Buprenorphine Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder in Community-Based Settings: Outcome Related to Intensity of Services and Urine Drug Test Results.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Variables contributing to the outcome of buprenorphine treatment for opiate use disorder have been studied, including patient characteristics and the treatment approach applied. It is also valuable to study the types of clinical facilities that can affect outcome. METHODS: We evaluated patients (N = 20 993) in 573 facilities where buprenorphine was prescribed. Urine drug test results were analyzed for those (N = 13 281) who had buprenorphine prescribed at least twice in the period January 2015 through June 2017. Facilities were divided into three categories: medication management (MM) only, limited psychosocial (LP) therapy, and recovery-oriented (with more extensive counseling and a 12-step orientation) (RO). RESULTS: Urine drug tests negative for other opioids at the time of the second buprenorphine prescription were 34% for MM, 56% for LP, and 62% for RO (P < .001). A comparison was made between the most recent and the established patients at the facilities. The decrement in urinalyses positive for other opioids in this latter comparison was 3% for MM, 7% for LP, and 23% for RO (P < .001). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: In a large sample of community settings, buprenorphine patients' urinalyses positive for opioids can vary considerably across treatment facilities, and more intensive recovery orientation may yield a better outcome in terms of secondary opioid use. SCIENTIFIC SIGNIFICANCE: The majority of buprenorphine patients are treated in community facilities. It is important that research be done by facility type in such settings in order to plan for optimal treatment. (© 2020 The Authors. The American Journal on Addictions published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.;00:00-00).

Use of urinary naloxone levels in a single provider practice: a case study.

BACKGROUND: Urine drug monitoring for medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) such as buprenorphine can help to support treatment adherence. The practice of introducing unconsumed medication directly into urine (known as "spiking" samples) has been increasingly recognized as a potential means to simulate treatment adherence. In the laboratory, examination of the ratios of buprenorphine and its metabolite, norbuprenorphine, has been identified as a mechanism to identify "spiked" samples. Urine levels of naloxone may also be a novel marker in cases where the combination buprenorphine-naloxone product has been administered. This case study, which encompasses one provider's practice spanning two sites, represents a preliminary report on the utility of using urinary naloxone as an indicator of "spiked" urine toxicology samples. Though only a case study, this represents the largest published evaluation of patients' naloxone levels to date. CASE PRESENTATION: Over a 3-month period across two practice sites, we identified 1,223 patient samples with recorded naloxone levels, spanning a range of 0 to 12,161 ng/ml. The average naloxone level was 633.65 ng/ml with the majority (54%) of samples < 300 ng/ml. 8.0% of samples demonstrated extreme values of naloxone (> 2000 ng/ml). One practice site, which had increased evidence of specimen tampering at collections, had a greater percent of extreme naloxone levels (>  2000 ng/ml) at 9.3% and higher average naloxone level (686.8 ng/ml), in contrast to a second site (570.9 ng/ml; 6.4% at > 2000 ng/ml) that did not have known reports of specimen tampering. CONCLUSIONS: We postulate that naloxone may serve as an additional flag to identify patient "spiking" of urine samples with use of the combination product of buprenorphine-naloxone.

Naltrexone and Its Noroxymorphone Minor Metabolite - A Case Report.

As part of substance use maintenance programs, individuals are monitored for sobriety through urine drug screens. A positive screen, and its confirmation and interpretation, can have devastating consequences, sometimes even leading to termination from the program and relapse. Naltrexone metabolism involves several steps and metabolites - one minor metabolite with very little mention in medical literature being noroxymorphone. This is also the final intermediate in the metabolic pathway of oxycodone; hence, detection is naturally presumed by clinicians to be attributed to oxycodone use. Through this case report, we alert clinicians that, depending on individual pharmacogenomics, it is possible to obtain a positive confirmation of this component alone (without any oxycodone pathway intermediates) with naltrexone administration.

Urine is superior to oral fluid for detecting buprenorphine compliance in patients undergoing treatment for opioid addiction.

