BACKGROUND: Approximately 60 million individuals worldwide used opioids in 2021, constituting 1.2% of the global adult population. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of integrated treatment strategies for opioid use disorder and nicotine use disorder by assessing the impact of smoking cessation within a methadone treatment framework.
METHODS: In a retrospective cohort study, 53 methadone maintenance patients were divided into 16 treatment-seeking smokers (TSS) and 37 treatment-rejecting smokers (TRS) based on their participation in the Ottawa model for smoking cessation plus 16 weeks of varenicline treatment. Both groups received standard methadone treatment for 68 weeks. TSS were followed up for 44 weeks to assess smoking cessation outcomes, while TRS had none due to their lack of participation in smoking cessation treatment.
RESULTS: The median age of the TSS group was 48 years, while that of the TRS group was 45.5 years. Males comprised 75% of TSS and 94.6% of the TRS. TSS exhibited an 83% decrease in positive opioid screen results compared to TRS (p=0.023). In TSS, peak smoking cessation success was observed at week 20, with 57% of participants maintaining carbon monoxide levels <5 ppm.
CONCLUSIONS: The significant reduction in positive opioid screens and the high smoking cessation rate in the TSS group highlight the efficacy of combined treatment methods. This study underscores the advantages of integrating smoking cessation with methadone maintenance treatment, indicating that comprehensive approaches can substantially improve treatment outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have examined the use of immunoassay urine drug testing of cancer patients in palliative care clinics.
OBJECTIVE: We examined the frequency of immunoassay urine drug test (UDT) abnormalities and the factors associated with aberrancy at a safety-net hospital palliative medicine clinic.
METHODS: A retrospective review of the electronic medical records of consecutive eligible patients seen at the outpatient palliative medicine clinic in a resource-limited safety-net hospital system was conducted between 1 September 2015 and 31 December 2020. We collected longitudinal data on patient demographics, UDT findings, and potential predictors of aberrant results.
RESULTS: Of the 913 patients in the study, 500 (55%) underwent UDT testing, with 455 (50%) having the testing within the first three visits. Among those tested within the first three visits, 125 (27%) had aberrant UDT results; 44 (35%) of these 125 patients were positive for cocaine. In a multivariable regression model analysis of predictors for aberrant UDT within the first three visits, non-Hispanic White race (odds ratio (OR) = 2.13; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.03-4.38; p = 0.04), history of illicit drug use (OR = 3.57; CI: 1.78-7.13; p < 0.001), and history of marijuana use (OR = 7.05; CI: 3.85-12.91; p < 0.001) were independent predictors of an aberrant UDT finding.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite limitations of immunoassay UDT, it was able to detect aberrant drug-taking behaviors in a significant number of patients seen at a safety-net hospital palliative care clinic, including cocaine use. These findings support universal UDT monitoring and utility of immunoassay-based UDT in resource-limited settings.

Drug-abuse detection tests are becoming increasingly commonplace in patient care today and provide a rapid and effective method for identifying illicit substances. Occasionally, they may yield a positive result, indicating the presence of a substance, even though the individual has not consumed the suspected drug what sometimes can significantly impact both medical and legal decisions. The study outlines the substances that can lead to false-positive drug test results for amphetamines, cannabinoids, and benzodiazepines. The study\'s findings have revealed pivotal insights for patients receiving chronic treatment and their primary care physicians. Notably, amphetamine assays appear to be most prone to cross-reactivity with other substances. The beta-blocker group of medications, confirmed by various studies to interfere with amphetamine assays, could pose a substantial challenge in drug screening given its widespread use. Efavirenz also warrants mention, as it frequently triggers positive results for both benzodiazepine and cannabinoid assays among its users. This research helps highlight new areas for further investigation and aims to guide clinicians in their daily practice, especially when interpreting questionable positive drug-abuse test results. This comprehensive review serves as a valuable resource for clinicians to navigate false-positive scenarios effectively and maintain the highest standard of patient care.

