scholarly journals AACC Academy's Pain Management LMPG: Verification of Drug Dosing with Quantitative Urine Drug Testing?

2017 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 475-477
Author(s):  
Alan H.B. Wu
Keyword(s):  
Pain Management ◽  
Drug Testing ◽  
Drug Dosing ◽  
Urine Drug Testing ◽  
Urine Drug

scholarly journals Repeated Quantitative Urine Toxicology Analysis May Improve Chronic Pain Patient Compliance with Opioid Therapy

2017 ◽  
Vol 2 (20;2) ◽  
pp. s135-s145 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nebojsa Nick Knezevic
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Retrospective Analysis ◽  
Drug Testing ◽  
Illicit Drugs ◽  
Opioid Therapy ◽  
Urine Toxicology ◽  
Urine Drug Testing ◽  
Urine Drug ◽  
Improve Compliance

Background: Even though serious efforts have been undertaken by different medical societies to reduce opioid use for treating chronic benign pain, many Americans continue to seek pain relief through opioid consumption. Assuring compliance of these patients may be a difficult aspect of proper management even with regular behavioral monitoring. Objective: The purpose of this study was to accurately assess the compliance of chronic opioidconsuming patients in an outpatient setting and evaluate if utilizing repeated urine drug testing (UDT) could improve compliance. Study Design: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. Setting: Outpatient pain management clinic. Methods: After Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, a retrospective analysis of data for 500 patients was conducted. We included patients who were aged 18 years and older who were treated with opioid analgesic medication for chronic pain. Patients were asked to provide supervised urine toxicology specimens during their regular clinic visits, and were asked to do so without prior notification. The specimens were sent to an external laboratory for quantitative testing using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Results: Three hundred and eighty-six (77.2%) patients were compliant with prescribed medications and did not use any illicit drugs or undeclared medications. Forty-one (8.2%) patients tested positive for opioid medication(s) that were not prescribed in our clinic; 8 (1.6%) of the patients were positive for medication that was not prescribed by any physician and was not present in the Illinois Prescription Monitoring Program; 5 (1%) patients tested negative for prescribed opioids; and 60 (12%) patients were positive for illicit drugs (8.6% marijuana, 3.2% cocaine, 0.2% heroin). Repeated UDTs following education and disclosure, showed 49 of the 77 patients (63.6%) had improved compliance. Limitations: This was a single-site study and we normalized concentrations of opioids in urine with creatinine levels while specific gravity normalization was not used. Conclusions: Our results showed that repeated UDT can improve compliance of patients on opioid medications and can improve overall pain management. We believe UDT testing should be used as an important adjunctive tool to help guide clinical decision-making regarding opioid therapy, potentially increasing future quality of care. Key words: Urine toxicology analysis, chronic pain, opioids, compliance, pain management, urine drug testing, urine drug screening

scholarly journals Patterns of Marijuana Use in a 6-Month Pain Management Sample in the United States

2017 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 117822181772478 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hope M Smiley-McDonald ◽  
Katherine N Moore ◽  
David C Heller ◽  
Jeri D Ropero-Miller ◽  
Gregory L McIntire ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pain Management ◽  
Drug Use ◽  
Prescription Drugs ◽  
Drug Testing ◽  
Illicit Drugs ◽  
Marijuana Use ◽  
The United States ◽  
Prescription Drug Use ◽  
Urine Drug Testing ◽  
Urine Drug

This study is a 6-month retrospective analysis of urine drug testing (UDT) data from a pain management population among specimens with clinician-ordered marijuana testing (N = 194 809). Descriptive statistics about the specimen positivity of clinician-ordered marijuana UDT are provided as well as other drug positivity. Specimens from men and adults aged 18 to 34 years had the highest prevalence rates of marijuana positivity. The prevalence of past-month marijuana use among a comparative national population was lower than the prevalence of positive marijuana tests in the UDT specimens by all characteristics. Among the specimens tested for illicit drugs and marijuana, 4.0% were positive for amphetamine, 2.8% were positive for cocaine, and 0.9% were positive for heroin. The most common prescription drugs listed were opioids (64.7%), benzodiazepines (20.5%), and antidepressants (19.9%). In sum, the findings reflect previous research showing high rates of marijuana use, illicit drug use, and prescription drug use in a pain management population.

