Context.—

The United States is experiencing an opioid overdose epidemic. Point-of-care (POC) drug of abuse testing is a useful tool to combat the intensified opioid epidemic.

Objectives.—

To review commercially available POC drug of abuse testing involving opioids, to review opportunities and challenges for POC opioid testing and emerging testing methods in research literature, and finally to summarize unmet clinical needs and future development prospects.

Data Sources.—

The Google search engine was used to access information for commercial opioid POC devices and the Google Scholar search engine was used to access research literature published from 2000 to 2019 for opioid POC tests.

Conclusions.—

The opioid epidemic provides unprecedented opportunities for POC drug testing, with significant clinical needs. Compared with gold standard tests, limitations for commercially available opioid POC testing include lower analytical sensitivity, lower specificity, and cross-reactivity. In response to unmet clinical needs, novel methods have emerged in research literature, such as microfluidics and miniature mass spectrometry. Future prospects include the development of quantitative POC devices and smarter and real-time drug testing.

Opioids are a class of drugs that can produce analgesic, depressant, and euphoric effects on the central nervous system.1  Generally, opioids can be classified as natural opiates, semisynthetic opioids, or synthetic opioids. Natural opiates, such as morphine and codeine, are found in the opium poppy; semisynthetic opioids, such as oxycodone, oxymorphone, hydrocodone, and hydromorphone, are derived from chemical modifications to natural opiates; and synthetic opioids, such as methadone and fentanyl, are manufactured chemically from other molecules. Opioids are also divided into illicit opioids (eg, heroin and illicitly produced fentanyl) and prescription opioids used as pain relievers (eg, morphine, codeine, oxycodone, hydrocodone, fentanyl, and methadone). Maladaptive use of prescribed or illicit opioids can decrease consciousness level and blood pressure, depress respiration, and constrict pupils.2  The impairment or distress caused by the opioid toxidrome within a 12-month period is clinically defined as opioid use disorder.3 

Currently, the United States is experiencing a national opioid epidemic. From 1999 to 2014, opioid overdose was the leading cause of death from poisoning.4  In 2017, 67.8% (47 600) of the 70 237 drug overdose deaths involved opioids, a 90% increase from 2013 (25 052); on average, more than 130 Americans die every day because of opioid-related overdoses.5  The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data of drug overdose deaths involving opioids in the United States between 2000 and 2017 are shown in Figure 1.6 

Figure 1

Drug overdose deaths involving opioids in the United States, 2000 through 2017. Three waves in the rise of opioid-related overdose deaths are marked with red stars separately. Data are from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.6 

Figure 1

Drug overdose deaths involving opioids in the United States, 2000 through 2017. Three waves in the rise of opioid-related overdose deaths are marked with red stars separately. Data are from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.6 

There are 3 distinct waves in the rising of opioid-related overdose deaths, marked with red stars separately in Figure 1. The first wave synchronized with the trend of extensively prescribed opioid analgesics (natural and semisynthetic opioids and methadone) for the management of chronic and acute pain in the 1990s. The number of opioid prescriptions increased7  from fewer than 3 million per year in 1990 to 11 million in 1999. Approximately 57 million people filled at least one opioid prescription8  in 2017. Although prescription opioids play a vitally important role in the treatment of pain, their overuse and misuse have contributed to the opioid epidemic. It is estimated that between 2008 and 2011, of opioid users age 12 years or older, 12 million per year were nonmedical users, and 91.8% of them reported a source of a prescribed opioid pain reliever.9  Seventy percent of prescription opioids were obtained from a friend or relative, a much higher percentage than obtained directly from a clinician (19.7%).9 

The second wave was due to the rapid increase of heroin overdose deaths. Individual states and cities have reported substantial increases in deaths from heroin overdose10  since 2010. As shown in Figure 1, the mortality rate from heroin overdose increased nearly 500% between 2010 and 2016. In 2015, 5.1 million persons were estimated to have used heroin in their lives,11  and 16 770 hospitalizations and 81 326 emergency department visits occurred because of heroin-related poisoning in the United States.8 

The third wave of drug overdose deaths began in 2013, driven by the dramatic increase in synthetic opioid–related overdoses (eg, fentanyl, fentanyl analogs, and tramadol). The average annual mortality rate of synthetic opioid overdoses increased by 71% from 2013 to 2017.5  Illicitly manufactured fentanyl and/or fentanyl analogs have become the major contributing factor to the current opioid epidemic. An increase of more than 300% in fentanyl encounters was reported12  from 2014 to 2015. Most fentanyl-associated deaths are caused by illicit fentanyl and/or fentanyl analogs either alone or doped in other abused substances, such as heroin or cocaine.13  On one hand, the combination drugs adulterated with powerful fentanyl make substance users—with or without realizing—more likely to overdose. On the other hand, it is often difficult to recognize the presence of fentanyl laced in the presumed substance(s) and administer appropriate treatment immediately based on clinical symptoms alone, which further increases the risk of overdose death.

