Background: Treatment progress is routinely monitored by urine testing in patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) undergoing buprenorphine medication-assisted treatment (MAT). However, interpretation of urine test results could be challenging. This retrospective study aims to examine the results of quantitative buprenorphine, norbuprenorphine, and creatinine levels in urine testing in relation to sublingual buprenorphine dosage to facilitate an accurate interpretation of urine testing results. Methods: We reviewed the medical charts of 41 consecutive patients, who were residing in halfway houses where their medication intake was closely monitored and who had enrolled in an office-based MAT program at an urban clinic between July 2018 and June 2019. The patients’ urine testing results were reviewed, and demographic variables were recorded. We focused on the patients treated with 8-, 12-, or 16-mg/day of buprenorphine, examining their urine buprenorphine, norbuprenorphine, and creatinine levels. Analysis of variance tested the statistical association between the dosage and urine testing results on the norbuprenorphine-to-creatinine ratio. Results: A total of 240 urine samples from 41 patients were included for this study. The 41 patients received a mean buprenorphine dose of 10.5 ± 3.7 mg/day (range, 4-20 mg/day). Then, this study examined the distribution of the 240 urine samples and then focused on 184 urine samples that came from the 33 patients who were treated with 8-, 12-, and 16-mg/day of buprenorphine, the 3 most common dosages. All of the 184 urine samples had a creatinine level of >20 mg/dL and buprenorphine-to-norbuprenorphine ratio <50:1. The average norbuprenorphine-to-creatinine ratio in the 8 mg/day dosage group was 3.85 ± 2.24 × 10−4 (n = 66; range, 0.44-11.12). The respective ratios in the 12- and 16-mg dosage groups were 5.64 ± 3.40 × 10−4 (n = 83; range, 1.55-22.72) and 6.23 ± 4.92 × 10−4 (n = 35; range, 1.37-27.12). The 3 dosage groups differed significantly in the mean ratios ( P < .01), except when the 12- and 16-mg dosage groups were compared ( P = .58). The results of this study thus suggest that prescribers should pay attention to the following features: (1) unexpected substance(s) in urine testing, (2) creatinine level under 20 mg/dL, (3) buprenorphine-to-creatinine ratio over 50:1, (4) buprenorphine dosage over 24 mg/day, and (5) norbuprenorphine-to-creatinine ratio consistently under 0.5 × 10−4 in patients treated with 8 mg/day or 1.5 × 10−4 in patients treated with 12 mg/day or more. Conclusion: This study suggested parameters for interpreting quantitative urine test results in relation to buprenorphine intake dose in office-based opioid treatment programs.
Background: Utilizing a 1-year chart review as the data, Furo et al. conducted a research study on an association between buprenorphine dose and the urine “norbuprenorphine” to “creatinine” ratio and found significant differences in the ratio among 8-, 12-, and 16-mg/day groups with an analysis of variance (ANOVA) test. This study expands the data for a 2-year chart review and is intended to delineate an association between buprenorphine dose and the urine “norbuprenorphine” to “creatinine” ratio with a higher statistical power. Methods: This study performed a 2-year chart review of data for the patients living in a halfway house setting, where their drug administration was closely monitored. The patients were on buprenorphine prescribed at an outpatient clinic for opioid use disorder (OUD), and their buprenorphine prescription and dispensing information were confirmed by the New York Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP). Urine test results in the electronic health record (EHR) were reviewed, focusing on the “buprenorphine,” “norbuprenorphine,” and “creatinine” levels. The Kruskal–Wallis H and Mann–Whitney U tests were performed to examine an association between buprenorphine dose and the “norbuprenorphine” to “creatinine” ratio. Results: This study included 371 urine samples from 61 consecutive patients and analyzed the data in a manner similar to that described in the study by Furo et al. This study had similar findings with the following exceptions: (1) a mean buprenorphine dose of 11.0 ± 3.8 mg/day with a range of 2 to 20 mg/day; (2) exclusion of 6 urine samples with “creatinine” level <20 mg/dL; (3) minimum “norbuprenorphine” to “creatinine” ratios in the 8-, 12-, and 16-mg/day groups of 0.44 × 10−4 (n = 68), 0.1 × 10−4 (n = 133), and 1.37 × 10−4 (n = 82), respectively; however, after removing the 2 lowest outliers, the minimum “norbuprenorphine” to “creatinine” ratio in the 12-mg/day group was 1.6 × 10−4, similar to the findings in the previous study; and (4) a significant association