Does the perceived accuracy of urine drug testing impact clinical decision-making?

2019 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 85-92
Author(s):  
Barry Rosenfeld ◽  
David V. Budescu ◽  
Ying Han ◽  
Melodie Foellmi ◽  
Kenneth L. Kirsh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Drug Testing ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Urine Drug Testing ◽  
Urine Drug

FDA/DEA/PDMP/UDT: Alphabet soup or sensible and integrated risk management?

2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven D. Passik, PhD ◽  
Kenneth L. Kirsh, PhD ◽  
Robert K. Twillman, PhD
Keyword(s):  
Risk Management ◽  
Drug Testing ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Management Approach ◽  
Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs ◽  
Integrated Risk ◽  
Urine Drug Testing ◽  
Urine Drug ◽  
Liquid Chromatography Tandem Mass

Objective: Both prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMP) and urine drug testing (UDT) are recommended as parts of an ongoing risk management approach for controlled substance prescribing. The authors provide an editorial and commentary to discuss the unique contributions of each to promote better clinical decision making for prescribers.Design: A commentary is employed along with brief discussion comparing four states with an active PDMP in place to three states without an active PDMP as it relates back to findings on UDT in those states from a laboratory conducting liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry.Conclusions: The commentary focuses on the place of both tools (UDT and PDMP) in risk management efforts. The argument is made that relying on a PDMP alone would lead to clinical decisions that may miss a great deal of problematic or aberrant behaviors.

A primer on definitive gas and liquid chromatography drug testing: What clinicians need to know

2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Amadeo Pesce, PhD ◽  
Kenneth L. Kirsh, PhD ◽  
Angela Huskey, PharmD, CPE ◽  
Steven D. Passik, PhD ◽  
Catherine A. Hammett-Stabler, PhD
Keyword(s):  
Mass Spectrometry ◽  
Liquid Chromatography ◽  
Drug Testing ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Clinical Tool ◽  
Gas And Liquid Chromatography ◽  
Urine Drug Testing ◽  
Urine Drug ◽  
Compare And Contrast

Objective: To describe the differences between mass spectrometry technologies and compare and contrast them with immunoassay techniques of urine drug testing (UDT). Highlight the potential importance of the differences among these technologies for clinicians so as to allow them make decisions in their use in patient care.Methods: Review of mass spectrometry techniques, including gas chromatography, liquid chromatography, and time-of-flight techniques.Results: The potential clinical implications of these technologies stemming from their scope and accuracy are presented.Significance: UDT is an important clinical tool, though there are differences in technology and testing processes with important implications for clinical decision making. It is crucial, therefore, that clinicians have an understanding of the technologies behind the tests they order, so that their interpretation and use of results are based on an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the technologies used.

A Prediction Model for Positive Infant Meconium and Urine Drug Tests

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth A. Simpson ◽  
David A. Skoglund ◽  
Sarah E. Stone ◽  
Ashley K. Sherman
Keyword(s):  
Prediction Model ◽  
Drug Testing ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Drugs Of Abuse ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
P Value ◽  
Test Characteristics ◽  
Drug Test ◽  
Urine Drug ◽  
Urine Drug Test

Objective This study aimed to determine the factors associated with positive infant drug screen and create a shortened screen and a prediction model. Study Design This is a retrospective cohort study of all infants who were tested for drugs of abuse from May 2012 through May 2014. The primary outcome was positive infant urine or meconium drug test. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify independent risk factors. A combined screen was created, and test characteristics were analyzed. Results Among the 3,861 live births, a total of 804 infants underwent drug tests. Variables associated with having a positive infant test were (1) positive maternal urine test, (2) substance use during pregnancy, (3) ≤ one prenatal visit, and (4) remote substance abuse; each p-value was less than 0.0001. A model with an indicator for having at least one of these four predictors had a sensitivity of 94% and a specificity of 69%. Application of this screen to our population would have decreased drug testing by 57%. No infants had a positive urine drug test when their mother's urine drug test was negative. Conclusion This simplified screen can guide clinical decision making for determining which infants should undergo drug testing. Infant urine drug tests may not be needed when a maternal drug test result is negative. Key Points

Patient-derived organoid (PDO), a new personalized therapy selection tool for prompt clinical decision making in metastatic gastrointestinal (mGI) cancer patients.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3101-3101
Author(s):  
Hao Xie ◽  
Tara L Hogenson ◽  
Isaac P Horn ◽  
Luciana Almada ◽  
David Marks ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Response ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Drug Testing ◽  
Drug Response ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Gi Cancer ◽  
Testing Data