BACKGROUND: Buprenorphine (BUP) is commonly used in opioid agonist medication-assisted treatment (OA-MAT). Oral fluid (OF) is an attractive option for compliance monitoring during OA-MAT as collections are observed and evidence suggests that OF is less likely to be adulterated than urine (UR). However, the clinical and analytical performance of each matrix for monitoring BUP compliance has not been well studied. METHODS: We collected 260 paired OF and UR specimens. Concentrations of buprenorphine (BUP) and norbuprenorphine (NBUP) were measured by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) in each matrix. The glucuronide metabolites and naloxone concentrations were also measured in UR by LC-MS/MS. Medications were reviewed and UR creatinine concentrations were determined. RESULTS: 147/260 specimens (57%) were positive for BUP and/or metabolites in one or both matrices. BUP and/or metabolites were more likely to be detected in UR (p < 0.001). 1 OF specimen and 12 UR specimens were considered adulterated/substituted. The majority of patients prescribed BUP were positive for BUP in UR (97%) as opposed to OF (78%). The detection of undisclosed use approximately doubled in UR. CONCLUSIONS: UR is the preferred matrix for detecting both buprenorphine compliance and undisclosed use. Clinicians should consider the ease of collection, risk of adulteration and detection of illicit drug use when deciding on an appropriate matrix. If OF testing is clinically necessary, UR should be measured in conjunction with OF at least periodically to avoid false negative BUP results.

A Systematic, Intensive Statistical Investigation of Data from the Comprehensive Analysis of Reported Drugs (CARD) for Compliance and Illicit Opioid Abstinence in Substance Addiction Treatment with Buprenorphine/naloxone.

BACKGROUND: Buprenorphine and naloxone (bup/nal), a combination partial mu receptor agonist and low-dose delta mu antagonist, is presently recommended and used to treat opioid-use disorder. However, a literature review revealed a paucity of research involving data from urine drug tests that looked at compliance and abstinence in one sample. METHOD: Statistical analysis of data from the Comprehensive Analysis of Reported Drugs (CARD) was used to assess compliance and abstinence during treatment in a large cohort of bup/nal patients attending chemical-dependency programs from eastern USA in 2010 and 2011. RESULTS: Part 1: Bup/nal was present in 93.4% of first (n = 1,282; p <.0001) and 92.4% of last (n = 1,268; p <.0001) urine samples. Concomitantly, unreported illicit drugs were present in 47.7% (n = 655, p =.0261) of samples. Patients who were compliant to the bup/nal prescription were more likely than noncompliant patients to be abstinent during treatment (p =.0012; odds ratio = 1.69 with 95% confidence interval (1.210, 2.354). Part 2: An analysis of all samples collected in 2011 revealed a significant improvement in both compliance (p < 2.2 × 10-16) and abstinence (p < 2.2 × 10-16) during treatment. Conclusion/Importance: While significant use of illicit opioids during treatment with bup/nal is present, improvements in abstinence and high compliance during maintenance-assisted therapy programs may ameliorate fears of diversion in comprehensive programs. Expanded clinical datasets, the treatment modality, location, and year of sampling are important covariates, for further studies. The potential for long-term antireward effects from bup/nal use requires consideration in future investigations.

Quantitative testing of buprenorphine and norbuprenorphine to identify urine sample spiking during office-based opioid treatment.

