Determination of medication cutoff values in a pain patient population
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5055/jom.2011.0054Keywords:
pain patients, cutoffs, LC-MS/MS, patient compliance, urine drug testingAbstract
Background: Clinical laboratories are required to establish reference intervals for all the analytes tested, and these are provided along with the test results. In contrast, laboratories testing for pain medications use cutoffs established by the manufacturers of immunoassay reagents. These cutoffs may be inappropriate for monitoring patients being treated for chronic pain with opioid therapy because the cutoffs are set too high.
Purpose of the study: To use quantitative urine drug excretion data determined by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry analysis to calculate cutoffs needed to best determine patient compliance with prescribed medications.
Methods: Two methods of calculation were used to estimate cutoffs. First, all positive results for each drug or drug metabolite were ranked from highest to lowest. The lowest value was one-half of the lower limit of quantitation. A nonparametric 2.5 percent estimator was used to establish each cutoff. Second, positive results were normalized using creatinine values, resulting in the excretion being expressed as nanograms of excreted drug per gram of creatinine. A nonparametric 2.5 percent estimator was used to establish the cutoff.
Results: Cutoffs established using these calculations included at least 97.5 percent of the data for the drugs: 7-aminoclonazepam, α-hydroxalprazolam, buprenorphine, carisoprodol, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, meperidine, meprobamate, methadone, morphine, oxycodone, oxymorphone, propoxyphene, and tramadol gave cutoffs near the lower limit of quantitation. One exception was with the drug codeine, where the lower limit could not be identified.
Conclusions: These cutoffs were significantly lower than those suggested by many immunoassay manufacturers and better identify patient compliance in a representative population of pain patients. The limitation of the study is that only values one-half of our lowest calibrator were used. By using population values, laboratories can establish appropriate cutoffs for best monitoring pain patient medication compliance.
References
Horowitz GL, Altaie S, Boyd JC, et al.: Defining, Establishing, and Verifying Reference Intervals in the Clinical Laboratory: Approved Guideline. 3rd ed. Wayne, PA: CLSI, 2008.
Holler JM, Levine B: Testing of non-Samhsa drugs in alcohol and drugs of abuse testing. In Dasgupta A (ed.): Critical Issues in Alcohol and Drug Abuse Testing. Washington, DC: AACC Press, 2010: 163-181.
Cone EJ, Caplan YH, Black DL, et al.: Urine drug testing of chronic pain patients: Licit and illicit drug patterns. J Anal Toxicol. 2008; 32: 530-543.
White RM, Black ML: Pain Management Testing Reference. Washington, DC: AACC Press, 2008: 204-208.
Gourlet D, Heit HA: The art and science of urine drug testing. Clin J Pain. 2010; 26: 358.
Mikel C, Almazan P, West R, et al.: LC-MS/MS extends the range of drug analysis in pain patients. Ther Drug Monit. 2009; 31: 746-748.
West R, Pesce A, West C, et al.: Comparison of clonazepam compliance by measurement of urinary concentration by immunoassay and LC-MS/MS in a pain management population. Pain Physician. 2010; 13: 71-78.
Pesce A, West C, West R, et al.: Reference intervals: A novel approach to detecting drug abuse in a pain patient population. J Opioid Manag. 2010; 6: 341-350.
Pesce A, West C, West R, et al.: Marijuana correlates with use of other illicit drugs in a pain patient population. Pain Physician. 2010; 13: 283-287.
Wu AHB: Urine adulteration before testing for drugs of abuse. In Shaw LN, Kwong TC (eds.): The Clinical Toxicology Laboratory: Contemporary Practice of Poisoning Evaluation. Washington, DC: AACC Press, 2001: Chapter 11, 157-171.
Horn PA, Pesce AJ: Reference Intervals: A User’s Guide. Washington, DC: AACC Press, 2005.
Horn P: Reference intervals and clinical decision limits. In Kaplan L, Pesce A (eds.): Clinical Chemistry: Theory, Analysis, Correlation. 5th ed. St. Louis, MO: Mosby/Elsevier. 2010: 439-455.
Federation of State Medical Boards of the United States, Inc.: Model policy for the use of controlled substances for the treatment of pain; May 2004. Available at http://www.fsmb.org/pdf/2004_grpol_Controlled_Substances.pdf. Accessed May 25, 2010.
Manchikanti L, Manchukonda R, Pampati V, et al.: Evaluation of abuse of prescription and illicit drugs in chronic pain patients receiving short acting (hydrocodone) or long acting (methadone) opioids. Pain Physician. 2005; 8: 257-261.
Manchikanti L, Manchukonda R, Pampati V, et al.: Does random urine drug testing reduce illicit drug use in chronic pain patients receiving opioids? Pain Physician. 2006; 9: 123-129.
Manchikanti L, Cash KA, Damron KS, et al.: Controlled substance abuse and illicit drug use in chronic pain patients: An evaluation of multiple variables. Pain Physician. 2006; 9: 215-226.
Chou R, Fanciullo GJ, Fine PG, et al.: Clinical guidelines for the use of chronic opioid therapy in chronic noncancer pain. J Pain. 2009; 10(2): 113-130.
Nafziger AN, Bertino JS: Utility and application of urine drug testing in chronic pain management with opioids. Clin J Pain. 2009; 25: 73-79.
Reisfield GM, Salazar E, Bertholf RL: Rational use and interpretation of urine drug testing in chronic opioid therapy. Ann Clin Lab Sci. 2007; 37: 301-314.
Hattab EM, Goldberger BA, Johannsen LM, et al.: Modification of screening immunoassays to detect sub-threshold concentrations of cocaine, cannabinoids, and opiates in urine: Use for detecting maternal and neonatal drug exposures. Ann Clin Lab Sci. 2000; 30(1): 85-91.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright 2005-2024, Weston Medical Publishing, LLC
All Rights Reserved
