Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35304767›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2023

Evaluation of adherence monitoring in buprenorphine treatment: A pilot study using timed drug assays to determine accuracy of testing.

Nazila Jamshidi, Akshay Athavale, Christopher Tremonti, Catherine McDonald, Shanmugam Banukumar, Santiago Vazquez, Natasha Luquin, Marina Santiago, Bridin Murnion

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Nazila JamshidiDrug Health Services, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney Local Health District, New South Wales, Australia.
Akshay AthavaleDrug Health Services, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney Local Health District, New South Wales, Australia.
Christopher TremontiDrug Health Services, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney Local Health District, New South Wales, Australia.
Catherine McDonaldForensic & Environmental Toxicology, Forensic & Analytical Science Service, NSW Health Pathology, New South Wales, Australia.
Shanmugam BanukumarForensic & Environmental Toxicology, Forensic & Analytical Science Service, NSW Health Pathology, New South Wales, Australia.
Santiago VazquezForensic & Environmental Toxicology, Forensic & Analytical Science Service, NSW Health Pathology, New South Wales, Australia.
Natasha LuquinDepartment of Medical Genomics, NSW Health Pathology, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, New South Wales, Australia.
Marina SantiagoMacquarie Medical School, Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9388-8309
Bridin MurnionFaculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, New South Wales.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7791-3025
New South Wales Department of Health · AUThe University of Sydney · AURoyal Prince Alfred Hospital · AUMacquarie University · AU

Funding

NHMRC APP 1059542
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsBuprenorphine is effective at reducing relapse to opioid misuse, morbidity and mortality in opioid-dependent patients. Urine drug screening (UDS) to assess adherence is used routinely in opioid agonist treatment (OAT). The primary aim of this study was to determine factors which may be associated with a negative qualitative urine drug screen for buprenorphine in OAT patients.

methodsThis prospective pilot study was conducted at a tertiary addiction medicine centre. Twenty participants on stable treatment underwent supervised administration of sublingual buprenorphine. Matched urine and blood samples were collected prior to and 2, 4 and 6 hours after buprenorphine administration. Qualitative urine drug screen results were obtained using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS), while quantitative blood and urine results were obtained using ultra-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (UPLC-MS/MS).

resultsQualitative urine assay yielded a negative result for buprenorphine in 57% of tested samples. The median concentration of urinary buprenorphine was 167 mcg/L (range: 2-1730 mcg/L). Thirty percent of all blood samples did not detect buprenorphine (range 0-18 mcg/L). Positive qualitative urine drug screen results were associated with higher urine (343 mcg/L compared with 75 mcg/L; P < .05) and blood (4 mcg/L compared with 2 mcg/L; P < .05) buprenorphine concentrations. Median urine concentrations of buprenorphine were highest at 2 hours and were higher in participants receiving CYP3A4 inhibitors.

conclusionInterpretation of qualitative urine drug screens to assess adherence in OAT is complex. Poor adherence with treatment cannot be assumed in patients returning a negative qualitative GC-MS urine drug screen.

Indexed as

BuprenorphineAnalgesics, OpioidChromatography, LiquidHumansMedication AdherencePilot ProjectsProspective StudiesTandem Mass SpectrometryAnalgesics, OpioidBuprenorphineaddictionmass spectrometryopioids

Identifiers

PMID35304767
PMCPMC10952243
OpenAlexW4220973346

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.