Strong efforts have been made in the last few years to counter the opioid epidemic. Opioid prescribing rates declined by 13.1% from 2012 to 2015 and has continued to decline in recent years because of awareness of physicians and implementation of new policies,8,14  including prescription opioid monitoring programs. One study indicated that the implementation of a prescription drug monitoring program was associated with a more than 30% reduction in opioid prescriptions for pain management.15  The rate of overdose deaths involving heroin and natural and semisynthetic opioids remained stable from 2016 to 2017 (Figure 1). The latest data, from July through December 2017 to January through June 2018, indicate that overall opioid-involved overdose deaths declined by 4.6% in 25 states and prescription opioid–involved overdose deaths declined by 10.6%.16  Provisional data from 2018 to 2019 also indicate some improvements.17  However, final data are needed to confirm this trend.

OPIOID POINT-OF-CARE TESTING

Drug testing is an essential tool to counter the opioid epidemic by providing critical information about opioid use.4,18,19  Several biological specimens can be used for opioid testing, including urine, saliva, sweat, blood, hair, and breath.20  The advantages and disadvantages of each specimen type are summarized in other review articles.4,20,21  Urine remains the predominant specimen for clinical opioid testing, although it is susceptible to adulteration or substitution.4 

There are 2 major types of drug tests: screening and confirmatory. Screening testing, also called presumptive testing, uses qualitative technique to identify certain targeted drug classes. Immunoassay is the most commonly used method for the screening of opioids. There are several types of laboratory immunoassay techniques for prescription opioid monitoring.22,23  Various point-of-care (POC) immunoassay platforms are widely available for rapid opioid screening in the field or in the emergency department.24,25  Confirmatory drug testing, also called definitive testing, uses quantitative technique to confirm screening results, or to test for substances without screening options. Confirmation testing uses highly specific and sensitive analytical methodology such as gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (MS) and liquid chromatography (LC)–tandem MS (MS/MS).26,27 

Compared with cumbersome laboratory instruments, POC devices have many advantages in meeting the challenges of the opioid epidemic. First, POC tests are able to detect opioids and/or metabolites rapidly within minutes and enable immediate treatment decisions. Second, POC tests are relatively inexpensive (approximately $1–10; costs vary with respect to methodology, device needs, and the number of tests in a cartridge). Finally, POC tests are simple to perform in a practitioner's office or at home.

Most commercially available POC devices for drug of abuse testing involving opioids are based on lateral flow assay (LFA) technology, as shown in Table 1. These LFA-based devices include urine cassettes, urine dipsticks, combination urine collection/test cups, and saliva swabs, as shown in Figure 2. Two novel platforms are based on fingerprint and programmable bio-nano-chip technology, using a microfluidic cartridge for loading sweat or urine samples. Almost all LFA-based POC tests are performed in one step after depositing the urine or saliva sample.

Table 1

Commercially Available Point-of-Care Devices for Drug of Abuse Testing Involving Opioids

Commercially Available Point-of-Care Devices for Drug of Abuse Testing Involving Opioids
Commercially Available Point-of-Care Devices for Drug of Abuse Testing Involving Opioids
Figure 2

Formats of commercially available point-of-care drug of abuse testing devices involving opioids. Abbreviation: p-BNC, programmable bio-nano-chip.

Figure 2

Formats of commercially available point-of-care drug of abuse testing devices involving opioids. Abbreviation: p-BNC, programmable bio-nano-chip.

OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES FOR POC DRUG TESTS IN THE OPIOID EPIDEMIC

Opportunities

The opioid epidemic provides unprecedented opportunities for POC drug testing, with significant clinical and market needs. Medicare data reveal28  that the number of POC drug tests reimbursed increased from 101 in 2000 to more than 3.2 million in 2009. As results can be obtained within minutes, POC opioid testing may be preferred in many clinical settings, including emergency departments, detoxification clinics, and drug treatment clinics, as well as in settings related to chronic pain management and maternal fetal medicine.25  Example clinical uses include screening for opioid use, detecting fentanyl doping, verifying self-reports, making preliminary treatment decisions in emergencies, and validating adherence in taking prescribed controlled opioids.29 

Screening

Opioid POC testing can be used in primary care settings for screening and brief intervention, and is usually used in combination with standardized substance use and addiction screening questionnaires.30  Bach et al31  used a urine fentanyl-screening strip (BTNX Inc) to investigate the prevalence of fentanyl exposure and found 1 in 3 emergency department patients with active opioid use history in Baltimore, Maryland. On-site screening allows clinicians to administer necessary treatment or adjust therapy immediately, especially in emergency departments and detoxification clinics. It can also provide an objective source of information for comparison with the patient's self-reported opioid use. Individuals with addiction may underreport substance use or give inaccurate or incomplete histories, making some self-reports unreliable.32  In another emergency department–based study,33  drug testing identified almost 6 times as many patients as having used opiates in the previous 24 hours (10 of 100; 10%) relative to self-report (11 of 641; 1.7%). Opioid POC testing can also assist in early identification of possible toxins in high-risk populations, such as patients with histories of substance use and adolescents with altered mental status.34  Moreover, drug screening can increase the safety of opioid prescriptions by preventing potential overdose or dangerous drug-drug interactions.

