Cheng-ting Lee1, Trang T Vo2, Abigail S Cohen2, Shihab Ahmed2, Yi Zhang2, Jianren Mao2, Lucy Chen3. 1. *University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, Texas, USA. 2. MGH Center for Translational Pain Research, Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 3. MGH Center for Translational Pain Research, Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA llchen@partners.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine similarities and differences in urine drug test (UDT) results in clinical pain patients and pain subjects participating in pain research studies. DESIGN: An observational study with retrospective chart review and data analysis. METHODS: We analyzed 1,874 UDT results obtained from 1) clinical pain patients (Clinical Group; n = 1,529) and 2) pain subjects consented to participate in pain research studies (Research Group; n = 345). Since several medications such as opioids used in pain management are drugs of abuse (DOA) and can result in a positive UDT, we specifically identified those cases of positive UDT due to nonprescribed DOA and designated these cases as positive UDT with DOA (PUD). RESULTS: We found that 1) there was a higher rate of PUD in clinical pain patients (41.3%) than in pain research study subjects (14.8%); 2) although subjects in the Research Group were informed ahead of time that UDT will be conducted as a screening test, a substantial number (14.8%) of pain research study subjects still showed PUD; 3) there were different types of DOA between clinical pain patients (cannabinoids as the top DOA) and research study subjects (cocaine as the top DOA); and 4) a common factor associated with PUD was opioid therapy in both Clinical Group and Research Group. CONCLUSION: These results support previous findings that PUD is a common finding in clinical pain patients, particularly in those prescribed opioid therapy, and we suggest that UDT be used as routine screening testing in pain research studies.
OBJECTIVE: To examine similarities and differences in urine drug test (UDT) results in clinical painpatients and pain subjects participating in pain research studies. DESIGN: An observational study with retrospective chart review and data analysis. METHODS: We analyzed 1,874 UDT results obtained from 1) clinical painpatients (Clinical Group; n = 1,529) and 2) pain subjects consented to participate in pain research studies (Research Group; n = 345). Since several medications such as opioids used in pain management are drugs of abuse (DOA) and can result in a positive UDT, we specifically identified those cases of positive UDT due to nonprescribed DOA and designated these cases as positive UDT with DOA (PUD). RESULTS: We found that 1) there was a higher rate of PUD in clinical painpatients (41.3%) than in pain research study subjects (14.8%); 2) although subjects in the Research Group were informed ahead of time that UDT will be conducted as a screening test, a substantial number (14.8%) of pain research study subjects still showed PUD; 3) there were different types of DOA between clinical painpatients (cannabinoids as the top DOA) and research study subjects (cocaine as the top DOA); and 4) a common factor associated with PUD was opioid therapy in both Clinical Group and Research Group. CONCLUSION: These results support previous findings that PUD is a common finding in clinical painpatients, particularly in those prescribed opioid therapy, and we suggest that UDT be used as routine screening testing in pain research studies.
Authors: Gwendolyn A McMillin; Matthew H Slawson; Stephanie J Marin; Kamisha L Johnson-Davis Journal: J Pain Palliat Care Pharmacother Date: 2013-10-22
Authors: Joseph E Couto; Martha C Romney; Harry L Leider; Smiriti Sharma; Neil I Goldfarb Journal: Popul Health Manag Date: 2009-08 Impact factor: 2.459
Authors: Alec B O'Connor; Dennis C Turk; Robert H Dworkin; Nathaniel P Katz; Robert Colucci; Jennifer A Haythornthwaite; Michael Klein; Charles O'Brien; Kelly Posner; Bob A Rappaport; Gary Reisfield; Edgar H Adams; Robert L Balster; George E Bigelow; Laurie B Burke; Sandra D Comer; Edward Cone; Penney Cowan; Richard A Denisco; John T Farrar; Richard W Foltin; David J Haddox; Sharon Hertz; Gary W Jay; Roderick Junor; Ernest A Kopecky; Deborah B Leiderman; Michael P McDermott; Pamela P Palmer; Srinivasa N Raja; Christine Rauschkolb; Michael C Rowbotham; Cristina Sampaio; Beatrice Setnik; Shannon M Smith; Marta Sokolowska; Joseph W Stauffer; Sharon L Walsh; James P Zacny Journal: Pain Date: 2013-11 Impact factor: 6.961
Authors: Judith A Turner; Kathleen Saunders; Susan M Shortreed; Suzanne E Rapp; Stephen Thielke; Linda LeResche; Kim M Riddell; Michael Von Korff Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2013-10-19 Impact factor: 5.128