Random versus targeted urine drug testing among cancer patients receiving opioid therapy at a supportive care clinic.

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

221 Background: Although urine drug testing (UDT) is an effective risk monitoring tool for patients on chronic opioid therapy, there is currently no evidence to guide physicians in identifying who should have UDT, or when and how often it should be ordered. The main objective of our study was to describe the characteristics of patients who underwent random UDT and a similar cohort who underwent targeted UDT. Methods: Demographic and clinical information of 212 patients who underwent random UDT was retrospectively reviewed and compared with 88 patients who underwent targeted UDT. Targeted UDT was ordered based on the physician’s estimation of patient risk for nonmedical opioid use. All patients were eligible for random UDT regardless of their risk potential for nonmedical opioid use. Results: 212/231 (92%) eligible patients underwent random UDT. Of these 59 (28%) had abnormal results. Among 64 abnormalities detected, 14 (20%) were prescribed opioids that were absent from the urine, 19 (30%) were unprescribed opioids that were present, and 32 (50%) were illicit drugs (91% marijuana). 38/88(43%) of targeted patients had abnormal results. Among 49 abnormalities detected, 13 (27%) were prescribed opioids that were absent from the urine, 15 (31%) were unprescribed opioids that were absent, and 21 (43%) were illicit drugs (71% marijuana). UDT abnormalities were significantly higher in the targeted group than the random group (43.2% vs. 27.8%, p=0.01). There were no significant differences in demographic and clinical characteristics between random and targeted patients with abnormal UDT findings. UDT abnormality was independently associated with age (OR= 0.97 per year, 95% CI: 0.95-0.99, p=0.012), female gender (OR=0.47, 95% CI: 0.28-0.81, p=0.006), anxiety (OR=1.11per point, 95% CI: 1.01-1.22, p=0.039), and appetite (OR= 1.14 per point, 95% CI: 1.04-1.26, p=0.006). Conclusions: More than 1 in 4 cancer patients who underwent random UDT had abnormal results. UDT abnormality in randomly selected patients were no different from targeted patients. Further studies are needed to guide clinical practice regarding standardization of UDT ordering among patients with cancer.