Benjamin J Morasco1,2, Erin E Krebs3,4, Melissa H Adams1,2, Stephanie Hyde1,2, Janet Zamudio1, Steven K Dobscha1,2. 1. Center to Improve Veteran Involvement in Care, VA Portland Health Care System. 2. Department of Psychiatry, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR. 3. Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research, Minneapolis VA Health Care System. 4. Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, MN.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Urine drug testing (UDT) is recommended for patients who are prescribed opioid medications, but little is known about the various strategies clinicians use to respond to aberrant UDT results. We sought to examine changes in opioid prescribing and implementation of other risk reduction activities following an aberrant UDT. METHODS: In a national cohort of Veterans Affairs patients with new initiations of opioid therapy through 2013, we identified a random sample of 100 patients who had aberrant positive UDTs (results positive for nonprescribed/illicit substance), 100 who had aberrant negative UDTs (results negative for prescribed opioid), and 100 who had expected UDT results. We examined medical record data for opioid prescribing changes and risk reduction strategies in the 12 months following UDT. RESULTS: Following an aberrant UDT, 17.5% of clinicians documented planning to discontinue or change the opioid dose and 52.5% initiated another strategy to reduce opioid-related risk. In multivariate analyses, variables associated with a planned change in opioid prescription status were having an aberrant positive UDT (odds ratio [OR], 30.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.92-160.10) and higher prescription opioid dose (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.01-1.02). The only variable associated with implementation of other risk reduction activities was having an aberrant positive UDT (OR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.16-0.55). DISCUSSION: The majority of clinicians enacted some type of opioid prescribing or other change to reduce risk following an aberrant UDT, and the action depended on whether the result was an aberrant positive or aberrant negative UDT. Experimental studies are needed to develop and test strategies for managing aberrant UDT results.
OBJECTIVE: Urine drug testing (UDT) is recommended for patients who are prescribed opioid medications, but little is known about the various strategies clinicians use to respond to aberrant UDT results. We sought to examine changes in opioid prescribing and implementation of other risk reduction activities following an aberrant UDT. METHODS: In a national cohort of Veterans Affairs patients with new initiations of opioid therapy through 2013, we identified a random sample of 100 patients who had aberrant positive UDTs (results positive for nonprescribed/illicit substance), 100 who had aberrant negative UDTs (results negative for prescribed opioid), and 100 who had expected UDT results. We examined medical record data for opioid prescribing changes and risk reduction strategies in the 12 months following UDT. RESULTS: Following an aberrant UDT, 17.5% of clinicians documented planning to discontinue or change the opioid dose and 52.5% initiated another strategy to reduce opioid-related risk. In multivariate analyses, variables associated with a planned change in opioid prescription status were having an aberrant positive UDT (odds ratio [OR], 30.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.92-160.10) and higher prescription opioid dose (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.01-1.02). The only variable associated with implementation of other risk reduction activities was having an aberrant positive UDT (OR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.16-0.55). DISCUSSION: The majority of clinicians enacted some type of opioid prescribing or other change to reduce risk following an aberrant UDT, and the action depended on whether the result was an aberrant positive or aberrant negative UDT. Experimental studies are needed to develop and test strategies for managing aberrant UDT results.
Authors: Declan T Barry; Kevin S Irwin; Emlyn S Jones; William C Becker; Jeanette M Tetrault; Lynn E Sullivan; Helena Hansen; Patrick G O'Connor; Richard S Schottenfeld; David A Fiellin Journal: J Pain Date: 2010-06-02 Impact factor: 5.820
Authors: Joanna L Starrels; William C Becker; Mark G Weiner; Xuan Li; Moonseong Heo; Barbara J Turner Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2011-02-24 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Bhushan Bhamb; David Brown; Jaishree Hariharan; Jane Anderson; Stacey Balousek; Michael F Fleming Journal: Curr Med Res Opin Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 2.580
Authors: Seddon R Savage; Alfonso Romero-Sandoval; Michael Schatman; Mark Wallace; Gilbert Fanciullo; Bill McCarberg; Mark Ware Journal: J Pain Date: 2016-03-04 Impact factor: 5.820
Authors: Benjamin J Morasco; Melissa H Adams; Elizabeth R Hooker; Patricia E Maloy; Erin E Krebs; Travis I Lovejoy; Somnath Saha; Steven K Dobscha Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2022-03-16 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Isaac Chua; Athena K Petrides; Gordon D Schiff; Jaime R Ransohoff; Michalis Kantartjis; Jocelyn Streid; Christiana A Demetriou; Stacy E F Melanson Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-11-11 Impact factor: 5.128