between buprenorphine dose and the urine “norbuprenorphine” to “creatinine” ratios from the Kruskal-Wallis test ( P < .01). In addition, the median “norbuprenorphine” to “creatinine” ratio had a strong association with buprenorphine dose, and this association could be formulated as: [y = 2.266 ln( x) + 0.8211]. In other words, the median ratios in 8-, 12-, and 16-mg/day groups were 5.53 × 10−4, 6.45 × 10−4, and 7.10 × 10−4, respectively. Therefore, any of the following features should alert providers to further investigate patient treatment compliance: (1) inappropriate substance(s) in urine sample; (2) “creatinine” level <20 mg/dL; (3) “buprenorphine” to “norbuprenorphine” ratio >50:1; (4) buprenorphine dose >24 mg/day; or (5) “norbuprenorphine” to “creatinine” ratios <0.5 × 10−4 in patients who are on 8 mg/day or <1.5 × 10−4 in patients who are on 12 mg/day or more. Conclusion: The results of the present study confirmed those of the previous study regarding an association between buprenorphine dose and the “norbuprenorphine” to “creatinine” ratio, using an expanded data set. Additionally, this study delineated a clearer relationship, focusing on the median “norbuprenorphine” to “creatinine” ratios in different buprenorphine dose groups. These results could help providers interpret urine test results more accurately and apply them to outpatient opioid treatment programs for optimal treatment outcomes.
Many previous studies have discussed an association between alcohol use disorder (AUD) and seizure incidents. There are also case reports of seizures during opioid withdrawals. Therefore, it is possible that AUD patients may have a higher risk of seizures if they also have opioid use disorder (OUD). However, it remains unproven whether AUD patients with a dual diagnosis of OUD have higher seizure incidents, to our knowledge. This study explored seizure incidents among the patients with a dual diagnosis of AUD and OUD as well as seizures among AUD only or OUD only patients. This study utilized de-identified data from 30 777 928 hospital inpatient encounters at 948 healthcare systems over 4 years (9/1/2018-8/31/2022) from the Vizient® Clinical Database for this study. Applying the International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision (ICD-10) diagnostic codes, AUD (1 953 575), OUD (768 982), and seizure (1 209 471) encounters were retrieved from the database to examine the effects of OUD on seizure incidence among AUD patients. This study also stratified patient encounters for demographic factors such as gender, age, and race, as well as the Vizient-categorized primary payer. Greatest gender differences were identified among AUD followed by OUD, and seizure patient groups. The mean age for seizure incidents was 57.6 years, while that of AUD was 54.7 years, and OUD 48.9 years. The greatest proportion of patients in all 3 groups were White, followed by Black, with Medicare being the most common primary payer in all 3 categories. Seizure incidents were statistically more common ( P < .001, chi-square) in patients with a dual diagnosis of AUD and OUD (8.07%) compared to those with AUD only (7.55%). The patients with the dual diagnosis had a higher odd ratio than those with AUD only or OUD only. These findings across more than 900 health systems provide a greater understanding of seizure risks. Consequently, this information may help in triaging AUD and OUD patients in certain higher-risk demographic groups.
This study is aimed at exploring if “naloxone” is detected in urine and water samples by dipping buprenorphine/naloxone film directly into these specimens. This study utilized 12 urine samples from 12 healthy participants who were not taking any medications with four samples added as a control. Sublingual generic buprenorphine/naloxone (8 mg/2 mg) film was dipped directly into these samples. They were sent to the ARUP laboratory for gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC/MS) quantitative analysis. The results were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics software. The results showed that “naloxone” was detected at high levels both in urine samples and in water, into which buprenorphine/naloxone film was dipped. In addition, the “naloxone” level was associated with the area of the film and the time in contact with the urine or water samples, but it was not affected by the urine concentration or the temperature of the specimens. This information will be useful for clinicians in identifying urine manipulation and interpreting urine drug test results and can help them for accurate monitoring of their patients’ treatment progress in opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment programs.1
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.