Assessment and Treatment

The presence of opioids in patients affects clinical treatment decisions, and the information of any ongoing substance use is necessary for the clinicians to prescribe controlled opioids. Opioid POC testing is extensively used in opioid use disorder treatment programs, and is also appropriate in the assessment and treatment of medical conditions such as overdose, chronic pain, psychiatric disorders, and sleep disorders.29,35  To prevent potential adverse effects of pharmacotherapy, opioid screening (eg, for methadone, oxycodone, buprenorphine) is done prior to starting naltrexone to treat opioid use disorders.36  Prescribing opioids without careful drug testing may increase the risk of drug overdose and concomitant use of opioid analgesic with other depressants or sedatives (eg, benzodiazepines).37  An analysis found that 70.7% of deaths involving opioid analgesics in New York State also involved at least 1 other substance, most frequently a benzodiazepine.38 

Therapy Monitoring

Opioid analgesics are the most potent and effective pain-relieving medications currently available.39,40  However, noncompliance with chronic opioid therapy is not uncommon. Michna et al41  observed noncompliance in 45% (211 of 470) of urine testing results, including presence of illegal substances (95 of 470; 20.2%) and additional prescription medications (68 of 470; 14.5%), absence of the prescribed opioids (48 of 470; 10.2%), and evidence of urine specimen tampering (11 of 470; 2.3%). Studies have illustrated high drug abuse rates of 18% to 41% in patients receiving opioids for chronic pain treatment.42  Toxicology testing can identify more nonadherent patients with opioid therapy when compared with the use of self-reporting or behavior monitoring alone.43,44  Drug testing may also act as a deterrent to illicit/nonprescribed drug use in the process of opioid therapy.18  Periodic opioid POC testing provides rapid results for evaluating opioid compliance and exposing the risks for drug misuse, abuse, and diversion. The range of available POC tests in pain clinics has expanded to include tests for morphine/codeine, oxycodone, buprenorphine, methadone, and fentanyl.4549  After opioid POC testing, confirmatory testing should be performed for all samples negative for prescribed opioids, positive for nonprescribed opioids, or positive for illicit drugs. Manchikanti et al47  reported that agreement between POC testing and LC-MS/MS in monitoring prescribed opioids was as high as 80.4% (740 of 920), and nonprescribed opioids were used by 5.3% (53 of 1000) of chronic pain patients. Opioid POC testing is also very useful for monitoring relapses in patients with histories of opioid use disorder during/after the addiction treatment period.44  Additionally, it can be used to monitor treatment effect and update a treatment plan.

Challenges

Compared with gold standard tests, although opioid POC screening has many advantages, it faces several challenges, including (1) lower analytical sensitivity and higher detection thresholds, which can lead to false-negative results; (2) lower specificity and difficulty in distinguishing the parent opioid and its active metabolites; and (3) cross-reactivity with other substances, which can lead to false-positive results.

Analytical sensitivity is usually better for MS-based methods, and POC devices are less sensitive. For example, central laboratory and MS-based methods are able to definitively quantify fentanyl as low as 1 ng/mL,50  whereas commercial LFA strips (eg, from BTNX Inc, DrugCheck, NarcoCheck, Instant-view, SureScreen, and Alcopro) are available with cutoffs of 10 to 20 ng/mL for fentanyl, which would yield false-negative results in urine samples with fentanyl concentrations below these cutoffs. This challenge could be overcome with carefully optimized design of the POC method. For example, our group recently developed a fentanyl-screening LFA strip that was able to detect fentanyl at 1 ng/mL and/or norfentanyl at 10 ng/mL in urine within 5 to 10 minutes. Its clinical sensitivity and specificity were 100% and 99.5%, respectively, with good concordance between the fentanyl strip and gold standard LC-MS/MS.51  A diagnostic accuracy study of 1000 patients taking chronic opioid therapy compared opioid POC testing with LC-MS. Morphine, methadone, and oxycodone were tested with cutoff values of 300, 300, and 100 ng/mL in POC testing and 50, 100, and 50 ng/mL in LC-MS, with false-negative rates of 7.8%, 3.9%, and 25% in POC results, respectively.52 

In addition, opioid POC screening lacks the ability to distinguish the parent opioid from its active metabolite. Interpretation of drug screening results must consider knowledge of opioid metabolism. Metabolism of common opioids has been summarized in other reviews.4,53,54  Both this and the next limitation are due to the immunoassay nature of the POC assays, not specific to the POC format itself.

Cross-reactivity differs among opioid POC devices because of the differences in drug antibody specificity. Compounds that may cause false-positive results on an immunoassay screen have been reported in some literature.4,55  In some cases, cross-reactivity with the metabolites may be by design in order to pursue a longer detection window. For example, a fentanyl rapid-screening strip demonstrated cross-reactivity with the major metabolite norfentanyl and no cross-reactivity with several common drugs of abuse (morphine, cocaine, methadone, etc) or treatment drugs (acetaminophen, naloxone, etc); minor cross-reactivity was observed for risperidone (reactivity 0.4%) and its major metabolite 9-hydroxyrisperidone (reactivity 0.05%).51  The list of cross-reacting substances and their cross-reactivity should be consulted carefully to help clinicians respond appropriately to a presumptive positive test result.

RESEARCH PROGRESS OF OPIOID POC TESTING

Various novel opioid POC testing technologies, including LFA strips, microfluidics, optical biosensor, and miniaturized enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA)/MS, have been reported in research literature. They are summarized in Table 2 and Figure 3.