scholarly journals KIMS, CEDIA, and HS-CEDIA Immunoassays Are Inadequately Sensitive for Detection of Benzodiazepines in Urine from Patients Treated for Chronic Pain

2014 ◽  
Vol 4;17 (4;7) ◽  
pp. 259-266
Author(s):  
Stacy Melanson
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Drug Testing ◽  
Medication Compliance ◽  
Urine Drug Testing ◽  
Urine Drug ◽  
Benzodiazepine Use ◽  
Urine Specimens ◽  
Higher Sensitivity

Background: Patients treated for chronic pain may frequently undergo urine drug testing to monitor medication compliance and detect undisclosed prescribed or illicit drug use. Due to the increasing use and abuse of benzodiazepines, this class of medications is often included in drug screening panels. However, immunoassay-based methods lack the requisite sensitivity for detecting benzodiazepine use in this population primarily due to their poor cross-reactivity with several major urinary benzodiazepine metabolites. A High Sensitivity Cloned Enzyme Donor Immunoassay (HS-CEDIA), in which betaglucuronidase is added to the reagent, has been shown to perform better than traditional assays, but its performance in patients treated for chronic pain is not well characterized. Objectives: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of HS-CEDIA, as compared to the Cloned Enzyme Donor Immunoassay (CEDIA) and Kinetic Interaction of Microparticles in Solution (KIMS) screening immunoassays and liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS), for monitoring benzodiazepine use in patients treated for chronic pain. Study Design: A study of the diagnostic accuracy of urine benzodiazepine immunoassays. Setting: The study was conducted at an academic tertiary care hospital with a clinical laboratory that performs urine drug testing for monitoring medication compliance in pain management. Methods: A total of 299 urine specimens from patients treated for chronic pain were screened for the presence of benzodiazepines using the HS-CEDIA, CEDIA, and KIMS assays. The sensitivity and specificity of the screening assays were determined using the LC-MS/MS results as the reference method. Results: Of the 299 urine specimens tested, 141 (47%) confirmed positive for one or more of the benzodiazepines/metabolites by LC-MS/MS. All 3 screens were 100% specific with no false-positive results. The CEDIA and KIMS sensitivities were 55% (78/141) and 47% (66/141), respectively. Despite the relatively higher sensitivity of the HS-CEDIA screening assay (78%; 110/141), primarily due to increased detection of lorazepam, it still missed 22% (31/141) of benzodiazepine-positive urines. The KIMS, CEDIA, and HS-CEDIA assays yielded accuracies of 75%, 79%, and 90%, respectively, in comparison with LC-MS/MS. Limitations: This study was limited by its single-site location and the modest size of the urine samples utilized. Conclusions: While the HS-CEDIA provides higher sensitivity than the KIMS and CEDIA assays, it still missed an unacceptably high percentage of benzodiazepine-positive samples from patients treated for chronic pain. LC-MS/MS quantification with enzymatic sample pretreatment offers superior sensitivity and specificity for monitoring benzodiazepines in patients treated for chronic pain. Key words: High sensitivty immunoassay, benzodiazepine, beta-glucoronidase, pain management, compliance, LC-MS/MS, screening

Significant cost savings achieved by in-sourcing urine drug testing for monitoring medication compliance in pain management

2013 ◽  
Vol 422 ◽  
pp. 10-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stacy E.F. Melanson ◽  
Milenko J. Tanasijevic ◽  
Marion L. Snyder ◽  
Alicia Darragh ◽  
Cathleen Quade ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pain Management ◽  
Drug Testing ◽  
Medication Compliance ◽  
Cost Savings ◽  
Significant Cost ◽  
Urine Drug Testing ◽  
Urine Drug

Choosing the right laboratory: A review of clinical and forensic toxicology services for urine drug testing in pain management

2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary M. Reisfield, MD ◽  
Bruce A. Goldberger, PhD ◽  
Roger L. Bertholf, PhD
Keyword(s):  
Pain Management ◽  
Drug Testing ◽  
Forensic Toxicology ◽  
Opioid Therapy ◽  
Standards Of Practice ◽  
Clinical Laboratories ◽  
Urine Drug Testing ◽  
Urine Drug ◽  
The Right ◽  
Drug Free

