Degradation of Opioids and Opiates During Acid Hydrolysis Leads to Reduced Recovery Compared to Enzymatic Hydrolysis.

Drug monitoring laboratories utilize a hydrolysis process to liberate the opiates from their glucuronide conjugates to facilitate their detection by tandem mass spectrometry (MS). Both acid and enzyme hydrolysis have been reported as viable methods, with the former as a more effective process for recovering codeine-6-glucuronide and morphine-6-glucuronide. Here, we report concerns with acid-catalyzed hydrolysis of opioids, including a significant loss of analytes and conversions of oxycodone to oxymorphone, hydrocodone to hydromorphone and codeine to morphine. The acid-catalyzed reaction was monitored in neat water and patient urine samples by liquid chromatography-time-of-flight and tandem MS. These side reactions with acid hydrolysis may limit accurate quantitation due to loss of analytes, possibly lead to false positives, and poorly correlate with pharmacogenetic profiles, as cytochrome P450 enzyme (CYP2D6) is often involved with oxycodone to oxymorphone, hydrocodone to hydromorphone and codeine to morphine conversions. Enzymatic hydrolysis process using the purified, genetically engineered ß-glucuronidase (IMCSzyme®) addresses many of these concerns and demonstrates accurate quantitation and high recoveries for oxycodone, hydrocodone, oxymorphone and hydromorphone.

KIMS, CEDIA, and HS-CEDIA immunoassays are inadequately sensitive for detection of benzodiazepines in urine from patients treated for chronic pain.

BACKGROUND: Patients treated for chronic pain may frequently undergo urine drug testing to monitor medication compliance and detect undisclosed prescribed or illicit drug use. Due to the increasing use and abuse of benzodiazepines, this class of medications is often included in drug screening panels. However, immunoassay-based methods lack the requisite sensitivity for detecting benzodiazepine use in this population primarily due to their poor cross-reactivity with several major urinary benzodiazepine metabolites. A High Sensitivity Cloned Enzyme Donor Immunoassay (HS-CEDIA), in which beta-glucuronidase is added to the reagent, has been shown to perform better than traditional assays, but its performance in patients treated for chronic pain is not well characterized. OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of HS-CEDIA, as compared to the Cloned Enzyme Donor Immunoassay (CEDIA) and Kinetic Interaction of Microparticles in Solution (KIMS) screening immunoassays and liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS), for monitoring benzodiazepine use in patients treated for chronic pain. STUDY DESIGN: A study of the diagnostic accuracy of urine benzodiazepine immunoassays. SETTING: The study was conducted at an academic tertiary care hospital with a clinical laboratory that performs urine drug testing for monitoring medication compliance in pain management. METHODS: A total of 299 urine specimens from patients treated for chronic pain were screened for the presence of benzodiazepines using the HS-CEDIA, CEDIA, and KIMS assays. The sensitivity and specificity of the screening assays were determined using the LC-MS/MS results as the reference method. RESULTS: Of the 299 urine specimens tested, 141 (47%) confirmed positive for one or more of the benzodiazepines/metabolites by LC-MS/MS. All 3 screens were 100% specific with no false-positive results. The CEDIA and KIMS sensitivities were 55% (78/141) and 47% (66/141), respectively. Despite the relatively higher sensitivity of the HS-CEDIA screening assay (78%; 110/141), primarily due to increased detection of lorazepam, it still missed 22% (31/141) of benzodiazepine-positive urines. The KIMS, CEDIA, and HS-CEDIA assays yielded accuracies of 75%, 79%, and 90%, respectively, in comparison with LC-MS/MS. LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by its single-site location and the modest size of the urine samples utilized. CONCLUSIONS: While the HS-CEDIA provides higher sensitivity than the KIMS and CEDIA assays, it still missed an unacceptably high percentage of benzodiazepine-positive samples from patients treated for chronic pain. LC-MS/MS quantification with enzymatic sample pretreatment offers superior sensitivity and specificity for monitoring benzodiazepines in patients treated for chronic pain.

Improved buprenorphine immunoassay performance after urine treatment with ß-glucuronidase.

Buprenorphine (BUP), a semi-synthetic opioid analgesic, is increasingly prescribed for the treatment of chronic pain and opioid dependence. Urine immunoassay screening methods are available for monitoring BUP compliance and misuse; however, these screens may have poor sensitivity or specificity. We evaluated whether the pretreatment of urine with ß-glucuronidase (BG) improves the sensitivity and overall accuracy of three BUP enzyme immunoassays when compared with liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS-MS). Urine samples sent to our laboratories for BUP testing (n = 114) were analyzed before and after BG pretreatment by cloned enzyme donor immunoassay (CEDIA), enzyme immunoassay (EIA) and homogenous EIA (HEIA) immunoassays using a common 5 ng/mL cutoff. Total BUP and norbuprenorphine (NBUP) concentrations were measured by LC-MS-MS as the reference method. Urine BG pretreatment improved EIA, HEIA and CEDIA sensitivities from 70, 82 and 94%, respectively, to 97% for each of the three methods, when compared with LC-MS-MS. While the specificity of the EIA and HEIA remained 100% after BG pretreatment, the specificity of the CEDIA decreased from 74 to 67%. Urine pretreatment with BG is recommended to improve sensitivity of the EIA and HEIA BUP screening methods.

Significant cost savings achieved by in-sourcing urine drug testing for monitoring medication compliance in pain management.

INTRODUCTION: Reference laboratory testing can represent a significant component of the laboratory budget. Therefore, most laboratories continually reassess the feasibility of in-sourcing various tests. We describe the transfer of urine drug testing performed for monitoring medication compliance in pain management from a reference laboratory into an academic clinical laboratory. METHODS: The process of implementing of both screening immunoassays and confirmatory LC-MS/MS testing and the associated cost savings is outlined. RESULTS: The initial proposal for in-sourcing this testing, which included the tests to be in-sourced, resources required, estimated cost savings and timeline for implementation, was approved in January 2009. All proposed testing was implemented by March 2011. CONCLUSIONS: Keys to the successful implementation included budgeting adequate resources and developing a realistic timeline, incorporating the changes with the highest budget impact first. We were able to in-source testing in 27 months and save the laboratory approximately $1 million in the first 3 year.