BACKGROUND: Patients may spike urine samples with buprenorphine during office-based opioid treatment to simulate adherence to prescribed buprenorphine, potentially to conceal diversion of medications. However, routine immunoassay screens do not detect instances of spiking, as these would simply result in a positive result. The aim of this study was to report on the experience of using quantitative urine testing for buprenorphine and norbuprenorphine to facilitate the identification of urine spiking. METHODS: This is a retrospective chart review of 168 consecutive patients enrolled in outpatient buprenorphine treatment at an urban academic medical setting between May 2013 and August 2014. All urine samples submitted were subjected to quantitative urine toxicology testing for buprenorphine and norbuprenorphine. Norbuprenorphine-to-buprenorphine ratio of less than 0.02 were further examined for possible spiking. Demographic and clinical variables were also extracted from medical records. Clinical and demographic variables of those who did and did not spike their urines were compared. Statistically significant variables from the univariate testing were entered as predictors of spiking in a regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 168 patients were included, submitting a total of 2275 urine samples. Patients provided on average 13.6 (SD = 9.9) samples, and were in treatment for an average 153.1 days (SD = 142.2). In total, 8 samples (0.35%) from 8 patients (4.8%) were deemed to be spiked. All of the samples suspected of spiking contained buprenorphine levels greater than 2000 ng/mL, with a mean norbuprenorphine level of 11.9 ng/mL. Spiked samples were submitted by 6 patients (75.0%) during the intensive outpatient (IOP) phase of treatment, 2 patients (25.0%) during the weekly phase, and none from the monthly phase. Regression analysis indicated that history of intravenous drug use and submission of cocaine-positive urine samples at baseline were significant predictors of urine spiking. CONCLUSIONS: Even though only a small number of patients were identified to have spiked their urine samples, quantitative testing may help identify urine spiking during office-based opioid treatment with buprenorphine.

Determination of naloxegol in human biological matrices.

AIM: Naloxegol is an oral peripherally acting µ-opioid receptor antagonist approved for the treatment of opioid-induced constipation. Sensitive, robust, bioanalytical methods were required to quantitate naloxegol in human biological matrices as part of the clinical development program. METHODOLOGY/RESULTS: Analytical plasma samples were prepared using Solid Phase Extraction (SPE) coupled with concentration. The method's linearity was established at 0.1-50 ng/ml with up to 100-fold dilution. Urine samples were analyzed directly postdilution; dialysate samples were extracted by supported liquid extraction. Sensitive liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) assays were developed and validated, and demonstrated acceptable precision, accuracy and selectivity for naloxegol in the appropriate matrices. CONCLUSION: Methods for quantifying naloxegol in human biological matrices have been successfully validated.

Quantitation of Buprenorphine, Norbuprenorphine, Buprenorphine Glucuronide, Norbuprenorphine Glucuronide, and Naloxone in Urine by LC-MS/MS.

Buprenorphine is an opioid drug that has been used to treat opioid dependence on an outpatient basis, and is also prescribed for managing moderate to severe pain. Some formulations of buprenorphine also contain naloxone to discourage misuse. The major metabolite of buprenorphine is norbuprenorphine. Both compounds are pharmacologically active and both are extensively metabolized to their glucuronide conjugates, which are also active metabolites. Direct quantitation of the glucuronide conjugates in conjunction with free buprenorphine, norbuprenorphine, and naloxone in urine can distinguish compliance with prescribed therapy from specimen adulteration intended to mimic compliance with prescribed buprenorphine. This chapter quantitates buprenorphine, norbuprenorphine, their glucuronide conjugates and naloxone directly in urine by liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). Urine is pretreated with formic acid and undergoes solid phase extraction (SPE) prior to analysis by LC-MS/MS.

Treatment changes following aberrant urine drug test results for patients prescribed chronic opioid therapy.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Urine drug testing (UDT) may be used to help screen for prescription opioid misuse. There are little data available describing usual pain care practices for patients who have aberrant UDT results. The goal of this research was to evaluate the clinical care for patients prescribed chronic opioid therapy (COT) and have an aberrant UDT. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: VA Medical Center in the Pacific Northwest. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with chronic pain who were prescribed COT and had a UDT result that was positive for an illicit or nonprescribed substance. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: This was an exploratory study designed to document usual care practices. RESULTS: Participants' (n = 83) mean age was 49.5 (SD = 9.6) and 81.5 percent were male. The most common substances detected on UDT were marijuana (69 percent) or a nonprescribed opioid (25 percent); 18 percent had a UDT positive for two or more substances. Plans to modify treatment were documented in 69 percent of cases. The most common treatment change after aberrant UDT results was instituting more frequent UDTs, which occurred in 43 percent of cases. Clinicians documented plans to alter their opioid prescribing (eg, terminating opioids, requiring more frequent fills, changing opioid dose, or transitioning to another opioid) in 52 percent of cases, but implemented these changes in only 24 percent. DISCUSSION: Current methods for optimizing treatment after obtaining aberrant UDT results should be enhanced. To improve the utility of UDT to reduce prescription opioid misuse, additional interventions and support for clinicians need to be developed and tested.

