Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41254612›Full record

ArticleHarm reduction journal2025

Harm reduction in the fourth wave of the opioid epidemic: A case series investigation of the effectiveness of definitive vs presumptive urine drug testing for opioid use disorder with co-occurring polysubstance use.

Richard H Cales, Campbell L Bishop, Martin R Huecker, Jacob Shreffler, Matthew D Eisenstat, D J Troutt

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Harm reduction journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Richard H CalesDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Louisville School of Medicine, 830 S. Jackson St., C1H17, Louisville, Kentucky, 40202, United States. rcales@nulease.com.ORCID 0000-0002-8426-7110
Campbell L BishopDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Louisville School of Medicine, 830 S. Jackson St., C1H17, Louisville, Kentucky, 40202, United States.
Martin R HueckerDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Louisville School of Medicine, 830 S. Jackson St., C1H17, Louisville, Kentucky, 40202, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-5214-2885
Jacob ShrefflerDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Louisville School of Medicine, 830 S. Jackson St., C1H17, Louisville, Kentucky, 40202, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-6023-0594
Matthew D EisenstatDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Louisville School of Medicine, 830 S. Jackson St., C1H17, Louisville, Kentucky, 40202, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-4369-1334
D J TrouttNuLease Medical Solutions, LLC, Louisville, Kentucky, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe report investigating effectiveness and medical necessity of urine drug testing in a real-world setting comparing near-real-time definitive chromatography/mass spectrometry to real-time presumptive immunoassay for guiding evidence-based harm reduction in a buprenorphine medication for opioid use disorder clinic during the initial swell of the opioid epidemic's fourth wave.

methodsOur exploratory case series included all opioid use disorder patients, most of whom exhibited co-occurring polysubstance use, treated with buprenorphine for one year in a single outpatient clinic. Interventions entailed split-sample urine drug testing comparing "gold standard" definitive laboratory chromatography/mass spectrometry testing to less-costly presumptive point-of-care immunoassay testing, which is more susceptible to false-positive and false-negative results. Analysis evaluated changes to clinical decision-making (i.e., escalation to outpatient crisis management) based on head-to-head definitive chromatography/mass spectrometry vs. presumptive immunoassay testing.

resultsComparison of chromatography/mass spectrometry vs. immunoassay testing in 883 patients eliminated 1847 (14.6%) false-positive results in 458 (51.9%) patients. Mass spectrometry further identified an additional 7086 (69.1%) test results warranting reconsideration of clinical decision-making in 767 (86.9%, p < 0.001) patients. Most false-negative and the additional positive results detected solely by definitive chromatography/mass spectrometry testing comprised substances often associated with polysubstance use in overdose deaths, including methamphetamine, fentanyl, benzodiazepines, heroin and cocaine.

conclusionsMass spectrometry urine drug testing for patients with opioid use disorder and co-occurring polysubstance use provided evidence-based criteria substantiating the notable superiority of definitive testing at nominal additional cost by identifying significant additional instances of risky substance use necessitating harm reduction interventions for substances that would have remained undetected and untreated if testing were limited to presumptive immunoassay testing.

Indexed as

Harm ReductionOpioid EpidemicOpioid-Related DisordersSubstance Abuse DetectionSubstance-Related DisordersAdultBuprenorphineFemaleHumansImmunoassayMaleMass SpectrometryMiddle AgedOpiate Substitution TreatmentBuprenorphineAdulterantsClinical decision-makingEvidence-basedFourth waveHarm reductionMedical necessityNear real-timeOpioid use disorderPolysubstance use“Smarter” drug testingUnintentional overdoseUrine drug testing

Identifiers

PMID41254612
PMCPMC12625309

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.