Evidence-Based Reviews

Urine drug tests: How to make the most of them

Current Psychiatry. 2019 August;18(8):10-18,20

References

1. Passik SD, Schreiber J, Kirsh KL, et al. A chart review of the ordering and documentation of urine toxicology screens in a cancer center: do they influence patient management? J Pain Symptom Manag. 2000;19(1):40-44.
2. Arthur JA, Edwards T, Lu Z, et al. Frequency, predictors, and outcomes of urine drug testing among patients with advanced cancer on chronic opioid therapy at an outpatient supportive care clinic. Cancer. 2016;122(23):3732-3739.
3. Suzuki JM, Garayalde SM, Dodoo MM, et al. Psychiatry residents’ and fellows’ confidence and knowledge in interpreting urine drug testing results related to opioids. Subst Abus. 2018;39(4):518-521.
4. Reisfield GM, Bertholf R, Barkin RL, et al. Urine drug test interpretation: what do physicians know? J Opioid Manag. 2007;3(2):80-86.
5. Kirsh KL, Baxter LE, Rzetelny A, et al. A survey of ASAM members’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices in urine drug testing. J Addict Med. 2015;9(5):399-404.
6. Morasco BJ, Krebs EE, Adams MH, et al. Clinician response to aberrant urine drug test results of patients prescribed opioid therapy for chronic pain. Clin J Pain. 2019;35(1):1-6.
7. Liu RH. Comparison of common immunoassay kits for effective application in workplace drug urinalysis. Forensic Sci Rev. 1994;6(1):19-57.
8. Jannetto PJ, Fitzgerald RL. Effective use of mass spectrometry in the clinical laboratory. Clin Chem. 2016;62(1):92-98.
9. American Society of Addiction Medicine. Resources: ASAM releases white paper on drug testing. https://www.asam.org/resources/publications/magazine/read/article/2013/12/16/asam-releases-white-paper-on-drug-testing. Published December 16, 2019. Accessed June 25, 2019.
10. Fishbain DA, Cutler RB, Rosomoff HL, et al. Validity of self-reported drug use in chronic pain patients. Clin J Pain. 1999;15(3):184-191.
11. Michna E, Jamison RN, Pham LD, et al. Urine toxicology screening among chronic pain patients on opioid therapy: Frequency and predictability of abnormal findings. Clin J Pain. 2007;23(2):173-179.
12. Dowell D, Haegerich TM, Chou R. CDC guideline for prescribing opioids for chronic pain--United States, 2016. JAMA. 2016;315(15):1624-1645.
13. Chou R. 2009 clinical guidelines from the American Pain Society and the American Academy of Pain medicine on the use of chronic opioid therapy in chronic noncancer pain: what are the key messages for clinical practice? Pol Arch Med Wewn. 2009;119(7-8):469-477.
14. Mihic SJ, Harris RA. Hypnotics and sedatives. In: Brunton LL, Chabner BA, Knollmann BC, eds. Goodman & Gilman’s the pharmacological basis of therapeutics. 13th ed. New York, NY: McGrawHill Medical; 2017:343-344.
15. DePriest AZ, Puet BL, Holt AC, et al. Metabolism and disposition of prescription opioids: a review. Forensic Sci Rev. 2015;27(2):115-145.
16. Tenore PL. Advanced urine toxicology testing. J Addict Dis. 2010;29(4):436-448.
17. Brahm NC, Yeager LL, Fox MD, et al. Commonly prescribed medications and potential false-positive urine drug screens. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2010;67(16):1344-1350.
18. Saitman A, Park HD, Fitzgerald RL. False-positive interferences of common urine drug screen immunoassays: a review. J Anal Toxicol. 2014;38(7):387-396.
19. Moeller KE, Kissack JC, Atayee RS, et al. Clinical interpretation of urine drug tests: what clinicians need to know about urine drug screens. Mayo Clin Proc. 2017;92(5):774-796.
20. Nelson ZJ, Stellpflug SJ, Engebretsen KM. What can a urine drug screening immunoassay really tell us? J Pharm Pract. 2016;29(5):516-526.
21. Reisfield GM, Goldberger BA, Bertholf RL. ‘False-positive’ and ‘false-negative’ test results in clinical urine drug testing. Bioanalysis. 2009;1(5):937-952.
22. Poklis A, Moore KA. Response of EMIT amphetamine immunoassays to urinary desoxyephedrine following Vicks inhaler use. Ther Drug Monit. 1995;17(1):89-94.
23. ElSohly MA, Feng S, Murphy TP, et al. Identification and quantitation of 11-nor-delta9-tetrahydrocannabivarin-9-carboxylic acid, a major metabolite of delta9-tetrahydrocannabivarin. J Anal Toxicol. 2001;25(6):476-480.
24. Selavka CM. Poppy seed ingestion as a contributing factor to opiate-positive urinalysis results: the pacific perspective. J Forensic Sci. 1991;36(3):685-696.
25. Jaffee WB, Trucco E, Levy S, et al. Is this urine really negative? A systematic review of tampering methods in urine drug screening and testing. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2007;33(1):33-42.
26. Fraser AD, Worth D. Urinary excretion profiles of 11-nor-9-carboxy-delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol: a delta9-thccooh to creatinine ratio study. J Anal Toxicol. 1999;23(6):531-534.
27. Holt SR, Donroe JH, Cavallo DA, et al. Addressing discordant quantitative urine buprenorphine and norbuprenorphine levels: case examples in opioid use disorder. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2018;186:171-174.
28. Accurso AJ, Lee JD, McNeely J. High prevalence of urine tampering in an office-based opioid treatment practice detected by evaluating the norbuprenorphine to buprenorphine ratio. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2017;83:62-67.

