Dataset Information

A Descriptive analysis of urine drug screen results in patients with opioid use disorder managed in a primary care setting.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Urine drug screening (UDS) is commonly used as part of treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD), including treatment with buprenorphine-naloxone for OUD in a primary care setting. Very little is known about the value of UDS, the optimum screening frequency in general, or its specific use for buprenorphine treatment in primary care. To address this question, we thought that in a stable population receiving buprenorphine-naloxone in the primary care setting it would be useful to know how often UDS yielded expected and unexpected results.

Methods

We present a descriptive analysis of UDS results in patients treated with buprenorphine-naloxone for OUD in a primary care setting over a two-year period. An unexpected test result is: 1. A negative test for buprenorphine and/or 2. A positive test for opioids, methadone, cocaine and/or heroin.

Results

A total of 161 patients received care during the study period and a total of 2588 test results were analyzed from this population. We found that 64.4% of the patient population (n = 104 patients) demonstrated both treatment adherence (as measured by buprenorphine positive test results) and no apparent unexpected test findings, as defined by negative tests for opioids, methadone, cocaine and heroin. Of the 161 patients, 20 results were positive for opioids, 5 for methadone, 39 for heroin and 2 for cocaine. Analysis at the UDS level demonstrated that, of the 2588 test results, 38 (1.5%) results did not have buprenorphine. Of the 2588, 28 (1.1%) test results were positive for opioids, 8 (0.3%) were positive for methadone, 39 (1.5%) for cocaine and 2 (0.1%) for heroin.

Conclusion

Given that the majority of patients in our study had expected urine results, it may be reasonable for less frequent urine testing in certain patients.

SUBMITTER: Sobel HG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8482571 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceSuicide rates are higher among veterans compared with nonveterans, and the prevalence of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is higher among veterans compared with the general adult population in the US. To date, no study has examined the association between PTSD screening results and suicide mortality among veterans.ObjectiveTo examine whether veterans receiving care in the US Veterans Health Administration (VHA) health system who had positive results on the Primary Care-Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Screen (PC-PTSD) had a greater risk of suicide mortality compared with those who had negative results and to assess whether such risk decreased over time.Design, setting, and participantsMultivariable proportional hazards regression models were used to evaluate suicide mortality risk through December 31, 2016, among a cohort of veterans who received the PC-PTSD in the VHA health system. The VHA administers the PC-PTSD to patients nationwide, and screening results are routinely documented in the VHA Corporate Data Warehouse. The PC-PTSD includes 4 questions regarding PTSD symptoms, to which patients respond with either a positive (yes) or negative (no) answer. All patients who completed the PC-PTSD in 2014 and who did not have a diagnosis of PTSD in the year before screening were included in the analysis. A score of 3 or 4 on the PC-PTSD indicated a positive result, and a score of 0, 1, or 2 indicated a negative result. Data collection and analyses were performed from November 13, 2018, to June 18, 2019.ExposuresPrimary Care-Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Screen (PC-PTSD).Main outcomes and measuresSuicide mortality risk, as assessed through data obtained from the US Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense Mortality Data Repository.ResultsA total of 1 693 449 PC-PTSDs were completed by 1 552 581 individual veteran patients in 2014. Most of the patients were White (73.9%), married (52.2%), male (91.1%), 55 years or older (62.5%), and had completed only 1 PC-PTSD (92.1%). In multivariable analyses, positive PC-PTSD results (ie, total scores of 3 or 4) were associated with a 58% increase in the risk of suicide mortality at 1 day after screening (hazard ratio [HR], 1.58; 95% CI, 1.19-2.10) and a 26% increase in the risk of suicide mortality at 1 year after screening (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.07-1.48). A positive response on item 4 ("felt numb or detached from others, activities, or your surroundings") of the PC-PTSD was associated with a 70% increase in suicide mortality risk at 1 day after screening (HR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.27-2.28).Conclusions and relevancePositive PC-PTSD results, and specifically reports of feeling numb or detached, were associated with increases in the risk of suicide mortality. These associations decreased over time. The findings of this study can inform interpretation of PC-PTSD responses and suggest the importance of recent improvements made to the VHA suicide risk assessment.

Project description:BackgroundUrine drug testing (UDT) is an essential tool to monitor opioid misuse among patients on chronic opioid therapy. Inaccurate interpretation of UDT can have deleterious consequences. Providers' ability to accurately interpret and document UDT, particularly definitive liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) results, has not been widely studied.ObjectiveTo examine whether providers correctly interpret, document, and communicate LC-MS/MS UDT results.DesignThis is a retrospective chart review of 160 UDT results (80 aberrant; 80 non-aberrant) between August 2017 and February 2018 from 5 ambulatory clinics (3 primary care, 1 oncology, 1 pain management). Aberrant results were classified into one or more of the following categories: illicit drug use, simulated compliance, not taking prescribed medication, and taking a medication not prescribed. Accurate result interpretation was defined as concordance between the provider's documented interpretation and an expert laboratory toxicologist's interpretation. Outcome measures were concordance between provider and laboratory interpretation of UDT results, documentation of UDT results, results acknowledgement in the electronic health record, communication of results to the patient, and rate of prescription refills.Key resultsAberrant results were most frequently due to illicit drug use. Overall, only 88 of the 160 (55%) had any documented provider interpretations of which 25/88 (28%) were discordant with the laboratory toxicologist's interpretation. Thirty-six of the 160 (23%) documented communication of the results to the patient. Communicating results was more likely to be documented if the results were aberrant compared with non-aberrant (33/80 [41%] vs. 3/80 [4%], p?<?0.001). In all cases where provider interpretations were discordant with the laboratory interpretation, prescriptions were refilled.ConclusionsErroneous provider interpretation of UDT results, infrequent documentation of interpretation, lack of communication of results to patients, and prescription refills despite inaccurate interpretations are common. Expert assistance with urine toxicology interpretations may be needed to improve provider accuracy when interpreting toxicology results.