Cost and Efficacy Assessment of an Alternative Medication Compliance Urine Drug Testing Strategy.

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.