Urine drug testing (UDT) services are provided by a variety of clinical, forensic, and reference/specialty laboratories. These UDT services differ based on the principal activity of the laboratory. Clinical laboratories provide testing primarily focused on medical care (eg, emergency care, inpatients, and outpatient clinics), whereas forensic laboratories perform toxicology tests related to postmortem and criminal investigations, and drug-free workplace programs. Some laboratories now provide UDT specifically designed for monitoring patients on chronic opioid therapy. Accreditation programs for clinical laboratories have existed for nearly half a century, and a federal certification program for drug-testing laboratories was established in the 1980s. Standards of practice for forensic toxicology services other than workplace drug testing have been established in recent years. However, no accreditation program currently exists for UDT in pain management, and this review considers several aspects of laboratory accreditation and certification relevant to toxicology services, with the intention to provide guidance to clinicians in their selection of the appropriate laboratory for UDT surveillance of their patients on opioid therapy.

Urine Drug Testing for Pain Management

2012 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 379-390 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbarajean Magnani ◽  
Tai Kwong
Keyword(s):  
Pain Management ◽  
Drug Testing ◽  
Urine Drug Testing ◽  
Urine Drug

scholarly journals Urine Drug Testing in the Treatment of Chronic Noncancer Pain in a Kentucky Private Neuroscience Practice: The Potential Effect of Medicare Benefit Changes in Kentucky

2010 ◽  
Vol 2;13 (1;2) ◽  
pp. 187-194 ◽  
Author(s):  
John W. Gilbert
Keyword(s):  
Drug Abuse ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Behavioral Health ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Drug Testing ◽  
Chronic Noncancer Pain ◽  
Urine Drug Testing ◽  
Urine Drug ◽  
Noncancer Pain ◽  
Management Services

Background: Because the symptoms of drug misuse are nonspecific and difficult to detect, pain physicians have relied heavily on the results of urine drug tests to diagnose and treat chronic noncancer pain in patients who are prescribed controlled substances. However, changes in Medicare local carrier determinations for Medicare Part B providers in Connecticut, Indiana, Kentucky, and New York went into effect on July 1, 2009, whereby qualitative drug screening was no longer recognized as medically reasonable and necessary in the treatment of patients with chronic noncancer pain unless the patient presents with suspected drug overdose. Study Design: A retrospective review of urine drug testing services. Objective: To determine the extent of urine drug testing in patients with chronic noncancer pain in a large, Kentucky neuroscience practice offering pain management services combined with neurologic and neurosurgical services to better understand the potential effects of recent changes to Medicare benefits. Methods: An audit of services provided during 2007 was conducted using computer software. Outcome Measures: Outcome measures included the number of practice services, number of urine drug tests by payor, and the number of noncompliant patients by payor who self-released from care. Results: Urine drug tests represented approximately 18.2% of professional medical services rendered in 2007 to patients with a diagnosis of chronic noncancer pain. Of these, UDTs represented approximately 22.2% of services provided to Medicare patients and 24.6% of services provided to Medicaid patients. In 2007, 2,081 patients with noncompliant UDTs self released from the practice against medical advice. Of these, 23.1% were enrolled in Medicare and 47.5% were enrolled in Medicaid. Approximately 40% of patients were referred to the CARE Clinic on the basis of noncompliance as indicated by UDT and/ or behavioral health issues. Of these, approximately 50% remained in treatment. Urine drug tests were also instrumental in revealing that 19.6% of patients showed signs of drug abuse or addiction. Of these patients, approximately 60% were government insured. Limitations: Not a prospective, double-blinded study. We approximated the proportion of patients potentially affected by drug abuse or addiction as the percentage of patients self releasing from medical care. Conclusion: In 2007, UDTs were used as an effective tool in adherence monitoring in a private neuroscience practice in Kentucky that offers pain management services combined with neurologic and neurosurgical services. UDTs were instrumental in referring 40% of patients for evaluation and treatment by behavioral health and addiction medicine specialists. UDTs were also instrumental in discovering signs of drug abuse or addiction in 19.6% of patients. Of these patients, approximately 60% were government insured. Should the objective and reliable sign offered by UDTs be eliminated from the physician’s toolbox, the physician’s ability to accurately diagnose and treat these patients could be impaired. Key words: Chronic noncancer pain, Medicare, Medicaid, urine drug testing, opioids, drug abuse

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document