Table 2

Opioid Point-of-Care Testing Technologies in Research Literature

Opioid Point-of-Care Testing Technologies in Research Literature
Opioid Point-of-Care Testing Technologies in Research Literature
Figure 3

Various drug of abuse point-of-care testing technologies involving opioids in research literature. A, Lateral flow microarray. B, Smartphone-based strip reader.61  C, Fentanyl-screening strip51  (reproduced with permission from Clinical Chemistry; published by Oxford University Press, 2020). D, Paper-based bar code chip.62  E, DVD-based microfluidics63  (reproduced with permission from Analytical Chemistry; published by American Chemical Society, 2015). F, Competitive volumetric bar-chart chip (CV-chip)64  (reproduced with permission from Analytical Chemistry; published by American Chemical Society, 2017). G, Fingerprinting sweat biosensor.66  H, Programmable bio-nano-chip system.72  I, Point-of-care (POC) miniature tandem mass spectrometry (mini-MS/MS).75  References for A, B, D, G, H, and I refer to the technologies shown in the images; the schematic images are drawn by the author based on the description in those references. Abbreviation: LFA, lateral flow assay.

Figure 3

Various drug of abuse point-of-care testing technologies involving opioids in research literature. A, Lateral flow microarray. B, Smartphone-based strip reader.61  C, Fentanyl-screening strip51  (reproduced with permission from Clinical Chemistry; published by Oxford University Press, 2020). D, Paper-based bar code chip.62  E, DVD-based microfluidics63  (reproduced with permission from Analytical Chemistry; published by American Chemical Society, 2015). F, Competitive volumetric bar-chart chip (CV-chip)64  (reproduced with permission from Analytical Chemistry; published by American Chemical Society, 2017). G, Fingerprinting sweat biosensor.66  H, Programmable bio-nano-chip system.72  I, Point-of-care (POC) miniature tandem mass spectrometry (mini-MS/MS).75  References for A, B, D, G, H, and I refer to the technologies shown in the images; the schematic images are drawn by the author based on the description in those references. Abbreviation: LFA, lateral flow assay.

LFA Platforms

Lateral flow assay is a portable, low-cost, user-friendly, and well-established platform for drug screening in POC settings. Lateral flow assay strips are based on competitive immunoassay reactions because there are no pairs of antibodies for the small drug molecules to form a common sandwich structure.56  The entire immunoassay reaction process is integrated into one capillary paper–based LFA strip and started by adding a liquid biological sample.57  To achieve quantitative colorimetric readout of LFA strips, various optical strip readers (eg, smartphone, scanner) and image-processing algorithms are designed to measure the intensities of test/control lines.5861  For example, Taranova et al60  reported a lateral flow microarray with multiple immuno-spots on the test zone (Figure 3, A) for the 1-step quantitative detection of several drugs, including morphine, amphetamine, methamphetamine, and benzoylecgonine (the major cocaine metabolite), using a scanner. Carrio et al61  developed an automated smartphone-based strip reader for drug of abuse LFA tests (Figure 3, B). Additionally, our group recently developed a sensitive fentanyl-screening LFA strip that was able to detect urine fentanyl at 1 ng/mL and/or norfentanyl at 10 ng/mL within 5 to 10 minutes (Figure 3, C).51  Yang et al62  developed a stacked paper-based assay for the simultaneous detection of multiple drugs, which combined the LFA method with a bar code technology (Figure 3, D). Hence, its qualitative results can be read out conveniently by a bar code scanner.

Microfluidics

The microfluidic chip is another promising and competitive POC platform for rapid drug screening. Zhang et al63  reported a DVD-based microfluidic platform for the quantitative and multiplexed detection of drugs of abuse in saliva, obtaining digital signal readout with a conventional optical DVD drive (Figure 3, E). The limit of detection of this assay is as low as 1.0 ng/mL for morphine and 5.0 ng/mL for cocaine. Li et al64  developed an integrated competitive volumetric bar-chart chip to detect multiple drug targets (eg, cocaine, opiates) in urine, serum, and whole blood (Figure 3, F). Platinum nanoparticle–catalyzed oxygen generation in H2O2 solution pushes the red ink to advance in the glass microfluidic channel. Visual qualitative bar-chart readout results are displayed based on the direct competition of oxygen generated by the sample and the internal control. The competitive volumetric bar-chart chip test results showed good agreement with an LC-MS/MS method, with a clinical sensitivity and specificity of 94% and 100%, respectively.

Optical Biosensors

In addition, several novel optical biosensors have been developed and used as POC drug screening methodologies. Bonanno and DeLouise65  demonstrated a label-free porous silicon photonic sensor for analyzing opiates in urine. It offered a wide dynamic range for morphine (5.0−3077 ng/mL), covering the current positive cutoff value (300 ng/mL) in clinical opiate urine screening. Furthermore, the porous silicon sensor showed desirable high cross-reactivity with other common opiates (morphine-3-glucuronide and 6-acetyl morphine), in addition to the semisynthetic opioid oxycodone, while low interference from cocaine metabolite was maintained. A new approach for the rapid identification of drug metabolites in fingerprint sweat was developed by using antibody-functionalized nanoparticles (Figure 3, G).6668  The fingerprint sweat sample is collected by simply pressing the finger onto a cartridge (within 5 seconds); then, the sample collection cartridge is inserted into a portable reader. The reader analyzes the fingerprint sweat and provides a qualitative test for different drugs in less than 10 minutes.68 

