TY - JOUR
KW - Analgesics, Opioid/adverse effects/therapeutic use/urine
KW - Biomarkers/urine
KW - Chromatography, Liquid
KW - Chronic Pain/diagnosis/drug therapy/urine
KW - Drug Monitoring/methods/standards
KW - Humans
KW - Medication Adherence
KW - Opioid-Related Disorders/diagnosis/prevention & control/urine
KW - Patient Safety
KW - Practice Patterns, Physicians'
KW - Predictive Value of Tests
KW - Reproducibility of Results
KW - Risk Assessment
KW - Risk Factors
KW - Substance Abuse Detection/methods/standards
KW - Tandem Mass Spectrometry
KW - United States
KW - United States Food and Drug Administration/standards
KW - Urinalysis
AU - S. D. Passik
AU - K. L. Kirsh
AU - R. K. Twillman
A1 - 
AB - OBJECTIVE: Both prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMP) and urine drug testing (UDT) are recommended as parts of an ongoing risk management approach for controlled substance prescribing. The authors provide an editorial and commentary to discuss the unique contributions of each to promote better clinical decision making for prescribers. DESIGN: A commentary is employed along with brief discussion comparing four states with an active PDMP in place to three states without an active PDMP as it relates back to findings on UDT in those states from a laboratory conducting liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry. CONCLUSIONS: The commentary focuses on the place of both tools (UDT and PDMP) in risk management efforts. The argument is made that relying on a PDMP alone would lead to clinical decisions that may miss a great deal of problematic or aberrant behaviors.
BT - Journal of opioid management
C5 - Opioids & Substance Use
CP - 1
CY - United States
DO - 10.5055/jom.2015.0255
IS - 1
JF - Journal of opioid management
N2 - OBJECTIVE: Both prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMP) and urine drug testing (UDT) are recommended as parts of an ongoing risk management approach for controlled substance prescribing. The authors provide an editorial and commentary to discuss the unique contributions of each to promote better clinical decision making for prescribers. DESIGN: A commentary is employed along with brief discussion comparing four states with an active PDMP in place to three states without an active PDMP as it relates back to findings on UDT in those states from a laboratory conducting liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry. CONCLUSIONS: The commentary focuses on the place of both tools (UDT and PDMP) in risk management efforts. The argument is made that relying on a PDMP alone would lead to clinical decisions that may miss a great deal of problematic or aberrant behaviors.
PP - United States
PY - 2015
SN - 1551-7489; 1551-7489
SP - 77
EP - 81
EP - 
T1 - FDA/DEA/PDMP/UDT: alphabet soup or sensible and integrated risk management?
T2 - Journal of opioid management
TI - FDA/DEA/PDMP/UDT: alphabet soup or sensible and integrated risk management?
U1 - Opioids & Substance Use
U2 - 25750168
U3 - 10.5055/jom.2015.0255
VL - 11
VO - 1551-7489; 1551-7489
Y1 - 2015
ER -