BLOOD AND URINE TESTING
FOR OPIOIDS
Introduction
Lab
testing of pain sufferers has become widespread because doctors have been
forced into the role of drug diversion investigators. Surprisingly, when a
doctor is prosecuted, the presence of a testing program is not taken as an
indication that the doctor attempted to limit diversion; instead the details
are nitpicked by ignoramuses, intent on demonstrating that the testing program
was only "window dressing", intended to disguise the doctor's drug dealing behind
a veneer of medical practice.
Interpretation
of test results, while it would seem to be straightforward, is actually
anything but, and failure to do so competently often results in disaster for
the legitimate patients who get tossed out. If not executed perfectly, the
presence of a drug-testing program assists prosecuting attorneys in convicting
the doctor they have targeted.
Every
result returning from the laboratory should be reviewed with skepticism
regarding its accuracy, and each value should be interpreted in the context of
the patient's entire clinical picture. Any lab value departing from the
expected should receive scrutiny, with consideration of all of the possible
pharmacological, metabolic, and laboratory variables that could have influenced
the test.
Simply
put, a lab value can be too low or too high. The key approach to sorting out
this sort of thing is repetition of the test, with as much control over the
circumstances as possible.
Due
to human and machine error, laboratories will produce a range of values, when
repeatedly running exactly the same test. If a value looks too low or too high,
the test should be repeated. Because of individual variation in absorbtion and
metabolism of opioids it is impossible to know what a patient's blood level of
a particular medication should be, without repeated testing. Levels are more
meaningful when the patient is observed
taking a dose of medication, usually about 1 hour prior to having his blood
drawn.
In
addition to being too high or too low, lab results can also be completely
wrong. Urine testing for opiates is the situation in which this most commonly
occurs in pain management. The test is fairly sensitive for opiates such as
morphine, codeine, and heroin, but is not specifically designed to pick up the
synthetic opioids, such as hydrocodone, oxycodone, and meperidine. The
situation is further complicated by the fact that some of these substances are
metabolized by some individuals into opiates that the urine screen does pick
up. Other patients using synthetic opioids will consistently test negative for
urine opiates.
Many
legitimate pain patients have been unfairly excluded from pain treatment
because of a false negative on a urine drug screen for opiates. This situation
also carries the risk of being used as evidence in a courtroom, that the doctor
who continued to prescribe opioids to a patient after a negative urine opioid
screen result returned, was knowingly contributing to drug diversion, by
supplying a patient who wasn't taking his medication. This is not speculation;
it is actually happening in courtrooms around the country.
The
only way to defuse the above accusation is by ordering blood opioid levels
every time a urine drug screen is ordered.
Certain opioids are not active in the form they are taken, and must be converted within the body to substances that effectively treat pain. Codeine and hydrocodone are the most notable examples. Codeine is converted primarily to morphine, and hydrocodone is converted to hydromorphone. Not every patient has the enzymes required to perform these metabolic conversions, and this has implications for what substances will be discovered upon testing.
A
patient taking codeine can be expected to have both morphine and hydrocodone in
his urine and blood, as a result of these conversions. As a consequence if an
unexpected substance appears on testing, it is necessary to consider the metabolic
pathways that may have produced it, prior to accusing the patient of stepping
outside of the therapeutic relationship, and imposing sanctions against him.
The
body converts carisoprodol (Soma) to meprobamate. This is important to know,
because carisoprodol is a common and effective neuromodulator, used in the
treatment of chronic pain.
The
presence of any substance, other than what the doctor prescribed, or the
absence of any substance he did prescribe, must be fully explained in the
medical chart. Otherwise, this apparent failure will be offered in the
courtroom as proof of drug diversion, which the treating physician criminally
ignored. This sort of thing bolsters the prosecutor's contention that the
doctor was nothing but a "drug dealer in a white coat".
Urine
Opioid Levels
Urine
opioid levels are almost worthless, because opioids tend to be concentrated in
the urine. High urine opioid levels say more about the duration of treatment
and concentration of the urine than they do about the dose of medication taken.
They can produce confusing results, and in most cases, should not be ordered.
In
the current climate of regulatory oppression, the sane response is not to
prescribe controlled substances, but if one must, here are some suggestions.
Prosecuting
attorneys have argued that positive blood and urine tests are worthless to
detect diversion, because the patient was diverting all along, and only took
their medication to pass the lab test. For this reason, it is necessary to
initiate a testing program by ambush. Preferably the blood and urine are
obtained in the office. A second option is to require the patient to go
directly to the lab following their appointment.
Results
obtained in this fashion can be crosschecked by having the patient bring in
their medications, so that they can be observed taking their prescribed dose.
This is followed shortly by testing for blood levels.
Blood
and urine testing for opioids should be obtained for every patient, on a
regular schedule. This should include urine testing for common drugs of abuse,
and blood testing for every medication the doctor is prescribing, and the
metabolites of each medication prescribed.
All
decision making, and the resulting plan of action must be clearly documented in
the medical record. Otherwise, it will be second-guessed by prosecuting attorneys,
and the "experts" they hire to nitpick through every element of care. One must
assume that the "expert" who will be reviewing the charts is completely
ignorant about the meaning of lab test results, but that he will think he knows
everything. These guys are dangerous
.
.
Comments/Opinions
Frank B. Fisher, MD
frankbfisher@earthlink.net
510-233-3490
Or
webmaster@cpmission.com