Taylor A Ochalek1, Maria A Parker2, Stephen T Higgins3, Stacey C Sigmon3. 1. Vermont Center on Behavior and Health, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, United States of America; Department of Psychological Science, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, United States of America. Electronic address: tochalek@uvm.edu. 2. Vermont Center on Behavior and Health, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, United States of America; Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, United States of America. 3. Vermont Center on Behavior and Health, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, United States of America; Department of Psychological Science, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, United States of America; Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, United States of America.
Abstract
AIM: Overdoses attributed to the potent opioid agonist fentanyl have substantially increased in recent years. Despite these serious public health consequences, many opioid treatment providers do not currently include a fentanyl assay in their urine toxicology testing. As a result, extent of fentanyl exposure and related risks among individuals with opioid use disorder often remains unknown. We examined the prevalence of fentanyl exposure among patients seeking or enrolled in opioid agonist treatment. METHODS: Six hundred urine specimens were collected from adults entering (n = 100) or enrolled in (n = 500) opioid agonist treatment and analyzed using the clinic's standard opioid panel, supplemented with a 100 ng/ml fentanyl assay. RESULTS: Of the 100 specimens collected from patients at treatment intake, 19 (19%) tested positive for fentanyl. Importantly, 17 (90%) of those fentanyl-positive specimens were also positive for heroin. Of the 500 collected from patients in treatment, 17 (3%) of specimens tested positive for fentanyl. Of those, 11 (92%) were also positive for heroin. CONCLUSION: These data illustrate a concerning degree of fentanyl exposure among patients seeking treatment and suggest that much of this exposure may have stemmed from fentanyl-containing heroin. Given the unprecedented recent surges in fentanyl-related overdoses, efforts to identify fentanyl exposure are critical. In particular, the point of treatment entry permits a rare systematic opportunity for medical and clinical staff to address fentanyl use and risks with incoming patients.
AIM: Overdoses attributed to the potent opioid agonist fentanyl have substantially increased in recent years. Despite these serious public health consequences, many opioid treatment providers do not currently include a fentanyl assay in their urine toxicology testing. As a result, extent of fentanyl exposure and related risks among individuals with opioid use disorder often remains unknown. We examined the prevalence of fentanyl exposure among patients seeking or enrolled in opioid agonist treatment. METHODS: Six hundred urine specimens were collected from adults entering (n = 100) or enrolled in (n = 500) opioid agonist treatment and analyzed using the clinic's standard opioid panel, supplemented with a 100 ng/ml fentanyl assay. RESULTS: Of the 100 specimens collected from patients at treatment intake, 19 (19%) tested positive for fentanyl. Importantly, 17 (90%) of those fentanyl-positive specimens were also positive for heroin. Of the 500 collected from patients in treatment, 17 (3%) of specimens tested positive for fentanyl. Of those, 11 (92%) were also positive for heroin. CONCLUSION: These data illustrate a concerning degree of fentanyl exposure among patients seeking treatment and suggest that much of this exposure may have stemmed from fentanyl-containing heroin. Given the unprecedented recent surges in fentanyl-related overdoses, efforts to identify fentanyl exposure are critical. In particular, the point of treatment entry permits a rare systematic opportunity for medical and clinical staff to address fentanyl use and risks with incoming patients.
Authors: Svetla Slavova; Julia F Costich; Terry L Bunn; Huong Luu; Michael Singleton; Sarah L Hargrove; Jeremy S Triplett; Dana Quesinberry; William Ralston; Van Ingram Journal: Int J Drug Policy Date: 2017-07-18
Authors: Julie K O'Donnell; John Halpin; Christine L Mattson; Bruce A Goldberger; R Matthew Gladden Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2017-11-03 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: Nicholas J Somerville; Julie O'Donnell; R Matthew Gladden; Jon E Zibbell; Traci C Green; Morgan Younkin; Sarah Ruiz; Hermik Babakhanlou-Chase; Miranda Chan; Barry P Callis; Janet Kuramoto-Crawford; Henry M Nields; Alexander Y Walley Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2017-04-14 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: Neil B Varshneya; Sherif H Hassanien; Melissa C Holt; David L Stevens; Nathan K Layle; Jonathon R Bassman; Donna M Iula; Patrick M Beardsley Journal: Biochem Pharmacol Date: 2021-10-19 Impact factor: 6.100
Authors: Denis Antoine; Andrew S Huhn; Eric C Strain; Gavin Turner; Jasmyne Jardot; Alexis S Hammond; Kelly E Dunn Journal: Am J Addict Date: 2020-06-23
Authors: Lindsay M Lueptow; Elizabeth C Shashkova; Margaret G Miller; Christopher J Evans; Catherine M Cahill Journal: Curr Anesthesiol Rep Date: 2020-09-29
Authors: Neil B Varshneya; D Matthew Walentiny; Lea T Moisa; Teneille D Walker; Luli R Akinfiresoye; Patrick M Beardsley Journal: Pharmacol Biochem Behav Date: 2021-07-21 Impact factor: 3.697
Authors: Laurence M Moss; Marijke Hyke Algera; Robert Dobbins; Frank Gray; Stephanie Strafford; Amy Heath; Monique van Velzen; Jules A A C Heuberger; Marieke Niesters; Erik Olofsen; Celine M Laffont; Albert Dahan; Geert Jan Groeneveld Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-01-27 Impact factor: 3.240