Miniaturized ELISA/MS

The traditional ELISAs or gold standard MS analyzers have also been miniaturized so that they could be used at POC to detect drugs rapidly. Integration of sample preparation, microfluidic, and control/detection instrumentation components into a miniature system remains a huge challenge for POC diagnostics. Miyaguchi et al69  reported a portable microchip-based ELISA system for quantitative detection of drug in hair. Sample preparation (micropulverized extraction) and quantitation of microchip-based ELISA can be accomplished in less than 30 minutes. A programmable bio-nano-chip platform was developed for the rapid (approximately 10 minutes) quantitation of drugs of abuse in POC settings (Figure 3, H).7072  The programmable bio-nano-chip analyzer along with customized disposable cartridges had the proven multiplexed and sensitive detection capacity of 12 drugs in oral fluid.72  The emergence of miniature MS made the prospect of confirmatory POC drug testing a possibility.73,74  Ouyang's group75,76  developed a benchtop miniature MS/MS system (25 kg, 19.6 × 22.1 × 16.5 in [49.8 × 56.1 × 41.9 cm]) with digital microfluidics and ambient ionization source capabilities (Figure 3, I). Multiple drugs could be quantified from 4 dried urine samples in less than 15 minutes. The limits of quantitation for cocaine, benzoylecgonine, and codeine were 51, 21, and 39 ng/mL, respectively.77  These limit-of-quantitation values were approximately 10 times higher than those of conventional MS methods, but they were well below the typical confirmatory cutoff values.78  Most of these emerging opioid POC platforms in research literature are not yet commercially available, with the exception of the fingerprinting technology and the p-NBC technology, which have been commercialized by Intelligent Fingerprinting and SensoDX, LLC, Inc, respectively.

FUTURE PROSPECTS

With existing technologies, there are still several unmet clinical needs for opioid POC testing, which may be the directions for future technology development.

Quantitative Opioid POC Detection

The existing commercial LFA-based POC opioid analytical platforms (Table 1; Figure 2) often generate results rapidly within minutes. However, almost all of them are qualitative, whereas quantitative drug concentration results are important for compliance assessment and dose adjustment. Providing rapid, accurate, and precise quantitative results is still a challenge that needs to be addressed in future development of opioid POC platforms. Efforts have been made in some research literature (Table 2; Figure 3). For example, to achieve quantitative colorimetric readout of LFA-based assays, smartphone-based optical strip readers and image-processing algorithms have been specifically designed to measure the color intensities of test/control lines, which could be correlated with analyte concentrations.58,60  In addition to paper-based platforms, microfluidic chips have been used to provide rapid quantitation results of opioid POC screening, such as in competitive volumetric bar-chart chip64  and DVD-based microfluidics.63  The accuracy and precision of these platforms remain to be validated using a large number of real-world clinical samples. Another potential quantitative solution is to bring the gold standard instrument into the field, which also effectively eliminates the need for prescreening with error-prone immunoassays. The emergence of miniature MS in research literature made this prospect a possibility.7377 

Smarter and Real-Time Drug Testing

When drug testing is conducted according to predictable schedules, it is much easier for drug users to cheat and “pass” the tests by avoiding the detection window or taking substances that are not in the drug test panels.29,79  Therefore, smarter drug testing uses random instead of scheduled testing based on clinical indication, with a broad and rotating panel of drugs. The American Society of Addiction Medicine emphasizes the need for smarter drug testing: “The most important challenge in drug testing today is not the identification of every drug we are technologically capable of detecting, but to do medically necessary and accurate testing for those drugs that are most likely to impact clinical outcomes.”29 

None of the current POC drug testing can offer real-time information about substance use behavior and trigger real-time analysis or intervention.80  Given the rapid development of artificial intelligence and mobile technologies, there has been significant interest in the development of behavioral interventions delivered through computer and mobile technologies to people with substance use disorders,81,82  such as Web-based self-help interventions and virtual therapeutic software.83,84  Wearable platforms can play a great role in smarter drug testing and real-time drug use monitoring. The rapid development of wearable bioelectronics in recent years85,86  has led to continuous monitoring applications for several target drugs, such as alcohol87,88  and caffeine.89  Several commercial wearable platforms are available and capable of transdermal monitoring of alcohol consumption using insensible sweat,90  such as the SCRAM Secure Remote Alcohol Monitor (Alcohol Monitoring Systems, Inc), the WrisTAS Wrist Transdermal Alcohol Sensor (Giner, Inc), the BACtrack Skyn (BACtrack Breathalyzers/KHN Solutions, Inc), and the Proof alcohol tracking wearable (Milo Sensors, Inc). In addition, there are some wearable platforms for drug use monitoring and opioid overdose detection via physiologic parameters (eg, acceleration, skin temperature, pulse, electrodermal activity, and blood oxygen),91,92  such as the Q Sensor (Affectiva) and a prototype wristband (Pinney Associates, Inc).93  However, the menu of target drugs in these on-body detection methods currently is very short. Immunoassay-based drug testing may be challenging in wearable biosensors because the biological recognition elements, such as antibodies and aptamers, are very sensitive to their local environments.94  Novel recognition interface and molecularly imprinted polymers might provide a solution to this challenge.95,96 

Smarter drug testing might generate more information about dose and time of administration from a series of snapshot-based tests, which may be achieved using big data and machine learning. Combining drug concentration and physiological parameters may offer more accurate information. For example, respiratory rate might be monitored using vital sign monitors, and pupil diameter might be monitored using a high-speed, infrared eye-tracking camera. When these parameters are assessed simultaneously with conventional opioid POC test results, a more comprehensive and accurate drug test might be achieved.

