BACKGROUND:Bar code technology has decreased transcription errors in many healthcare applications. However, we have found that linear bar code identification methods are not failsafe. In this study, we sought to identify the sources of bar code decoding errors that generated incorrect patient identifiers when bar codes were scanned for point-of-care glucose testing and to develop solutions to prevent their occurrence.

Urine buprenorphine screening is utilized to assess buprenorphine compliance and to detect illicit use. Robust screening assays should be specific for buprenorphine without cross-reactivity with other opioids, which are frequently present in patients treated for opioid addiction and chronic pain. We evaluated the new Lin-Zhi urine buprenorphine enzyme immunoassay (EIA) as a potentially more specific alternative to the Microgenics cloned enzyme donor immunoassay (CEDIA) by using 149 urines originating from patients treated for chronic pain and opioid addiction. The EIA methodology offered specific detection of buprenorphine use (100%) (106/106) and provided superior overall agreement with liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry, 95% (142/149) and 91% (135/149) using 5 ng/mL (EIA[5]) and 10 ng/mL (EIA[10]) cutoffs, respectively, compared to CEDIA, 79% (117/149). CEDIA generated 27 false positives, most of which were observed in patients positive for other opioids, providing an overall specificity of 75% (79/106). CEDIA also demonstrated interference from structurally unrelated drugs, chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine. CEDIA and EIA[5] yielded similar sensitivities, both detecting 96% (22/23) of positive samples from patients prescribed buprenorphine, and 88% (38/43) and 81% (35/43), respectively, of all positive samples (illicit and prescribed users). The EIA methodology provides highly specific and sensitive detection of buprenorphine use, without the potential for opioid cross-reactivity.

No abstract