The urine drug test is ubiquitous within reproductive healthcare settings. Although the test can have evidence-based use for a patient and clinician, in practice, it is often applied in ways that are driven by bias and stigma, do not correctly inform decisions about clinical aspects of patient care, and cause devastating ripple effects through social and legal systems. This paper proposes a framework of guiding questions to prompt reflection on (1) the question the clinical team is trying to answer, (2) whether a urine drug test answers the question at hand, (3) how testing benefits compare with the associated risks, (4) a more effective tool for clinical decision-making if the urine drug test does not meet the standards for use, and (5) individual and institutional biases affecting decision-making. We demonstrate the use of this framework using 3 common uses of the urine drug test within abortion care and labor and delivery settings.

BACKGROUND: Urine drug testing (UDT) plays a significant role in monitoring patients on chronic opioid therapy (COT) for non-medical opioid use (NMOU). UDT, at times, can be inconsistent and misleading. We present a case where a patient on a buprenorphine patch had false negative results.
METHODS: A female in her 70s with metastatic breast cancer presented with uncontrolled pain from a T6 compression fracture. She had no relief with tramadol 50 mg every 6 hours as needed. Due to an allergic reaction to hydromorphone, our team prescribed a buprenorphine patch of 5 μg/h. Subsequently, she expressed excellent pain control, and the clinician confirmed the patch placement on examination. She underwent a UDT during the visit. The UDT was negative for both buprenorphine and its metabolites. The literature review showed that false negative UDT results are relatively common among patients with low-dose buprenorphine patches. The combination of a thorough physical examination, a review of the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program, and reassuring scores on screening tools placed her at low risk for NMOU.
CONCLUSIONS: Buprenorphine has a ceiling effect on respiratory depression and a lower risk for addiction. However, when used in low doses, the drug might not have enough metabolites in the urine, leading to a false negative UDT. Such results might affect patient-physician relationships.
CONCLUSIONS: In addition to the UDT, a thorough history, screening for NMOU, physical exam, a review of PDMP, and a good understanding of opioid metabolism are necessary to help guide pain management.

The prescription opioid epidemic led to federal, state, and health system guidelines and policies aimed at mitigating opioid misuse, including presumptive urine drug testing (UDT). This study identifies whether a difference exists in UDT use among different primary care medical license types.
The study used January 2017-April 2018 Nevada Medicaid pharmacy and professional claims data to examine presumptive UDTs. We examined correlations between UDTs and clinician characteristics (medical license type, urban/rural status, care setting) along with clinician-level measures of patient mix characteristics (proportions of patients with behavioral health diagnoses, early refills). Adjusted odds ratios (AORs) and predicted probabilities (PPs) from a logistic regression with a binomial distribution are reported. The analysis included 677 primary care clinicians (medical doctors [MD], physician assistants [PA], nurse practitioners [NP]).
Of those in the study, 85.1 % of clinicians did not order any presumptive UDTs. NPs had the highest proportion of UDT use (21.2 % of NPs), followed by PAs (20.0 % of PAs), and MDs (11.4 % of MDs). Adjusted analyses showed that being a PA or NP was associated with higher odds of UDT (PA: AOR: 3.6; 95 % CI: 3.1-4.1; NP: AOR: 2.5; 95 % CI: 2.2-2.8) compared to being an MD. PAs had the highest PP for ordering UDTs (2.1 %, 95 % CI: 0.5 %-8.4 %). Among clinicians who ordered UDTs, midlevel clinicians had higher mean and median UDT use (PA and NP mean: 24.3 % vs. MDs: 19.4 %; PA and NP median: 17.7 % vs. MDs: 12.5 %).
In Nevada Medicaid, UDTs are concentrated among 15 % of primary care clinicians who are frequently non-MDs. More research should include PAs and NPs when examining clinician variation in mitigating opioid misuse.