SUMMARY

Opioid POC testing is an important tool to counter the intensified opioid epidemic in the United States. Various commercial tests for POC opioid screening and confirmation are available, mainly based on immunoassays and chromatographic methods. Several unmet clinical needs for opioid POC testing remain. In response to these unmet clinical needs, novel methods have emerged in research literature, such as microfluidics and miniature MS. Future prospects include the development of quantitative POC devices and smarter and real-time drug testing.

References

References
1.
Strain
E.
Opioid use disorder: epidemiology, pharmacology, clinical manifestations, course, screening, assessment, and diagnosis. UpToDate Web site
.
2019
.
2.
Sandilands
EA,
Bateman
DN.
Opioids
.
Medicine
.
2016
;
44
(3)
:
187
189
.
3.
Connery
HS.
Medication-assisted treatment of opioid use disorder: review of the evidence and future directions
.
Harvard Rev Psychiatry
.
2015
;
23
(2)
:
63
75
.
4.
Mahajan
G.
Role of urine drug testing in the current opioid epidemic
.
Anesth Analg
.
2017
;
125
(6)
:
2094
2104
.
5.
Scholl
L,
Seth
P,
Kariisa
M,
Wilson
N,
Drug
Baldwin G.
and opioid-involved overdose deaths—United States, 2013–2017
.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep
.
2019
;
67
(5152)
:
1419
1427
.
6.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
.
Opioid overdose: opioid data analysis and resources
.
2019
.
7.
Rummans
TA,
Burton
MC,
Dawson
NL.
How good intentions contributed to bad outcomes: the opioid crisis
.
Mayo Clin Proc
.
2018
;
93
(3)
:
344
350
.
8.
Hoots
BE,
Xu
L,
Kariisa
M,
et al.
2018 annual surveillance report of drug-related risks and outcomes—United States. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
.
2019
.
9.
Jones
CM,
Paulozzi
LJ,
Mack
KA.
Sources of prescription opioid pain relievers by frequency of past-year nonmedical use: United States, 2008–2011
.
JAMA Intern Med
.
2014
;
174
(5)
:
802
803
.
10.
Rudd
RA,
Paulozzi
LJ,
Bauer
MJ,
et al.
Increases in heroin overdose deaths—28 states, 2010 to 2012
.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep
.
2014
;
63
(39)
:
849
854
.
11.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
.
2015 national survey on drug use and health: detailed tables. Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality
.
2019
.
12.
Jannetto
PJ,
Helander
A,
Garg
U,
Janis
GC,
Goldberger
B,
Ketha
H.
The fentanyl epidemic and evolution of fentanyl analogs in the United States and the European Union
.
Clin Chem
.
2019
;
65
(2)
:
242
253
.
13.
Marinetti
LJ,
Ehlers
BJ.
A series of forensic toxicology and drug seizure cases involving illicit fentanyl alone and in combination with heroin, cocaine or heroin and cocaine
.
J Anal Toxicol
.
2014
;
38
(8)
:
592
598
.
14.
Schuchat
A,
Houry
D,
Guy
GP.
New data on opioid use and prescribing in the United States
.
JAMA
.
2017
;
318
(5)
:
425
426
.
15.
Bao
Y,
Pan
Y,
Taylor
A,
et al.
Prescription drug monitoring programs are associated with sustained reductions in opioid prescribing by physicians
.
Health Aff (Millwood)
.
2016
;
35
(6)
:
1045
1051
.
16.
Gladden
RM,
O'Donnell
J,
Mattson
CL,
Seth
P.
Changes in opioid-involved overdose deaths by opioid type and presence of benzodiazepines, cocaine, and methamphetamine—25 states, July–December 2017 to January–June 2018
.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep
.
2019
;
68
(34)
:
737
744
.
17.
Ahmad
FB EL,
Rossen
LM,
Spencer
MR,
Warner
M,
Sutton
P.
Provisional drug overdose death counts. National Center for Health Statistics
.
2019
.
18.
McCarberg
B,
Webster
L,
Wimbish
GH,
Traub
O.
Clinical urine drug testing during opioid therapy: a case-based approach to patient monitoring
.
2019
.
19.
Athena
KP,
Stacy
EFM.
Urine drug testing: debates over best practices to assess compliance and manage the opioid crisis
.
2019
.
20.
Rouen
D,
Dolan
KA,
Kimber
J.
A review of drug detection testing and an examination of urine, hair, saliva and sweat
.
Sydney, Australia
:
National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales
;
2001
.
National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre technical report 120
.
2019
.
21.
Jaffe
A,
Molnar
S,
Williams
N,
et al.
Review and recommendations for drug testing in substance use treatment contexts
.
