UpToDate
Official reprint from UpToDate®
www.uptodate.com ©2016 UpToDate®

Testing for drugs of abuse (DOA)

Author
Robert J Hoffman, MD
Section Editor
Stephen J Traub, MD
Deputy Editor
Jonathan Grayzel, MD, FAAEM

INTRODUCTION

For the purpose of this topic, "drug of abuse" is defined as a drug, chemical, or plant product that is known to be misused for recreational purposes. Although drug of abuse (DOA) testing is routinely performed in the clinical setting, many studies evaluating such screening have failed to demonstrate clinical benefit, and most toxicologists suggest obtaining such testing only when there is a clear indication [1-3].

The apparent simplicity of the results provided with a DOA screen, typically reported as negative or positive for the presence of a given drug, can mislead clinicians into believing that DOA testing is straightforward and the results easy to interpret. In fact, DOA testing is extremely complex and proper interpretation requires specialized knowledge. Several studies of DOA testing show that many clinicians who regularly order DOA tests do not understand proper testing techniques, which drugs are detected, or how to properly interpret positive and negative results [4-6]. Proper interpretation of the results of a DOA screen depends upon the clinical context. Clinicians must consider the type of testing being performed, level of suspicion for drug use or exposure (ie, pretest probability), purpose of obtaining the test, and likelihood of false-positive and false-negative results.

This topic will review important concepts and issues involved in DOA testing in clinical settings, particularly the emergency or acute care setting. It is not intended to guide workplace or most forensic DOA testing, and does not address issues related to nonclinical DOA testing. Management of the poisoned patient, therapeutic drug monitoring, and the use of serum drug concentrations to diagnose or aid in the management of toxicity from specific medications are reviewed separately. (See "General approach to drug poisoning in adults" and "Initial management of the critically ill adult with an unknown overdose" and "Approach to the child with occult toxic exposure".)

WHAT IS INCLUDED IN A BASIC DOA SCREEN?

The basic DOA screen used consistently across the United States tests for five drugs:

Amphetamine (see "Acute amphetamine and synthetic cathinone (“bath salt”) intoxication" and "Methamphetamine intoxication")

                                  