OBJECTIVE: This retrospective study examined the prevalence of combined ethanol and cocaine use, which produces an enhanced psychoactive effect through formation of the active metabolite cocaethylene, compared to combined use of ethanol and two other common recreational drugs, cannabis and amphetamine, based on urine drug test results.
METHODS: The study was based on >30,000 consecutive samples from routine urine drug testing in 2020, and 2627 samples from acute poisonings in the STRIDA project (2010-2016), in Sweden. Drug testing for ethanol (i.e. ethyl glucuronide and ethyl sulfate), cocaine (benzoylecgonine), cannabis (Δ9-THC-COOH) and amphetamine was done by routine immunoassay screening and LC-MS/MS confirmatory methods. Seven samples testing positive for cocaine and ethyl glucuronide were also analyzed for cocaethylene by LC-HRMS/MS.
RESULTS: Among routine samples for which testing of ethanol and cocaine had been requested, 43% tested positive for both substances, compared with 24% for ethanol and cannabis and 19% for ethanol and amphetamine (P < 0.0001). Among the drug-related intoxications, 60% of cocaine-positive samples were also positive for ethanol, compared to 40% for cannabis and ethanol and 37% for amphetamine and ethanol. Cocaethylene was detected (range 1.3-150 μg/L) in all randomly selected samples testing positive for ethanol and cocaine use.
CONCLUSIONS: These results, which were based on objective laboratory measures, indicated that combined ethanol and cocaine exposure was more prevalent than expected from drug use statistics. This may relate both to the common use of these substances in party and nightlife settings, and the amplified and prolonged pharmacological effect by the active metabolite cocaethylene.

Little is known about the relationship between opioid agonist therapy (OAT) and fentanyl use, specifically. This study aimed to estimate the association between current use of different forms of OAT, including methadone, buprenorphine/naloxone (BUP/NX), slow release oral morphine (SROM), or injectable opioid agonist treatment (iOAT), and the likelihood of a fentanyl-positive urine drug test (UDT) as compared to no OAT.
Data were obtained from three community-recruited prospective cohort studies of people who use drugs in Vancouver, Canada from December 2016 through November 2018. Using multivariable Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE), we examined the association between current use of each form of OAT, as compared to no OAT, and fentanyl-positive UDT among participants who use opioids.
The 915 participants contributed 2112 UDTs over a median of two follow-up visits. The majority of UDTs (74.9 %) were positive for fentanyl. After adjustment for a priori defined confounding factors, compared to no OAT, current use of BUP/NX was associated with lower odds of fentanyl-positive UDT (odds ratio [OR] = 0.36, 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.22-0.58) while current use of methadone (OR = 0.84, 95 % CI: 0.65-1.07), iOAT (OR = 1.30, 95 % CI: 0.75-2.28), and SROM (OR = 1.34, 95 % CI: 0.74-2.43) were not.
In this cohort of people who use opioids in Vancouver, only use of BUP/NX was associated with lower odds of fentanyl-positive UDT. Our findings highlight high rates of ongoing fentanyl use despite the use of OAT and support the expansion of BUP/NX for the treatment of people who use fentanyl.

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.
To identify the prevalence of abnormal UDT among oncologic pain patients, associated demographic and clinical factors, and the most common abnormal substances.
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.
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]).
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.

There is limited information regarding the true frequency of nonmedical opioid use (NMOU) among patients receiving opioid therapy for cancer pain. Data to guide patient selection for urine drug testing (UDT) as well as the timing and frequency of ordering UDT are insufficient. This study examined the frequency of abnormal UDT among patients with cancer who underwent random UDT and their characteristics.
Demographic and clinical information for patients with cancer who underwent random UDT were retrospectively reviewed and compared with a historical cohort that underwent targeted UDT. Random UDT was ordered regardless of a patient\'s risk potential for NMOU. Targeted UDT was ordered on the basis of a physician\'s estimation of a patient\'s risk for NMOU.
In all, 552 of 573 eligible patients (96%) underwent random UDT. Among these patients, 130 (24%) had 1 or more abnormal results; 38 of the 88 patients (43%) who underwent targeted UDT had 1 or more abnormal results. When marijuana was excluded, 15% of the random group and 37% of the targeted group had abnormal UDT findings (P < .001). It took a shorter time from the initial consultation to detect 1 or more abnormalities with the random test than the targeted test (median, 130 vs 274 days; P = .02). Abnormal random UDT was independently associated with younger age (P < .0001), male sex (P = .03), Cut Down, Annoyed, Guilty, and Eye Opener-Adapted to Include Drugs positivity (P = .001), and higher Edmonton Symptom Assessment System anxiety (P = .01).
Approximately 1 in 4 patients receiving opioids for cancer pain at a supportive care clinic who underwent random UDT had 1 or more abnormalities. Random UDT detected abnormalities earlier than the targeted test. These findings suggest that random UDT is justified among patients with cancer pain.