Cost and efficacy assessment of an alternative medication compliance urine drug testing strategy

Abstract

Objective. This study investigates the frequency at which quantitative results provide additional clinical benefit compared to qualitative results alone. A comparison between alternative urine drug screens and conventional screens including the assessment of cost-to-payer differences, accuracy of prescription compliance or polypharmacy/substance abuse was also included. Setting and Methods. In a reference laboratory evaluation of urine specimens from across the United States, 213 urine specimens with provided prescription medication information (302 prescriptions) were analyzed by two testing algorithms: 1) conventional immunoassay screen with subsequent reflexive testing of positive results by quantitative mass spectrometry; and 2) a combined immunoassay/ qualitative mass-spectrometry screen that substantially reduced the need for subsequent testing. Results. The qualitative screen was superior to immunoassay with reflex to mass spectrometry in confirming compliance per prescription (226/302 vs 205/302), and identifying non-prescription abuse (97 vs 71). Pharmaceutical impurities and inconsistent drug metabolite patterns were detected in only 3.8% of specimens, suggesting that quantitative results have limited benefit. The percentage difference between the conventional testing algorithm and the alternative screen was projected to be 55%, and a 2- year evaluation of test utilization as a measure of test order volume follows an exponential trend for alternative screen test orders over conventional immunoassay screens that require subsequent confirmation testing. Conclusion. Alternative, qualitative urine drug screens provide a less expensive, faster, and more comprehensive evaluation of patient medication compliance and drug abuse. The vast majority of results were interpretable with qualitative results alone indicating a reduced need to automatically reflex to quantitation or provide quantitation for the majority of patients. This strategy highlights a successful approach using an alternative strategy for both the laboratory and physician to align clinical needs while being mindful of costs.