OBJECTIVE: To examine the incidence of abnormal urine toxicology screening among chronic pain patients prescribed opioids for their pain and to relate these results to patient descriptors and type, number, and dose of prescribed opioids. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of data from 470 patients who had urine screening at a pain management program in an urban teaching hospital was performed. Urine samples were analyzed using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. Patients were categorized as having urine screens that were "normal" (expected findings based on their prescribed drugs) or abnormal. Abnormal findings were those of (1) absence of a prescribed opioid, (2) presence of an additional nonprescribed controlled substance, (3) detection of an illicit substance, and (4) an adulterated urine sample. RESULTS: Forty-five percent of the patients were found to have abnormal urine screens. Twenty percent were categorized as having an illicit substance in their urine. Illicit substances and additional drugs were found more frequently in younger patients than in older patients (P<0.001). No other variables were found to predict abnormal urine screen results. DISCUSSION: These results confirm past findings that random urine toxicology screens among patients prescribed opioids for pain reveal a high incidence of abnormal findings. Common patient descriptors, and number, type, and dose of prescribed opioids were found to be poor predictors of abnormal results.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the incidence of abnormal urine toxicology screening among chronic painpatients prescribed opioids for their pain and to relate these results to patient descriptors and type, number, and dose of prescribed opioids. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of data from 470 patients who had urine screening at a pain management program in an urban teaching hospital was performed. Urine samples were analyzed using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. Patients were categorized as having urine screens that were "normal" (expected findings based on their prescribed drugs) or abnormal. Abnormal findings were those of (1) absence of a prescribed opioid, (2) presence of an additional nonprescribed controlled substance, (3) detection of an illicit substance, and (4) an adulterated urine sample. RESULTS: Forty-five percent of the patients were found to have abnormal urine screens. Twenty percent were categorized as having an illicit substance in their urine. Illicit substances and additional drugs were found more frequently in younger patients than in older patients (P<0.001). No other variables were found to predict abnormal urine screen results. DISCUSSION: These results confirm past findings that random urine toxicology screens among patients prescribed opioids for pain reveal a high incidence of abnormal findings. Common patient descriptors, and number, type, and dose of prescribed opioids were found to be poor predictors of abnormal results.
Authors: Robert N Jamison; Marc O Martel; Robert R Edwards; Jing Qian; Kerry Anne Sheehan; Edgar L Ross Journal: J Pain Date: 2014-08-01 Impact factor: 5.820
Authors: Roger Chou; Gilbert J Fanciullo; Perry G Fine; Jeremy A Adler; Jane C Ballantyne; Pamela Davies; Marilee I Donovan; David A Fishbain; Kathy M Foley; Jeffrey Fudin; Aaron M Gilson; Alexander Kelter; Alexander Mauskop; Patrick G O'Connor; Steven D Passik; Gavril W Pasternak; Russell K Portenoy; Ben A Rich; Richard G Roberts; Knox H Todd; Christine Miaskowski Journal: J Pain Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 5.820
Authors: Stephen F Butler; Simon H Budman; Kathrine C Fernandez; Brian Houle; Christine Benoit; Nathaniel Katz; Robert N Jamison Journal: Pain Date: 2007-05-09 Impact factor: 6.961