Clinician Response to Aberrant Urine Drug Test Results of Patients Prescribed Opioid Therapy for Chronic Pain

Benjamin Morasco, Erin E. Krebs, Melissa H. Adams, Stephanie Hyde, Steven Dobscha, Steven K. Dobscha

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

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 VA 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 non-prescribed/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 (OR=30.77, 95% 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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalClinical Journal of Pain
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Jan 1 2018

Fingerprint

Chronic Pain
Opioid Analgesics
Urine
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Risk Reduction Behavior
Therapeutics
Prescriptions
Medical Records
Multivariate Analysis

Keywords

  • chronic pain
  • opioid treatment guidelines
  • prescription opioids
  • urine drug test

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Clinical Neurology
  • Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine

Cite this

Clinician Response to Aberrant Urine Drug Test Results of Patients Prescribed Opioid Therapy for Chronic Pain. / Morasco, Benjamin; Krebs, Erin E.; Adams, Melissa H.; Hyde, Stephanie; Dobscha, Steven; Dobscha, Steven K.

In: Clinical Journal of Pain, 01.01.2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{8fcd6ca3cb3c47dba0765775b42d9366,
title = "Clinician Response to Aberrant Urine Drug Test Results of Patients Prescribed Opioid Therapy for Chronic Pain",
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 VA 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 non-prescribed/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 (OR=30.77, 95{\%} 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.",
keywords = "chronic pain, opioid treatment guidelines, prescription opioids, urine drug test",
author = "Benjamin Morasco and Krebs, {Erin E.} and Adams, {Melissa H.} and Stephanie Hyde and Steven Dobscha and Dobscha, {Steven K.}",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/AJP.0000000000000652",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Clinical Journal of Pain",
issn = "0749-8047",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Clinician Response to Aberrant Urine Drug Test Results of Patients Prescribed Opioid Therapy for Chronic Pain

AU - Morasco, Benjamin

AU - Krebs, Erin E.

AU - Adams, Melissa H.

AU - Hyde, Stephanie

AU - Dobscha, Steven

AU - Dobscha, Steven K.

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - 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 VA 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 non-prescribed/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 (OR=30.77, 95% 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.

AB - 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 VA 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 non-prescribed/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 (OR=30.77, 95% 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.

KW - chronic pain

KW - opioid treatment guidelines

KW - prescription opioids

KW - urine drug test

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85053791222&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85053791222&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/AJP.0000000000000652

DO - 10.1097/AJP.0000000000000652

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85053791222

JO - Clinical Journal of Pain

JF - Clinical Journal of Pain

SN - 0749-8047

ER -