Search

Objective. This study investigates the frequency at which quantitative results provide additional clinical benefit compared to qualitative results alone. A comparison between alternative urine drug screens and conventional screens including the assessment of cost-to-payer differences, accuracy of prescription compliance or polypharmacy/substance abuse was also included. Setting and Methods. In a reference laboratory evaluation of urine specimens from across the United States, 213 urine specimens with provided prescription medication information (302 prescriptions) were analyzed by two testing algorithms: 1) conventional immunoassay screen with subsequent reflexive testing of positive results by quantitative mass spectrometry; and 2) a combined immunoassay/ qualitative mass-spectrometry screen that substantially reduced the need for subsequent testing. Results. The qualitative screen was superior to immunoassay with reflex to mass spectrometry in confirming compliance per prescription (226/302 vs 205/302), and identifying non-prescription abuse (97 vs 71). Pharmaceutical impurities and inconsistent drug metabolite patterns were detected in only 3.8% of specimens, suggesting that quantitative results have limited benefit. The percentage difference between the conventional testing algorithm and the alternative screen was projected to be 55%, and a 2-year evaluation of test utilization as a measure of test order volume follows an exponential trend for alternative screen test orders over conventional immunoassay screens that require subsequent confirmation testing. Conclusion. Alternative, qualitative urine drug screens provide a less expensive, faster, and more comprehensive evaluation of patient medication compliance and drug abuse. The vast majority of results were interpretable with qualitative results alone indicating a reduced need to automatically reflex to quantitation or provide quantitation for the majority of patients. This strategy highlights a successful approach using an alternative strategy for both the laboratory and physician to align clinical needs while being mindful of costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The major objective of this research was to propose a simplified approach for the evaluation of medication adherence in chronic pain management patients, using liquid chromatography time-of-flight (TOF) mass spectrometry, performed in parallel with select homogeneous enzyme immunoassays (HEIAs). We called it a "hybrid" approach to urine drug testing. Methods: The hybrid approach was defined based on anticipated positivity rates, availability of commercial reagents for HEIAs, and assay performance, particularly analytical sensitivity and specificity for drug(s) of interest. Subsequent to implementation of the hybrid approach, time to result was compared with that observed with other urine drug testing approaches. Results: Opioids, benzodiazepines, zolpidem, amphetamine- like stimulants, and methylphenidate metabolite were detected by TOF mass spectrometry to maximize specificity and sensitivity of these 37 drug analytes. Barbiturates, cannabinoid metabolite, carisoprodol, cocaine metabolite, ethyl glucuronide, methadone, phencyclidine, propoxyphene, and tramadol were detected by HEIAs that performed adequately and/or for which positivity rates were very low. Time to result was significantly reduced compared with the traditional approach. Conclusions: The hybrid approach to urine drug testing provides a simplified and analytically specific testing process that minimizes the need for secondary confirmation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Compliance testing in pain management requires a distinct approach compared with classic clinical toxicology testing. Differences in the patient populations and clinical expectations require modifications to established reporting cutoffs, assay performance expectations, and critical review of how best to apply the available testing methods. Although other approaches to testing are emerging, immunoassay screening followed by mass spectrometry confirmation remains the most common testing workflow for pain management compliance and drug abuse testing. Methods: A case-based approach was used to illustrate the complexities inherent to and uniqueness of pain management compliance testing for both clinicians and laboratories. Results: A basic understanding of the inherent strengths and weaknesses of immunoassays and mass spectrometry provides the clinician a better understanding of how best to approach pain management compliance testing. Conclusions: Pain management compliance testing is a textbook example of an emerging field requiring open communication between physician and performing laboratory to fully optimize patient care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]