Describing prescription opioid adherence among individuals with chronic pain using urine drug testing.

Adherence monitoring for prescription opioid use is a clinical imperative for individuals prescribed opioids for chronic pain. Urine drug testing (UDT) provides objective evidence for prescription opioid adherence, as recommended by national guidelines to be part of adherence monitoring. The aim of this study was to describe prescription opioid adherence using UDT results in chronic pain patients and to examine the association between demographic characteristics and adherence to their prescribed opiate regimens. We used a retrospective chart review of 120 consecutive patients at an urban pain management clinic. Data collected included UDT results, pain level, and demographic characteristics. Descriptive and correlational statistics were used for data analysis. About 54% of the individuals appeared nonadherent to their prescribed opiate regimen as defined by absence or inappropriate level of prescribed controlled medication, presence of additional nonprescribed controlled substance(s), presence of illicit substance(s), or presence of adulterant in the urine sample. Of the participants, 23% had absence of one or more of their prescribed controlled medications and 12.5% had presence of one or more other opioids. Marijuana was the main illicit substance used (24.2%), followed by cocaine (11.7%). Patients' age, pain level, sex, ethnicity, and injury compensation were not associated with UDT results. UDT results could be useful to educate and guide patients on the proper use of controlled medications. Results from UDT are highly contextual and easily misinterpreted, requiring comparison with a variety of clinical indicators over time before deciding if there is adherence to a prescribed opiate regimen for individuals with chronic pain.

The effects of renal impairment on the pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability of naloxegol.

The impact of renal impairment on the pharmacokinetics of a 25-mg oral dose of naloxegol was examined in patients with renal impairment classified as moderate, severe, or end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and compared with healthy subjects (n = 8/group). Geometric mean area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) was increased in patients with moderate (1.7-fold) or severe (2.2-fold) impairment, and maximum plasma concentrations (Cmax ) were elevated in patients with moderate (1.1-fold) or severe (1.8-fold) impairment. These findings were driven by higher exposures in two patients in each of the moderate and severe impairment groups; exposures in all other patients were similar to the control group. Overall exposures in ESRD patients were similar and Cmax was 29% lower versus normal subjects. Renal impairment minimally affected other plasma pharmacokinetic parameters. As renal clearance was a minor component of total clearance, exposure to naloxegol was unaffected by the degree of renal impairment, with no correlation between either AUC or Cmax and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Hemodialysis was an ineffective means to remove naloxegol. Naloxegol was generally well tolerated in all groups. Renal impairment could adversely affect clearance by hepatic and gut metabolism, resulting in the increased exposures observed in outliers of the moderate and severe renal impairment groups.

Buprenorphine detection in urine using liquid chromatography-high-resolution mass spectrometry: comparison with cloned enzyme donor immunoassay (ThermoFisher) and homogeneous enzyme immunoassay (immunalysis).

