Kelly E Leap1, Grant H Chen2, Jasme Lee3, Kay See Tan3, Vivek Malhotra2. 1. Department of Nursing, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA. Electronic address: leapk@mskcc.org. 2. Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA. 3. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Opioids have become a mainstay treatment for severe cancer pain. Although opioid prescribing has decreased, opioid mortality continues to rise. Utilizing urine drug tests (UDT) can help monitor medication adherence and identify use of unprescribed or illicit substances. OBJECTIVES: To identify the prevalence of abnormal UDT among oncologic pain patients, associated demographic and clinical factors, and the most common abnormal substances. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of 2472 patients with a cancer diagnosis and documented UDT in a single center was conducted from January 1, 2018 to February 15, 2020. Multivariable analyses were conducted for 10 baseline patient factors on each of the two primary outcomes-illicit drugs excluding tetrahydrocannabinol and amphetamines and detected-not-prescribed. RESULTS: Of the 2472 patients, 840 patients (34%) had abnormal results. For illicit drugs, the significant factors (incidence rate ratio [95% CI]) were age (45-54 vs. ≥ 65 years: 7.27 [2.27-23.23]), race (black vs. white: 2.99 [1.39-6.42]), smoking status (current vs. former: 2.63 [1.41-4.90]); never vs. former: 0.27 (0.10-0.76), and benzodiazepine use (use vs. no use: 2.06 [1.03-4.12]). For detected-not-prescribed, the significant factors (incidence rate ratio [95% CI]) were race (black vs. white: 1.37 [1.01-1.85]), smoking status (current vs. former: 1.27 [1.00-1.62]); never vs. former: 0.82 (0.67-1.00), log-transformed morphine milligram equivalence (1.04 [1.01-1.07]), and benzodiazepine use (use vs. no use: 1.64 [1.35-1.98]). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that oncologic pain patients are not a risk-free population for abnormal UDT, thus recommends a UDT with initial opioid prescriptions and annually thereafter, with more frequent tests for patients suspected to be at higher risk for misuse.
CONTEXT: Opioids have become a mainstay treatment for severe cancer pain. Although opioid prescribing has decreased, opioid mortality continues to rise. Utilizing urine drug tests (UDT) can help monitor medication adherence and identify use of unprescribed or illicit substances. OBJECTIVES: To identify the prevalence of abnormal UDT among oncologic pain patients, associated demographic and clinical factors, and the most common abnormal substances. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of 2472 patients with a cancer diagnosis and documented UDT in a single center was conducted from January 1, 2018 to February 15, 2020. Multivariable analyses were conducted for 10 baseline patient factors on each of the two primary outcomes-illicit drugs excluding tetrahydrocannabinol and amphetamines and detected-not-prescribed. RESULTS: Of the 2472 patients, 840 patients (34%) had abnormal results. For illicit drugs, the significant factors (incidence rate ratio [95% CI]) were age (45-54 vs. ≥ 65 years: 7.27 [2.27-23.23]), race (black vs. white: 2.99 [1.39-6.42]), smoking status (current vs. former: 2.63 [1.41-4.90]); never vs. former: 0.27 (0.10-0.76), and benzodiazepine use (use vs. no use: 2.06 [1.03-4.12]). For detected-not-prescribed, the significant factors (incidence rate ratio [95% CI]) were race (black vs. white: 1.37 [1.01-1.85]), smoking status (current vs. former: 1.27 [1.00-1.62]); never vs. former: 0.82 (0.67-1.00), log-transformed morphine milligram equivalence (1.04 [1.01-1.07]), and benzodiazepine use (use vs. no use: 1.64 [1.35-1.98]). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that oncologic pain patients are not a risk-free population for abnormal UDT, thus recommends a UDT with initial opioid prescriptions and annually thereafter, with more frequent tests for patients suspected to be at higher risk for misuse.
Authors: Laxmaiah Manchikanti; Rajeev Manchukonda; Vidyasagar Pampati; Kim S Damron; Doris E Brandon; Kim A Cash; Carla D McManus Journal: Pain Physician Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Alan D Kaye; Mark R Jones; Adam M Kaye; Juan G Ripoll; Vincent Galan; Burton D Beakley; Frank Calixto; Jamie L Bolden; Richard D Urman; Laxmaiah Manchikanti Journal: Pain Physician Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Sherri Rauenzahn; Adam Sima; Brian Cassel; Danielle Noreika; Teny Henry Gomez; Lynn Ryan; Carl E Wolf; Luke Legakis; Egidio Del Fabbro Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2017-01-25 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Edward Michna; Robert N Jamison; Loc-Duyen Pham; Edgar L Ross; David Janfaza; Srdjan S Nedeljkovic; Sanjeet Narang; Diane Palombi; Ajay D Wasan Journal: Clin J Pain Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 3.442
Authors: Judith A Turner; Kathleen Saunders; Susan M Shortreed; Linda LeResche; Kim Riddell; Suzanne E Rapp; Michael Von Korff Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2014-09-13 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Dhanalakshmi Koyyalagunta; Eduardo Bruera; Mitchell P Engle; Larry Driver; Wenli Dong; Chris Demaree; Diane M Novy Journal: Pain Med Date: 2018-07-01 Impact factor: 3.750