Subscribers log in here

To continue reading this article, you must log in with your personal, hospital, or group practice subscription. For more information or to purchase a personal subscription, click below on the option that best describes you:
Literature review current through: Nov 2016. | This topic last updated: Tue Feb 23 00:00:00 GMT+00:00 2016.
The content on the UpToDate website is not intended nor recommended as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your own physician or other qualified health care professional regarding any medical questions or conditions. The use of this website is governed by the UpToDate Terms of Use ©2016 UpToDate, Inc.
References
Top
  1. Tenenbein M. Do you really need that emergency drug screen? Clin Toxicol (Phila) 2009; 47:286.
  2. Montague RE, Grace RF, Lewis JH, Shenfield GM. Urine drug screens in overdose patients do not contribute to immediate clinical management. Ther Drug Monit 2001; 23:47.
  3. Belson MG, Simon HK, Sullivan K, Geller RJ. The utility of toxicologic analysis in children with suspected ingestions. Pediatr Emerg Care 1999; 15:383.
  4. Durback LF, Scharman EJ, Brown BS. Emergency physicians perceptions of drug screens at their own hospitals. Vet Hum Toxicol 1998; 40:234.
  5. Reisfield GM, Webb FJ, Bertholf RL, et al. Family physicians' proficiency in urine drug test interpretation. J Opioid Manag 2007; 3:333.
  6. Starrels JL, Fox AD, Kunins HV, Cunningham CO. They don't know what they don't know: internal medicine residents' knowledge and confidence in urine drug test interpretation for patients with chronic pain. J Gen Intern Med 2012; 27:1521.
  7. Federal Register, Vol 59, June 9, 1994, (59 CFR 29908). http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1994-06-09/html/94-13940.htm (Accessed on February 13, 2014).
  8. Melanson SE, Baskin L, Magnani B, et al. Interpretation and utility of drug of abuse immunoassays: lessons from laboratory drug testing surveys. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2010; 134:735.
  9. Manchikanti L, Abdi S, Atluri S, et al. American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) guidelines for responsible opioid prescribing in chronic non-cancer pain: Part 2--guidance. Pain Physician 2012; 15:S67.
  10. Christo PJ, Manchikanti L, Ruan X, et al. Urine drug testing in chronic pain. Pain Physician 2011; 14:123.
  11. Jamison RN, Ross EL, Michna E, et al. Substance misuse treatment for high-risk chronic pain patients on opioid therapy: a randomized trial. Pain 2010; 150:390.
  12. Michna E, Jamison RN, Pham LD, et al. Urine toxicology screening among chronic pain patients on opioid therapy: frequency and predictability of abnormal findings. Clin J Pain 2007; 23:173.
  13. Manchikanti L, Manchukonda R, Pampati V, et al. Does random urine drug testing reduce illicit drug use in chronic pain patients receiving opioids? Pain Physician 2006; 9:123.
  14. Katz NP, Sherburne S, Beach M, et al. Behavioral monitoring and urine toxicology testing in patients receiving long-term opioid therapy. Anesth Analg 2003; 97:1097.
  15. Perrone J, De Roos F, Jayaraman S, Hollander JE. Drug screening versus history in detection of substance use in ED psychiatric patients. Am J Emerg Med 2001; 19:49.
  16. Skelton H, Dann LM, Ong RT, et al. Drug screening of patients who deliberately harm themselves admitted to the emergency department. Ther Drug Monit 1998; 20:98.
  17. Shihabuddin BS, Hack CM, Sivitz AB. Role of urine drug screening in the medical clearance of pediatric psychiatric patients: is there one? Pediatr Emerg Care 2013; 29:903.
  18. Schiller MJ, Shumway M, Batki SL. Utility of routine drug screening in a psychiatric emergency setting. Psychiatr Serv 2000; 51:474.
  19. Fortu JM, Kim IK, Cooper A, et al. Psychiatric patients in the pediatric emergency department undergoing routine urine toxicology screens for medical clearance: results and use. Pediatr Emerg Care 2009; 25:387.
  20. Broderick KB, Lerner EB, McCourt JD, et al. Emergency physician practices and requirements regarding the medical screening examination of psychiatric patients. Acad Emerg Med 2002; 9:88.
  21. Couto JE, Romney MC, Leider HL, et al. High rates of inappropriate drug use in the chronic pain population. Popul Health Manag 2009; 12:185.
  22. Cone EJ, Caplan YH, Black DL, et al. Urine drug testing of chronic pain patients: licit and illicit drug patterns. J Anal Toxicol 2008; 32:530.
  23. Drummer OH, Kourtis I, Beyer J, et al. The prevalence of drugs in injured drivers. Forensic Sci Int 2012; 215:14.
  24. Figl M, Pelinka LE, Weninger P, et al. Urine toxicology screening in Austrian trauma patients: a prospective study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2010; 130:883.
  25. Davey J, Leal N, Freeman J. Screening for drugs in oral fluid: illicit drug use and drug driving in a sample of Queensland motorists. Drug Alcohol Rev 2007; 26:301.
  26. Walsh JM, Flegel R, Cangianelli LA, et al. Epidemiology of alcohol and other drug use among motor vehicle crash victims admitted to a trauma center. Traffic Inj Prev 2004; 5:254.
  27. Macdonald S, Anglin-Bodrug K, Mann RE, et al. Injury risk associated with cannabis and cocaine use. Drug Alcohol Depend 2003; 72:99.
