Pre-Admission Standardized Tests and the Relationship with Anesthesiologist Assistant Student Performance: A Retrospective Analysis.

Background: The Anesthesiologist Assistant (AA) profession is gaining popularity, and as such, the number of applicants and the number of AA programs are also increasing. There is no published data on what makes a good AA student - multiple studies exist in this regard for anesthesiology residents and medical students. The Medical College Admissions Test (MCAT) and the Graduate Record Examination (GRE) have shown to have some correlation with student success in other health professions. There is no data to suggest that they can indicate potential success or academic problems during AA school. As such, this study evaluated the impact of these standardized test scores and student success in both the preclinical and clinical curricula at the Emory AA program. Methods: A retrospective analysis of MCAT scores and GRE scores was performed. 2-tailed Pearson coefficients were calculated to see if there was a relationship between higher MCAT and GRE scores and performance in our program. Results: 2- tailed Pearson coefficients showed a moderately strong correlation between MCAT scores and our AA program's science curriculum. There was a weak correlation as well between GRE scores here. The correlation dropped slightly for the MCAT and performance during our clinical curriculum, and a similar drop was noted for the GRE. Discussion: Our study shows that the MCAT appears to more strongly correlated with better performance in both the science curriculum of our program and also with our clinical program. The study likely implies that the MCAT appears to be a better gauge as to how a student will do in an AA program in comparison to the GRE. Further studies are needed to understand how to appropriately admit students who will successfully complete the rigorous AA program curriculum both at Emory and beyond.

Impact of Pre-Admission Grade Point Averages on Anesthesiologist Assistant Student Performance at Emory University School of Medicine.

Purpose: The Anesthesiologist Assistant career is gaining significant popularity in the health professions in the United States. Given that this medical occupation is relatively young, there is limited information regarding student success in this demanding graduate-level program. Assessing if pre-admission metrics influence how students perform during the curriculum is essential to recruiting the appropriate candidates. Grade point averages have been shown to correlate with student success in medical education programs for both medical students and physician assistant students, but there is currently no information regarding anesthesiologist assistant students. Methods: Pre-matriculation science and cumulative grade point averages were accessed in a deidentified manner for Emory University Anesthesiologist Assistant Students, and 2-tailed Pearson coefficients were calculated to see if there was a correlation with performance during the science/didactic curriculum of our program and with the clinical curriculum of the program. Results: The 2-tailed Pearson coefficients showed a moderately strong positive correlation between pre-admission science and cumulative grade point averages and performance during the science curriculum of the Emory program (r=0.522). Data also suggested a moderate correlation with grade point averages at graduation from our program (r=0.484). Similar results were found with cumulative grade point averages as well. Conclusion: Given the limited information, we have regarding pre-admission metrics and performance in an Anesthesiologist Assistant program, our study shows that pre-admission science scores and grades in general in undergraduate studies does in fact mimic the information found from studies of other health profession students. Further studies are needed to elucidate how to choose the most appropriate candidates for admission to anesthesiologist assistant programs.

Association of Patients' Direct Addition of Buprenorphine to Urine Drug Test Specimens With Clinical Factors in Opioid Use Disorder.

Importance: The direct addition of buprenorphine to urine drug test specimens to mimic results suggestive of adherence is a clinically significant result, yet little is known about the phenomenon. Objective: To characterize factors associated with the direct addition of buprenorphine to urine specimens among patients prescribed buprenorphine for opioid use disorder. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study of urine drug test specimens was conducted from January 1, 2017, to April 30, 2022, using a national database of urine drug test specimens ordered by clinicians from primary care, behavioral health, and substance use disorder treatment clinics. Urine specimens with quantitative norbuprenorphine and buprenorphine concentrations from patients with opioid use disorder currently prescribed buprenorphine were analyzed. Exposures: Nonprescribed opioid or stimulant co-positive, clinical setting, collection year, census division, patient age, patient sex, and payor. Main Outcomes and Measures: Norbuprenorphine to buprenorphine ratio less than 0.02 identified direct addition of buprenorphine. Unadjusted trends in co-positivity for stimulants and opioids were compared between specimens consistent with the direct addition of buprenorphine. Factors associated with the direct addition of buprenorphine were examined with generalized estimating equations. Results: This study included 507 735 urine specimens from 58 476 patients. Of all specimens, 261 210 (51.4%) were obtained from male individuals, and 137 254 (37.7%) were from patients aged 25 to 34 years. Overall, 9546 (1.9%) specimens from 4550 (7.6%) patients were suggestive of the direct addition of buprenorphine. The annual prevalence decreased from 2.4% in 2017 to 1.2% in 2020. Opioid-positive with (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.01; 95% CI, 1.85-2.18) and without (aOR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.81-2.26) stimulant-positive specimens were associated with the direct addition of buprenorphine to specimens, while opioid-negative/stimulant-positive specimens were negatively associated (aOR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.71-0.85). Specimens from patients aged 35 to 44 years (aOR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.34-1.90) and primary care (aOR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.44-1.79) were associated with the direct addition of buprenorphine. Differences by treatment setting decreased over time. Specimens from the South Atlantic census region had the highest association (aOR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.25-1.56) and New England had the lowest association (aOR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.46-0.65) with the direct addition of buprenorphine. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, the direct addition of buprenorphine to urine specimens was associated with other opioid positivity and being collected in primary care settings. The direct addition of buprenorphine to urine specimens is a clinically significant finding, and best practices specific for this phenomenon are needed.

Fentanyl analog positivity among near-real-time urine drug test results in patients seeking health care.

Overdose deaths involving synthetic opioids continue to climb. Fentanyl analogs have been identified as important contributors to these overdoses, but little is known about their prevalence in patients seeking health care. This cross-sectional study of urine drug test (UDT) results from July 15, 2019, through March 12, 2020, included patient specimens analyzed using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS), submitted by health care professionals as part of routine care to detect fentanyl and fentanyl analogs. A convenience sample approach was used to select patient specimens from diverse health care practices across all 50 states, then stratified by fentanyl prescription status. Positivity rates, geographic distribution, and co-occurrence were quantified. The total positivity rate for ten fentanyl analogs was 40.55% in the non-prescribed fentanyl-positive population. The most common fentanyl analogs in this population were 4-ANPP (4-anilino-N-phenethylpiperidine), 30.74%; acetyl fentanyl, 19.40%; and carfentanil, 3.13%. The total positivity rate for four fentanyl analogs was 8.93% in the prescribed fentanyl-positive population, including 4-ANPP, 8.85%; acetyl fentanyl, 0.19%; acryl fentanyl, 0.05%; and 4-FiBF, 0.03%. Counties in Ohio and Kentucky had the highest positivity rates. Acetyl fentanyl and 4-ANPP copositivity occurred in 11.36% of non-prescribed patient specimens. However, acetyl fentanyl and 4-ANPP positivity may not be consistent with fentanyl analog use since both are process impurities, and 4-ANPP is a metabolite of fentanyl. Near-real-time, definitive UDT results reveal fentanyl analogs in patients seeking health care, helping clinicians and public health officials better understand their contribution to overdoses and help mitigate the risks they pose.