Quantitative Testing of Buprenorphine and Norbuprenorphine to Identify Urine Sample Spiking during Office-Based Opioid Treatment

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Buprenorphine diversion urine adulteration urine testing

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. Clinical Guidelines for the Use of Buprenorphine in the Treatment of Opioid Addiction. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; 2004.

Jaffee

, Trucco

, Levy

, Weiss

. Is this urine really negative? A systematic review of tampering methods in urine drug screening and testing. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2007;33:33–42.

Lee

, Bazydlo

LAL

, Reisfield

, Goldberger

. Urine spiking in a pain medicine clinic: an attempt to simulate adherence. Pain Med. 2014;1449–51. doi: 10.1111/pme.12663

Person

, Ehrenkranz

. Fake urine samples for drug analysis: hot, but not hot enough. JAMA. 1988;259:841.

Hull MJ, Bierer MF, Griggs DA, Long WH, Nixon AL, Flood JG. Urinary buprenorphine concentrations in patients treated with Suboxone®; as determined by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry and CEDIA immunoassay. J Anal Toxicol. 2008;32:516–521.

Tzatzarakis MN, Vakonaki E, Kovatsi L et al. Determination of buprenorphine, norbuprenorphine and naloxone in fingernail clippings and urine of patients under opioid substitution therapy. J Anal Toxicol. 2015;39:313–320.

Yokell

, Zaller

, Green

, Rich

. Buprenorphine and buprenorphine/naloxone diversion, misuse, and illicit use: an international review. Curr Drug Abuse Rev. 2011;4:28–41.

Havnes

, Clausen

, Middelthon

. ‘Diversion’ of methadone or buprenorphine: ‘harm’ versus ‘helping’. Harm Reduct J. 2013;10:24.

Johnson

, Richert

. Diversion of methadone and buprenorphine from opioid substitution treatment: patients who regularly sell or share their medication. J Addict Dis. 2014;1–17. doi: 10.1080/10550887.2014.975617

10.

Winstock

, Lea

, Sheridan

. Prevalence of diversion and injection of methadone and buprenorphine among clients receiving opioid treatment at community pharmacies in New South Wales, Australia. Int J Drug Policy. 2008;19:450–458.

11.

Winstock

, Lea

. Diversion and injection of methadone and buprenorphine among clients in public opioid treatment clinics in New South Wales, Australia. Subst. Use Misuse. 2010;45:240–252.

12.

Larance B, Lintzeris N, Ali R et al. The diversion and injection of a buprenorphine-naloxone soluble film formulation. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2014;136:21–27.

13.

Lofwall MR , Wunsch

, Nuzzo

, Walsh

. Efficacy of continuing medical education to reduce the risk of buprenorphine diversion. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2011;41:321–329.

14.

Wright

, D'Agnone

, Krajci

. Addressing misuse and diversion of opioid substitution medication: guidance based on systematic evidence review and real-world experience. J. Public Health. 2015;e368–e374. doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fdv150

15.

Belivanis

, Tzatzarakis

, Vakonaki

. Buprenorphine and nor-buprenorphine levels in head hair samples from former heroin users under Suboxone® treatment. Drug Test Anal. 2014;6(Suppl 1):93–100.

16.

Vindenes

, Yttredal

, Oiestad

. Oral fluid is a viable alternative for monitoring drug abuse: detection of drugs in oral fluid by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry and comparison to the results from urine samples from patients treated with methadone or buprenorphine. J Anal Toxicol. 2011;35:32–39.