Interference from medications or diets. One example of a positive opioid screening result due to interference from diet is the consumption of foods that contain poppy seeds. Because of this potential interference, the cutoff value for a positive opioid immunoassay in workplace drug testing was increased from 300 to 2,000 ug/L.²⁴ Educating patients regarding medication and lifestyle choices can help them avoid any interference with drug monitoring. Confirmatory tests can be ordered at the clinician’s discretion. The same principle applies to medication choice when prescribing. For example, a patient taking bupropion may experience a false positive result on a UDS for amphetamines, and a different antidepressant might be a better choice (Box 1).

Box 1

CASE: When medications interfere with drug monitoring

A patient with methamphetamine use disorder asked his psychiatrist for a letter to his probation officer because his recent urine drug screening (UDS) was positive for amphetamine. At a previous visit, the patient had been started on bupropion for depression and methamphetamine use disorder. After his most recent positive UDS, the patient stopped taking bupropion because he was aware that bupropion could cause a false-positive result on amphetamine screening. However, the psychiatrist could not confirm the results of the UDS, because he did not have the original sample for confirmatory testing. In this case, starting the patient on bupropion may not have been the best option without contacting the patient’s probation officer to discuss a good strategy for distinguishing true vs false-positive UDS results.

Urine sample tampering. Consider the possibility that urine samples could be substituted, especially when there are signs or indications of tampering, such as a positive pregnancy test for a male patient, or the presence of multiple prescription medications not prescribed to the patient. If there is high suspicion of urine sample tampering, consider observed urine sample collection.

When to order confirmatory tests for unexpected positive results.

Order a confirmatory test if a patient adamantly denies taking the substance(s) for which he/she has screened positive, and there’s no other explanation for the positive result. Continue the patient’s current treatment if the confirmatory test is negative. However, if the confirmatory test is positive, then modify the treatment plan (Algorithm).

Special circumstances.

A positive opioid screen in a patient who has been prescribed a synthetic or semisynthetic opioid indicates the patient is likely using opioids other than the one he/she has been prescribed. Similarly, clonazepam is expected to be negative in a benzodiazepine immunoassay. If such testing is positive, consider the possibility that the patient is taking other benzodiazepines, such as diazepam. The results of UDTs can also be complicated by common metabolites in the same class of drugs. For example, the presence of hydromorphone for patients taking hydrocodone does not necessarily indicate the use of hydromorphone, because hydromorphone is a metabolite of hydrocodone (Figure 2¹⁵).

Unexpected negative results

Prescribed medications exist in low concentration that are below the UDS detection threshold. This unexpected UDS result could occur if patients:

take their medications less often than prescribed (because of financial difficulties or the patient feels better and does not think he/she needs it, etc.)
hydrate too much (intentionally or unintentionally), are pregnant, or are fast metabolizers (Box 2)
take other medications that increase the metabolism of the prescribed medication.

Box 2

CASE: An ultra-rapid metabolizer

A patient with opioid use disorder kept requesting a higher dose of methadone due to poorly controlled cravings. Even after he was observed taking methadone by the clinic staff, he was negative for methadone in immunoassay screening, and had a very low level of methadone based on liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry. Pharmacogenetic testing revealed that the patient was a cytochrome P450 2B6 ultra-rapid metabolizer; 2B6 is a primary metabolic enzyme for methadone. He also had a high concentration of 2-ethylidene- 1,5-dimethyl-3,3-diphenylpyrrolidine (EDDP), the primary metabolite of methadone, which was consistent with increased methadone metabolism.

Continue to: Further inquiry will...

Urine drug tests: How to make the most of them

References

When to order confirmatory tests for unexpected positive results.

Special circumstances.

Unexpected negative results

Pages

Recommended Reading