High concordance between urine toxicology results and self-reported fentanyl use in Nevada and New Mexico.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 TOXICOLOGY
Mia Rae Kirk, May McCarthy, Andres Reyes, Benjamin Chase, Jessica Anderson, Robert W Harding, Phillip Fiuty, Kimberly Page, Karla D Wagner
{"title":"High concordance between urine toxicology results and self-reported fentanyl use in Nevada and New Mexico.","authors":"Mia Rae Kirk, May McCarthy, Andres Reyes, Benjamin Chase, Jessica Anderson, Robert W Harding, Phillip Fiuty, Kimberly Page, Karla D Wagner","doi":"10.1080/15563650.2024.2391011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Co-use of stimulants and opioids is often deliberate. However, the possibility remains that some people are unintentionally consuming fentanyl. To advance understanding of overdose risk, we examined the rate of concordance between self-reported fentanyl use and corresponding urine toxicology screen results.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Between August 2022-August 2023, 411 participants (adults who reported any non-medical drug use in the past three months) in Nevada and New Mexico completed a cross-sectional survey, of whom 64% (<i>n</i> = 270; the analytical sample) also completed a urine toxicology screen, which detects fentanyl use in the past three days. Positive predictive value, negative predictive value, sensitivity, and specificity were calculated using self-reported past three-day fentanyl use (yes/no) and urine toxicology screen results for the presence of fentanyl (positive/negative).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 270 participants who provided a urine sample, 268 are included in the descriptive statistics (two with inconclusive urine toxicology screen results were excluded). Of the 268 participants, 146 (54.5%) had a fentanyl-positive urine toxicology screen result, 122 (45.5%) had a fentanyl-negative urine toxicology screen result, 137 (51.1%) reported past three-day fentanyl use, and 130 (48.5%) reported no past three-day fentanyl use. Only 6.9% of those with a fentanyl-positive urine toxicology screen did not report recent fentanyl use. The sensitivity of self-reported fentanyl use was 93%, specificity was 97%, positive predictive value was 97%, and negative predictive value was 92%.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The rate of unanticipated exposure to fentanyl (that is, positive urine screen and negative self-report) in this sample was low, at 6.9%. This runs counter to the national narrative that there is widespread unknown contamination of fentanyl in the drug supply.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Future research is needed to further explore how people who use multiple substances interpret their overdose risk and what harm reduction methods they employ.</p>","PeriodicalId":10430,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Toxicology","volume":" ","pages":"1-7"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Toxicology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15563650.2024.2391011","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"TOXICOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Co-use of stimulants and opioids is often deliberate. However, the possibility remains that some people are unintentionally consuming fentanyl. To advance understanding of overdose risk, we examined the rate of concordance between self-reported fentanyl use and corresponding urine toxicology screen results.

Methods: Between August 2022-August 2023, 411 participants (adults who reported any non-medical drug use in the past three months) in Nevada and New Mexico completed a cross-sectional survey, of whom 64% (n = 270; the analytical sample) also completed a urine toxicology screen, which detects fentanyl use in the past three days. Positive predictive value, negative predictive value, sensitivity, and specificity were calculated using self-reported past three-day fentanyl use (yes/no) and urine toxicology screen results for the presence of fentanyl (positive/negative).

Results: Of the 270 participants who provided a urine sample, 268 are included in the descriptive statistics (two with inconclusive urine toxicology screen results were excluded). Of the 268 participants, 146 (54.5%) had a fentanyl-positive urine toxicology screen result, 122 (45.5%) had a fentanyl-negative urine toxicology screen result, 137 (51.1%) reported past three-day fentanyl use, and 130 (48.5%) reported no past three-day fentanyl use. Only 6.9% of those with a fentanyl-positive urine toxicology screen did not report recent fentanyl use. The sensitivity of self-reported fentanyl use was 93%, specificity was 97%, positive predictive value was 97%, and negative predictive value was 92%.

Discussion: The rate of unanticipated exposure to fentanyl (that is, positive urine screen and negative self-report) in this sample was low, at 6.9%. This runs counter to the national narrative that there is widespread unknown contamination of fentanyl in the drug supply.

Conclusion: Future research is needed to further explore how people who use multiple substances interpret their overdose risk and what harm reduction methods they employ.

在内华达州和新墨西哥州,尿液毒理学结果与自我报告的芬太尼使用情况高度一致。
背景:同时使用兴奋剂和阿片类药物通常是故意的。然而,有些人仍有可能无意中服用了芬太尼。为了加深对用药过量风险的了解,我们研究了自我报告的芬太尼使用情况与相应的尿液毒理学筛查结果之间的吻合率:2022 年 8 月至 2023 年 8 月期间,内华达州和新墨西哥州的 411 名参与者(报告在过去三个月内使用过任何非医疗药物的成年人)完成了一项横断面调查,其中 64% 的参与者(n = 270;分析样本)还完成了尿液毒理学筛查,该筛查可检测过去三天内使用芬太尼的情况。利用自我报告的过去三天使用芬太尼的情况(是/否)和尿液毒理学筛查结果(阳性/阴性)计算阳性预测值、阴性预测值、灵敏度和特异性:在提供尿样的 270 名参与者中,有 268 人被纳入描述性统计(排除了两名尿液毒理学筛查结果不确定的参与者)。在这 268 名参与者中,146 人(54.5%)的尿液毒物学筛查结果呈芬太尼阳性,122 人(45.5%)的尿液毒物学筛查结果呈芬太尼阴性,137 人(51.1%)报告过去三天曾使用过芬太尼,130 人(48.5%)报告过去三天未使用过芬太尼。在尿液毒理筛查结果为芬太尼阳性的人群中,只有 6.9% 的人未报告近期使用过芬太尼。自我报告使用芬太尼的敏感性为 93%,特异性为 97%,阳性预测值为 97%,阴性预测值为 92%:在该样本中,非预期的芬太尼暴露率(即尿检阳性和自我报告阴性)很低,仅为 6.9%。这与国内关于毒品供应中普遍存在芬太尼未知污染的说法背道而驰:未来的研究需要进一步探讨使用多种药物的人如何解释他们的用药过量风险,以及他们采用了哪些减低危害的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Clinical Toxicology
Clinical Toxicology 医学-毒理学
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
12.10%
发文量
148
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: clinical Toxicology publishes peer-reviewed scientific research and clinical advances in clinical toxicology. The journal reflects the professional concerns and best scientific judgment of its sponsors, the American Academy of Clinical Toxicology, the European Association of Poisons Centres and Clinical Toxicologists, the American Association of Poison Control Centers and the Asia Pacific Association of Medical Toxicology and, as such, is the leading international journal in the specialty.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信