J Reward Defic Syndr Addict Sci
.
2016
;
2
(1)
:
28
45
.
22.
Milone
MC.
Laboratory testing for prescription opioids
.
J Med Toxicol
.
2012
;
8
(4)
:
408
416
.
23.
Datta
P.
Chapter 9: immunoassay design for screening of drugs of abuse
.
In:
Dasgupta
A,
ed.
Critical Issues in Alcohol and Drugs of Abuse Testing
.
London, United Kingdom
:
Academic Press;
2019
:
121
128
.
24.
Wiencek
JR,
Colby
JM,
Nichols
JH.
Rapid assessment of drugs of abuse
.
Adv Clin Chem
.
2017
;
80
:
193
225
.
25.
Melanson
S.
Drug-of-abuse testing at the point of care
.
Clin Lab Med
.
2009
;
29
(3)
:
503
509
.
26.
Chen
BG,
Wang
SM,
Liu
RH.
GC-MS analysis of multiply derivatized opioids in urine
.
J Mass Spectrom
.
2007
;
42
(8)
:
1012
1023
.
27.
Bodor
GS.
Pain management testing by liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry
.
Clin Lab Med
.
2018
;
38
(3)
:
455
470
.
28.
Kaye
AD,
Marshall
ZJ,
Lambert
S,
et al.
Ethical perspectives on urine drug screening for pain physicians
.
Pain Physician
.
2014
;
17
(5)
:
E559
E564
.
29.
DuPont
R,
Shea
C,
Barthwell
A,
Baxter
L,
Beaubler
A.
Drug testing: a white paper of the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM)
.
http://www.datia.org/datia/eNews/2014/DTWhitePaper.pdf. Published 2013. Accessed October 24,
2019
.
30.
Mdege
ND,
Lang
J.
Screening instruments for detecting illicit drug use/abuse that could be useful in general hospital wards: a systematic review
.
Addict Behav
.
2011
;
36
(12)
:
1111
1119
.
31.
Bach
H,
Jenkins
V,
Aledhaim
A,
Moayedi
S,
Schenkel
S,
Kim
H.
Prevalence of fentanyl exposure and knowledge regarding the risk of its use among emergency department patients with active opioid use history at an urban medical center in Baltimore, Maryland
[published online
September
1,
2019]
.
Clin Toxicol.
32.
Clark
CB,
Zyambo
CM,
Li
Y,
Cropsey
KL.
The impact of non-concordant self-report of substance use in clinical trials research
.
Addict Behav
.
2016
;
58
:
74
79
.
33.
Vitale
S,
Van de Mheen
H,
Van de Wiel
A,
Garretsen
H.
Substance use among emergency room patients: is self-report preferable to biochemical markers?
Addict Behav
.
2006
;
31
(9)
:
1661
1669
.
34.
Levy
S,
Siqueira
LM.
Testing for drugs of abuse in children and adolescents
.
Pediatrics
.
2014
;
133
(6)
:
e1798
.
35.
Sacks
S,
Ries
RK,
Ziedonis
DM
;
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. Substance abuse treatment for persons with co-occurring disorders
.
2019
.
36.
Sigmon
SC,
Bisaga
A,
Nunes
EV,
O'Connor
PG,
Kosten
T,
Woody
G.
Opioid detoxification and naltrexone induction strategies: recommendations for clinical practice
.
Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse
.
2012
;
38
(3)
:
187
199
.
37.
Volkow
ND,
McLellan
AT.
Opioid abuse in chronic pain—misconceptions and mitigation strategies
.
N Engl J Med
.
2016
;
374
(13)
:
1253
1263
.
38.
Sharp
MJ,
Melnik
TA.
Poisoning deaths involving opioid analgesics—New York State, 2003–2012
.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep
.
2015
;
64
(14)
:
377
380
.
39.
Chou
R,
Fanciullo
GJ,
Fine
PG,
et al.
Clinical guidelines for the use of chronic opioid therapy in chronic noncancer pain
.
J Pain
.
2009
;
10
(2)
:
113
130
.
40.
Jannetto
PJ,
Bratanow
NC,
Clark
WA,
et al.
Executive summary: American Association of Clinical Chemistry Laboratory Medicine Practice Guideline—using clinical laboratory tests to monitor drug therapy in pain management patients
.
J Appl Lab Med
.
2018
;
2
(4)
:
489
526
.
41.
Michna
E,
Jamison
RN,
Pham
L-D,
et al.
Urine toxicology screening among chronic pain patients on opioid therapy: frequency and predictability of abnormal findings
.
Clin J Pain
.
2007
;
23
(2)
:
173
179
.
42.
Manchikanti
L,
Benyamin
R,
Datta
S,
Vallejo
R,
Smith
H.
Opioids in chronic noncancer pain
.
Expert Rev Neurother
.
2010
;
10
(5)
:
775
789
.
43.
Katz
NP,
Sherburne
S,
Beach
M,
et al.
Behavioral monitoring and urine toxicology testing in patients receiving long-term opioid therapy
.
Anesth Analg
.
2003
;
97
(4)
:
1097
1102
.
44.
McDonell
MG,
Graves
MC,
West II, et al. Utility of point-of-care urine drug tests in the treatment of primary care patients with drug use disorders
.
J Addict Med
.
2016
;
10
(3)
:
196
201
.
45.
Haller
CA,
Stone
J,
Burke
V,
Branch
J,
Chen
K,
Gross
S.
Comparison of an automated and point-of-care immunoassay to GC-MS for urine oxycodone testing in the clinical laboratory