A sensitive liquid chromatographic-high-resolution mass spectrometric (LC-HR-MS) assay for buprenorphine and its urinary metabolites has been developed that requires minimal sample preparation. The results obtained have been compared with those given by (i) cloned enzyme donor immunoassay (CEDIA) and (ii) homogeneous enzyme immunoassay (HEIA) in the analysis of patient urines submitted for buprenorphine analysis. Centrifuged urine (100 µL) was diluted with internal standard solution (25 µL) + LC eluent (875 µL), and 50 µL of the prepared sample were analyzed (Accucore Phenyl-Hexyl column). MS detection was in alternating positive and negative mode using heated electrospray ionization (ThermoFisher Q Exactive). Intra- and inter-assay accuracy and precision were 104-128 and <11%, respectively, at 5 µg/L. Limits of detection were 1.3 µg/L (buprenorphine, norbuprenorphine and buprenorphine glucuronide) and 2.5 µg/L (norbuprenorphine glucuronide). Immunoassay sensitivity and selectivity were 97 and 100% (HEIA) and 99 and 84% (CEDIA), respectively, compared with LC-HR-MS. In 120 patient urines, norbuprenorphine glucuronide was easily the most abundant analyte except when adulteration with buprenorphine had occurred. The median immunoreactive buprenorphine species present (unhydrolysed urine) were 7.5 and 13% for HEIA and CEDIA, respectively. However, codeine, dihydrocodeine, morphine and morphine-3-glucuronide did not interfere in the HEIA assay.

Naltrexone metabolism and concomitant drug concentrations in chronic pain patients.

Naltrexone is effective in treating opioid dependence by blocking µ, κ and δ opiate receptors. Naltrexone is mainly metabolized to an active metabolite 6ß-naltrexol by dihydrodiol dehydrogenase enzymes. Concomitant opioids will not be effective while patients are taking this antagonist. This was a retrospective analysis of urinary excretion data collected from patients being treated with pain between November 2011 and May 2012. Naltrexone, 6ß-naltrexol and concomitant opiate concentrations were measured by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Interpatient variability was calculated from first-visit specimens, and intrapatient variability was calculated from patients with two or more visits. Relationships of the metabolic ratio (MR; 6ß-naltrexol/naltrexone) with age, gender and urinary pH were also explored. From 88 first-visit patient specimens, the median MR was 3.28 (range 0.73-17.42). The MR was higher in women than men (5.00 vs. 3.14, P< 0.05). The MR showed no association based on age and urinary pH. Eighteen of 88 patients taking oral naltrexone tested positive for concomitant opiate use. Urinary MRs of 6ß-naltrexol/naltrexone were highly variable, which may contribute to variability in efficacy, toxicity and patient willingness to take naltrexone as directed. Twenty percent of patients tested positive for opiates and naltrexone, thus showing the importance of monitoring patients taking naltrexone.

Urine naloxone concentration at different phases of buprenorphine maintenance treatment.

In spite of the benefits of buprenorphine-naloxone co-formulation (BNX) in opioid maintenance treatment, the naloxone component has not prevented parenteral use of BNX. Current laboratory methods are not sufficient to differentiate between therapeutic and illicit use of buprenorphine, and little is known about urine naloxone concentrations. Measurement of urine naloxone, together with buprenorphine and norbuprenorphine, might help to determine the naloxone source and administration route. A liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method was developed and validated for this purpose. Naloxone, buprenorphine, and norbuprenorphine total concentrations were measured in urine samples from opioid-dependent patients before and during stable and unstable phases of maintenance treatment with BNX. The limit of quantification in urine was 1.0 µg/L for naloxone, buprenorphine and norbuprenorphine. Before treatment, all samples contained buprenorphine but the median naloxone concentration was 0 µg/L. During the maintenance treatment with BNX all urine samples were positive for naloxone, buprenorphine and norbuprenorphine. The naloxone concentration at a stable phase of treatment (median 60 µg/L, range 5-200 µg/L) was not different from the naloxone concentration at an unstable phase (70 µg/L, 10-1700 µg/L). Applying an upper limit of 200 µg/L to the sample, the median naloxone/buprenorphine ratio was higher in the high than in the low naloxone concentration group (0.9 vs 0.3, respectively). This study suggests that naloxone in urine can act as an indicator of compliance with BNX. Parenteral use of BNX was associated with a high naloxone/buprenorphine ratio. Negative naloxone with positive buprenorphine suggests the use/abuse of buprenorphine alone.