  28. Levy RS, Hebert CK, Munn BG, Barrack RL. Drug and alcohol use in orthopedic trauma patients: a prospective study. J Orthop Trauma 1996; 10:21.
  29. Orsay EM, Doan-Wiggins L, Lewis R, et al. The impaired driver: hospital and police detection of alcohol and other drugs of abuse in motor vehicle crashes. Ann Emerg Med 1994; 24:51.
  30. Loiselle JM, Baker MD, Templeton JM Jr, et al. Substance abuse in adolescent trauma. Ann Emerg Med 1993; 22:1530.
  31. Clark RF, Harchelroad F. Toxicology screening of the trauma patient: a changing profile. Ann Emerg Med 1991; 20:151.
  32. Heinemann AW, Schnoll S, Brandt M, et al. Toxicology screening in acute spinal cord injury. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 1988; 12:815.
  33. Ricci G, Majori S, Mantovani W, et al. Prevalence of alcohol and drugs in urine of patients involved in road accidents. J Prev Med Hyg 2008; 49:89.
  34. Soderstrom CA, Dailey JT, Kerns TJ. Alcohol and other drugs: an assessment of testing and clinical practices in U.S. trauma centers. J Trauma 1994; 36:68.
  35. Bast RP, Helmer SD, Henson SR, et al. Limited utility of routine drug screening in trauma patients. South Med J 2000; 93:397.
  36. Langdorf MI, Rudkin SE, Dellota K, et al. Decision rule and utility of routine urine toxicology screening of trauma patients. Eur J Emerg Med 2002; 9:115.
  37. Brett AS. Implications of discordance between clinical impression and toxicology analysis in drug overdose. Arch Intern Med 1988; 148:437.
  38. Hayek SN, Wibbenmeyer LA, Kealey LD, et al. The efficacy of hair and urine toxicology screening on the detection of child abuse by burning. J Burn Care Res 2009; 30:587.
  39. ElSohly MA, Salamone SJ. Prevalence of drugs used in cases of alleged sexual assault. J Anal Toxicol 1999; 23:141.
  40. Annas GJ. Testing poor pregnant patients for cocaine--physicians as police investigators. N Engl J Med 2001; 344:1729.
  41. American Academy of Pediatrics. Committee on Substance Abuse. American Academy of Pediatrics. Committee on Substance Abuse. Tobacco, alcohol, and other drugs: the role of the pediatrician in prevention and management of substance abuse. Pediatrics 1998; 101:125.
  42. Foley EM. Drug screening and criminal prosecution of pregnant women. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2002; 31:133.
  43. Teitelbaum J, Rosenbaum S, Goplerud E. State laws permitting intoxication exclusions in insurance contracts: implications for public health policy and practice. Public Health Rep 2004; 119:585.
  44. Kon AA, Pretzlaff RK, Marcin JP. The association of race and ethnicity with rates of drug and alcohol testing among US trauma patients. Health Policy 2004; 69:159.
  45. Marcin JP, Pretzlaff RK, Whittaker HL, Kon AA. Evaluation of race and ethnicity on alcohol and drug testing of adolescents admitted with trauma. Acad Emerg Med 2003; 10:1253.
  46. Gallardo E, Queiroz JA. The role of alternative specimens in toxicological analysis. Biomed Chromatogr 2008; 22:795.
  47. Walsh JM. New technology and new initiatives in U.S. workplace testing. Forensic Sci Int 2008; 174:120.
  48. Moody DE, Fang WB, Andrenyak DM, et al. A comparative evaluation of the instant-view 5-panel test card with OnTrak TesTcup Pro 5: comparison with gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. J Anal Toxicol 2006; 30:50.
  49. Peace MR, Poklis JL, Tarnai LD, Poklis A. An evaluation of the OnTrak Testcup-er on-site urine drug-testing device for drugs commonly encountered from emergency departments. J Anal Toxicol 2002; 26:500.
  50. Crouch DJ, Hersch RK, Cook RF, et al. A field evaluation of five on-site drug-testing devices. J Anal Toxicol 2002; 26:493.
  51. Lin CN, Nelson GJ, McMillin GA. Evaluation of the NexScreen and DrugCheck Waive RT urine drug detection cups. J Anal Toxicol 2013; 37:30.
  52. Biermann T, Schwarze B, Zedler B, Betz P. On-site testing of illicit drugs: the use of the drug-testing device "Toxiquick". Forensic Sci Int 2004; 143:21.
  53. Walsh JM, Flegel R, Crouch DJ, et al. An evaluation of rapid point-of-collection oral fluid drug-testing devices. J Anal Toxicol 2003; 27:429.
  54. Attema-de Jonge ME, Peeters SY, Franssen EJ. Performance of three point-of-care urinalysis test devices for drugs of abuse and therapeutic drugs applied in the emergency department. J Emerg Med 2012; 42:682.
  55. George S, Braithwaite RA. Use of on-site testing for drugs of abuse. Clin Chem 2002; 48:1639.
  56. Taylor EH, Oertli EH, Wolfgang JW, Mueller E. Accuracy of five on-site immunoassay drugs-of-abuse testing devices. J Anal Toxicol 1999; 23:119.
  57. Bush DM. The U.S. Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs: current status and future considerations. Forensic Sci Int 2008; 174:111.
  58. Brookoff D, Cook CS, Williams C, Mann CS. Testing reckless drivers for cocaine and marijuana. N Engl J Med 1994; 331:518.
  59. Boroda A, Akhter R. Hallucinations in a child: a case demonstrating the pitfalls of urine dipstick drug testing. J Forensic Leg Med 2008; 15:198.
  60. Rogers SC, Pruitt CW, Crouch DJ, Caravati EM. Rapid urine drug screens: diphenhydramine and methadone cross-reactivity. Pediatr Emerg Care 2010; 26:665.
