Abstract
Background Urine drug screening (UDS) assays can rapidly and sensitively detect drugs of abuse, but can also produce spurious results due to interfering substances. We previously developed an approach to identify interfering medications using electronic health record (EHR) data, but the approach was limited to UDS assays for which presumptive positives were confirmed using more specific methods. Here we adapted the approach to search for medications that cause false positives on UDS assays lacking confirmation data.
Methods From our institution’s EHR data, we used our previous dataset of 698,651 UDS and confirmation results. We also collected 211,108 UDS results for acetaminophen, ethanol, and salicylates. Both datasets included individuals’ prior medication exposures. We hypothesized that the odds of a presumptive positive would increase following exposure to an interfering ingredient independently of exposure to the assay’s target drug(s). For a given assay-ingredient pair, we quantified potential interference as an odds ratio from logistic regression. We evaluated interference of selected compounds in spiking experiments.
Results Compared to the approach requiring confirmation data, our adapted approach showed only modestly diminished ability to detect interfering ingredients. Applying our approach to the new data, three ingredients had a higher odds ratio on the acetaminophen assay than acetaminophen itself did: levodopa, carbidopa, and entacapone. The first two, as well as related compounds methyldopa and alpha-methyldopamine, produced presumptive positives at < 40 μg/mL.
Conclusions Our approach can reveal interfering medications using EHR data from institutions at which UDS results are not routinely confirmed.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported in part by CTSA award UL1TR002243 from NCATS/NIH. The Vanderbilt Synthetic Derivative is supported by institutional funding and by CTSA award UL1TR002243 from NCATS/NIH.
Author Declarations
All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.
Yes
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Code and summary results for this study are available at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.12067233.
