A descriptive analysis of urine drug screen results in patients with opioid use disorder managed in a primary care setting.

BACKGROUND: Urine drug screening (UDS) is commonly used as part of treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD), including treatment with buprenorphine-naloxone for OUD in a primary care setting. Very little is known about the value of UDS, the optimum screening frequency in general, or its specific use for buprenorphine treatment in primary care. To address this question, we thought that in a stable population receiving buprenorphine-naloxone in the primary care setting it would be useful to know how often UDS yielded expected and unexpected results. METHODS: We present a descriptive analysis of UDS results in patients treated with buprenorphine-naloxone for OUD in a primary care setting over a two-year period. An unexpected test result is: 1. A negative test for buprenorphine and/or 2. A positive test for opioids, methadone, cocaine and/or heroin. RESULTS: A total of 161 patients received care during the study period and a total of 2588 test results were analyzed from this population. We found that 64.4% of the patient population (n = 104 patients) demonstrated both treatment adherence (as measured by buprenorphine positive test results) and no apparent unexpected test findings, as defined by negative tests for opioids, methadone, cocaine and heroin. Of the 161 patients, 20 results were positive for opioids, 5 for methadone, 39 for heroin and 2 for cocaine. Analysis at the UDS level demonstrated that, of the 2588 test results, 38 (1.5%) results did not have buprenorphine. Of the 2588, 28 (1.1%) test results were positive for opioids, 8 (0.3%) were positive for methadone, 39 (1.5%) for cocaine and 2 (0.1%) for heroin. CONCLUSION: Given that the majority of patients in our study had expected urine results, it may be reasonable for less frequent urine testing in certain patients

Measuring What Matters: How the Laboratory Contributes Value in the Opioid Crisis

With over 20 years of the opioid crisis, our collective response has evolved to address the ongoing needs related to the management of opioid use and opioid use disorder. There has been an increasing recognition of the need for standardized metrics to evaluate organizational management and stewardship. The clinical laboratory, with a wealth of objective and quantitative health information, is uniquely poised to support opioid stewardship and drive valuable metrics for opioid prescribing practices and opioid use disorder (OUD) management. To identify laboratory-related insights that support these patient populations, a collection of 5 independent institutions, under the umbrella of the Clinical Laboratory 2.0 movement, developed and prioritized metrics. Using a structured expert panel review, laboratory experts from 5 institutions assessed possible metrics as to their relative importance, usability, feasibility, and scientific acceptability based on the National Quality Forum criteria. A total of 37 metrics spanning the topics of pain and substance use disorder (SUD) management were developed with consideration of how laboratory insights can impact clinical care. Monitoring these metrics, in the form of summative reports, dashboards, or embedded in laboratory reports themselves may support the clinical care teams and health systems in addressing the opioid crisis. The clinical insights and standardized metrics derived from the clinical laboratory during the opioid crisis exemplifies the value proposition of clinical laboratories shifting into a more active role in the healthcare system. This increased participation by the clinical laboratories may improve patient safety and reduce healthcare costs related to OUD and pain management

Global COVID-19 lockdown highlights humans as both threats and custodians of the environment

The global lockdown to mitigate COVID-19 pandemic health risks has altered human interactions with nature. Here, we report immediate impacts of changes in human activities on wildlife and environmental threats during the early lockdown months of 2020, based on 877 qualitative reports and 332 quantitative assessments from 89 different studies. Hundreds of reports of unusual species observations from around the world suggest that animals quickly responded to the reductions in human presence. However, negative effects of lockdown on conservation also emerged, as confinement resulted in some park officials being unable to perform conservation, restoration and enforcement tasks, resulting in local increases in illegal activities such as hunting. Overall, there is a complex mixture of positive and negative effects of the pandemic lockdown on nature, all of which have the potential to lead to cascading responses which in turn impact wildlife and nature conservation. While the net effect of the lockdown will need to be assessed over years as data becomes available and persistent effects emerge, immediate responses were detected across the world. Thus initial qualitative and quantitative data arising from this serendipitous global quasi-experimental perturbation highlights the dual role that humans play in threatening and protecting species and ecosystems. Pathways to favorably tilt this delicate balance include reducing impacts and increasing conservation effectiveness