription refill and eliminate opioids from treatment regimen. CONCLUSIONS: Based upon the results of our study and evidence from current literature provided, the authors advocate for further investigation and development of CPGs to ensure the safe and prudent screening, monitoring, and prescribing of opioids in the oncologic population.