  61. Baker JE, Jenkins AJ. Screening for cocaine metabolite fails to detect an intoxication. Am J Forensic Med Pathol 2008; 29:141.
  62. Cone EJ, Sampson-Cone AH, Darwin WD, et al. Urine testing for cocaine abuse: metabolic and excretion patterns following different routes of administration and methods for detection of false-negative results. J Anal Toxicol 2003; 27:386.
  63. Price JW. Dilution of urine drug tests: is it random? J Addict Med 2013; 7:405.
  64. Cone EJ, Lange R, Darwin WD. In vivo adulteration: excess fluid ingestion causes false-negative marijuana and cocaine urine test results. J Anal Toxicol 1998; 22:460.
  65. Chaturvedi AK, Sershon JL, Craft KJ, et al. Effects of fluid load on human urine characteristics related to workplace drug testing. J Anal Toxicol 2013; 37:5.
  66. Tilley MA, Cotant CL. Acute water intoxication during military urine drug screening. Mil Med 2011; 176:451.
  67. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Use of niacin in attempts to defeat urine drug testing--five states, January-September 2006. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2007; 56:365.
  68. Mittal MK, Florin T, Perrone J, et al. Toxicity from the use of niacin to beat urine drug screening. Ann Emerg Med 2007; 50:587.
  69. Uebel RA, Wium CA. Toxicological screening for drugs of abuse in samples adulterated with household chemicals. S Afr Med J 2002; 92:547.
  70. Warner A. Interference of common household chemicals in immunoassay methods for drugs of abuse. Clin Chem 1989; 35:648.
  71. Cody JT, Valtier S, Kuhlman J. Analysis of morphine and codeine in samples adulterated with Stealth. J Anal Toxicol 2001; 25:572.
  72. Venkatratnam A, Lents NH. Zinc reduces the detection of cocaine, methamphetamine, and THC by ELISA urine testing. J Anal Toxicol 2011; 35:333.
  73. Lin CN, Strathmann FG. Elevated urine zinc concentration reduces the detection of methamphetamine, cocaine, THC and opiates in urine by EMIT. J Anal Toxicol 2013; 37:665.
  74. Paul BD, Jacobs A. Spectrophotometric detection of iodide and chromic (III) in urine after oxidation to iodine and chromate (VI). J Anal Toxicol 2005; 29:658.
  75. Larson SJ, Holler JM, Magluilo J Jr, et al. Papain adulteration in 11-nor-Delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol- 9-carboxylic acid-positive urine samples. J Anal Toxicol 2008; 32:438.
  76. Burrows DL, Nicolaides A, Rice PJ, et al. Papain: a novel urine adulterant. J Anal Toxicol 2005; 29:275.
  77. Valtier S, Cody JT. A procedure for the detection of Stealth adulterant in urine samples. Clin Lab Sci 2002; 15:111.
  78. Wu AH, Bristol B, Sexton K, et al. Adulteration of urine by "Urine Luck". Clin Chem 1999; 45:1051.
  79. Paul BD, Jacobs A. Effects of oxidizing adulterants on detection of 11-nor-delta9-THC-9-carboxylic acid in urine. J Anal Toxicol 2002; 26:460.
  80. Welsh KJ, Dierksen JE, Actor JK, Dasgupta A. Novel spot tests for detecting the presence of zinc sulfate in urine, a newly introduced urinary adulterant to invalidate drugs of abuse testing. Am J Clin Pathol 2013; 140:572.
  81. Peace MR, Tarnai LD. Performance evaluation of three on-site adulterant detection devices for urine specimens. J Anal Toxicol 2002; 26:464.
  82. Ferslew KE, Hagardorn AN, Robert TA. Capillary ion electrophoresis of endogenous anions and anionic adulterants in human urine. J Forensic Sci 2001; 46:615.
  83. Cody JT, Valtier S. Effects of Stealth adulterant on immunoassay testing for drugs of abuse. J Anal Toxicol 2001; 25:466.
  84. Wu AH, McKay C, Broussard LA, et al. National academy of clinical biochemistry laboratory medicine practice guidelines: recommendations for the use of laboratory tests to support poisoned patients who present to the emergency department. Clin Chem 2003; 49:357.
  85. Mazor SS, Mycyk MB, Wills BK, et al. Coca tea consumption causes positive urine cocaine assay. Eur J Emerg Med 2006; 13:340.
  86. Altunkaya D, Smith RN. Aberrant radioimmunoassay results for cannabinoids in urine. Forensic Sci Int 1990; 47:195.
  87. Rollins DE, Jennison TA, Jones G. Investigation of interference by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in urine tests for abused drugs. Clin Chem 1990; 36:602.
  88. Cotten SW, Duncan DL, Burch EA, et al. Unexpected interference of baby wash products with a cannabinoid (THC) immunoassay. Clin Biochem 2012; 45:605.
  89. Costantino A, Schwartz RH, Kaplan P. Hemp oil ingestion causes positive urine tests for delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol carboxylic acid. J Anal Toxicol 1997; 21:482.
  90. Huestis MA, Mitchell JM, Cone EJ. Detection times of marijuana metabolites in urine by immunoassay and GC-MS. J Anal Toxicol 1995; 19:443.
  91. Dackis CA, Pottash AL, Annitto W, Gold MS. Persistence of urinary marijuana levels after supervised abstinence. Am J Psychiatry 1982; 139:1196.
  92. Rengarajan A, Mullins ME. How often do false-positive phencyclidine urine screens occur with use of common medications? Clin Toxicol (Phila) 2013; 51:493.
  93. Ly BT, Thornton SL, Buono C, et al. False-positive urine phencyclidine immunoassay screen result caused by interference by tramadol and its metabolites. Ann Emerg Med 2012; 59:545.