3101 Background: PDO is a promising translational tool that recapitulates the biology and drug response of donor cancer patient. However, an unmet need is to have PDO drug-screening data available for treatment decision making in clinic. We conducted a pilot study to determine whether PDO testing results will be available at critical treatment decision points in metastatic GI cancer patients. Methods: Metastatic GI cancer patients undergoing core-needle biopsy were eligible. Tumor cells isolated from ≤4 fresh biopsy tissues were grown in a Matrigel-based culture. PDO response to anti-cancer drugs were evaluated; and when available, correlated with donors’ clinical response to the same agent(s). PDO response was defined as IC50 < 0.1 × published Cmax of the drug clinically; stable as IC50 between 0.1 to 10 × Cmax. Radiographic response was per RECIST criteria. Results: We enrolled 27 refractory metastatic GI cancer patients (9 colorectal [CRC], 9 pancreas, and 9 biliary tract). Median lines of therapy were 4, 2, and 2; the success rate of organoid establishment was 89%, 44%, and 55%, respectively. The median time from biopsy to availability of drug-testing data was 64 days (range: 24 to 93 days). The median time from biopsy to next CT re-staging in donors was 64 days. The established PDOs shared histological and genomic features with donor clinical tissue. PDO and clinical responses to the same agent(s) were correlated in 2 CRC donors including (1) BRAFV600E-mutated PDO responded to vemurafenib + panitumumab, as did the donor who had partial response (PDO drug-testing data were available 55 days post-biopsy, 23 days prior to restaging scan); (2) KRAS/FGF-dual amplified PDO had stable disease status to regorafenib, as did the biopsied lesion from the donor (73 days post-biopsy, 5 days post-scan). Conclusions: We showed the feasibility of completing PDO drug sensitivity testing in metastatic GI cancer patients within a short time that could impact clinical decision making, particularly in CRC. PDO drug response showed correlation with clinical response. With further refinement, PDO can be a powerful tool for personalizing cancer therapy in metastatic GI cancer patients.

scholarly journals Laboratory-Generated Urine Toxicology Interpretations: A Mixed Methods Study

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Palliative Care ◽  
Drug Testing ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Prescribing Behavior ◽  
Urine Toxicology ◽  
Medical Institutions ◽  
Academic Medical ◽  
Urine Drug Testing ◽  
Urine Drug

BACKGROUND: Clinicians frequently order urine drug testing (UDT) for patients on chronic opioid therapy (COT), yet often have difficulty interpreting test results accurately. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of a laboratory-generated urine toxicology interpretation service for clinicians prescribing COT. STUDY DESIGN: Type II hybrid–convergent mixed methods design (implementation) and pre–post prospective cohort study with matched controls (effectiveness). SETTING: Four ambulatory sites (2 primary care, 1 pain management, 1 palliative care) within 2 US academic medical institutions. METHODS: Interpretative reports were generated by the clinical chemistry laboratory and were provided to UDT ordering providers via inbox message in the electronic health record (EHR). The Partners Institutional Review Board approved this study. Participants were primary care, pain management, and palliative care clinicians who ordered liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry UDT for COT patients in clinic. Intervention was a laboratory-generated interpretation service that provided an individualized interpretive report of UDT results based on the patient’s prescribed medications and toxicology metabolites for clinicians who received the intervention (n = 8) versus matched controls (n = 18). Implementation results included focus group and survey feedback on the interpretation service’s usability and its impact on workflow, clinical decision making, clinician-patient relationships, and interdisciplinary teamwork. Effectiveness outcomes included UDT interpretation concordance between the clinician and laboratory, documentation frequency of UDT results interpretation and communication of results to patients, and clinician prescribing behavior at follow-up. RESULTS: Among the 8 intervention clinicians (median age 58 [IQR 16.5] years; 2 women [25%]) on a Likert scale from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”), 7 clinicians reported at 6 months postintervention that the interpretation service was easy to use (mean 5 [standard deviation {SD}, 0]); improved results comprehension (mean 5 [SD, 0]); and helped them interpret results more accurately (mean 5 [SD, 0]), quickly (mean 4.67 [SD, 0.52]), and confidently (mean 4.83 [SD, 0.41]). Although there were no statistically significant differences in outcomes between cohorts, clinician-laboratory interpretation concordance trended toward improvement (intervention 22/32 [68.8%] to 29/33 [87.9%] vs. control 21/25 [84%] to 23/30 [76.7%], P = 0.07) among cases with documented interpretations. LIMITATIONS: This study has a low sample size and was conducted at 2 large academic medical institutions and may not be generalizable to community settings. CONCLUSIONS: Interpretations were well received by clinicians but did not significantly improve laboratory-clinician interpretation concordance, interpretation documentation frequency, or opioid-prescribing behavior. KEY WORDS: Compliance monitoring, chronic pain, urine drug testing, opioid, liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry, palliative care, primary care, substance use disorder, diagnostic error, clinical decision support

Debates in Dysphagia Management: How Do You Use Evidence-Based Practice in Your Dysphagia Patient Care?

2011 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 121-123
Author(s):  
Jeri A. Logemann
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Patient Care ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Clinical Judgment ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Evidence Based Practice ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Clinical Method ◽  
Do So

Evidence-based practice requires astute clinicians to blend our best clinical judgment with the best available external evidence and the patient's own values and expectations. Sometimes, we value one more than another during clinical decision-making, though it is never wise to do so, and sometimes other factors that we are unaware of produce unanticipated clinical outcomes. Sometimes, we feel very strongly about one clinical method or another, and hopefully that belief is founded in evidence. Some beliefs, however, are not founded in evidence. The sound use of evidence is the best way to navigate the debates within our field of practice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document