.
J Anal Toxicol
.
2006
;
30
(2)
:
106
111
.
46.
Leino
A,
Loo
B-M.
Comparison of three commercial tests for buprenorphine screening in urine
.
Ann Clin Biochem
.
2007
;
44
(6)
:
563
565
.
47.
Manchikanti
L,
Malla
Y,
Wargo
BW,
Fellows
B.
Comparative evaluation of the accuracy of immunoassay with liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) of urine drug testing (UDT) opioids and illicit drugs in chronic pain patients
.
Pain Physician
.
2011
;
14
(2)
:
175
187
.
48.
Medical Advisory Secretariat
.
Optimum methadone compliance testing: an evidence-based analysis
.
Ont Health Technol Assess Ser
.
2006
;
6
(21)
:
1
54
.
49.
McCarberg
BH.
A critical assessment of opioid treatment adherence using urine drug testing in chronic pain management
.
Postgrad Med
.
2011
;
123
(6)
:
124
131
.
50.
Cua
A,
Rogers
R,
Lipnick
P,
Kilbourn
K.
Lower cutoffs for LC-MS/MS urine drug testing indicates better patient compliance
.
Pain Physician
.
2017
;
20
:
E1107
E1113
.
51.
Li
Z,
Chen
H,
Feng
S,
Liu
K,
Wang
P.
Development and clinical validation of a sensitive lateral flow assay for rapid urine fentanyl screening in the emergency department
.
Clin Chem
.
2020
;
66
(2)
:
324
332
.
52.
Hall
B,
Daly
S.
HelpDesk: how accurate are point-of-care urine drug screens in patients taking chronic opioid therapy?
J Fam Pract
2018
;
67
(3)
:
177
.
53.
Smith
HS.
Opioid metabolism
.
Mayo Clin Proc
.
2009
;
84
(7)
:
613
624
.
54.
DePriest
AZ,
Puet
BL,
Holt
AC,
Roberts
A,
Cone
EJ.
Metabolism and disposition of prescription opioids: a review
.
Forensic Sci Rev
.
2015
;
27
(2)
:
115
145
.
55.
Mahajan
G.
Urine drug testing in pain medicine
.
In:
Benzon
H,
SN
Raja,
Fishman
S,
Liu
S,
Cohen
SP,
eds.
Essentials of Pain Medicine. 4th ed
.
Philadelphia, PA
:
Elsevier;
2018
:
405
418.e2
.
56.
Sanavio
B,
Krol
S.
On the slow diffusion of point-of-care systems in therapeutic drug monitoring
.
Front Bioeng Biotechnol
.
2015
;
3
:
20
.
57.
Liu
J,
Hu
X,
Cao
F,
Zhang
Y,
Lu
J,
Zeng
L.
A lateral flow strip based on gold nanoparticles to detect 6-monoacetylmorphine in oral fluid
.
R Soc Open Sci
.
2018
;
5
(6)
:
180288
.
58.
Guler
E,
Yilmaz Sengel
T,
Gumus
ZP,
et al.
Mobile phone sensing of cocaine in a lateral flow assay combined with a biomimetic material
.
Anal Chem
.
2017
;
89
(18)
:
9629
9632
.
59.
He
M,
Li
Z,
Ge
Y,
Liu
Z.
Portable upconversion nanoparticles-based paper device for field testing of drug abuse
.
Anal Chem
.
2016
;
88
(3)
:
1530
1534
.
60.
Taranova
NA,
Byzova
NA,
Zaiko
VV,
et al.
Integration of lateral flow and microarray technologies for multiplex immunoassay: application to the determination of drugs of abuse
.
Microchim Acta
.
2013
;
180
(11–12)
:
1165
1172
.
61.
Carrio
A,
Sampedro
C,
Sanchez-Lopez
J,
Pimienta
M,
Campoy
P.
Automated low-cost smartphone-based lateral flow saliva test reader for drugs-of-abuse detection
.
Sensors
.
2015
;
15
(11)
:
29569
29593
.
62.
Yang
M,
Zhang
W,
Yang
J,
et al.
Skiving stacked sheets of paper into test paper for rapid and multiplexed assay
.
Sci Adv.
2017
;
3
(12)
:
eaao4862.
63.
Zhang
L,
Li
X,
Li
Y,
Shi
X,
Yu
H-Z.
Indirect competitive assays on DVD for direct multiplex detection of drugs of abuse in oral fluids
.
Anal Chem
.
2015
;
87
(3)
:
1896
1902
.
64.
Li
Y,
Uddayasankar
U,
He
B,
Wang
P,
Qin
L.
Fast, sensitive, and quantitative point-of-care platform for the assessment of drugs of abuse in urine, serum, and whole blood
.
Anal Chem
.
2017
;
89
(16)
:
8273
8281
.
65.
Bonanno
LM,
DeLouise
LA.
Tunable detection sensitivity of opiates in urine via a label-free porous silicon competitive inhibition immunosensor
.
Anal Chem
.
2009
;
82
(2)
:
714
722
.
66.
Leggett
R,
Lee-Smith
EE,
Jickells
SM,
Russell
DA.
“Intelligent” fingerprinting: simultaneous identification of drug metabolites and individuals by using antibody-functionalized nanoparticles
.
Angew Chem Int Ed
.
2007
;
46
(22)
:
4100
4103
.
67.
Hazarika
P,
Jickells
SM,
Wolff
K,
Russell
DA.
Multiplexed detection of metabolites of narcotic drugs from a single latent fingermark
.
Anal Chem
.
2010
;
82
(22)
:
9150
9154
.
68.
Hudson
M,
Stuchinskaya
T,
Ramma
S,
et al.
Drug screening using the sweat of a fingerprint: lateral flow detection of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol, cocaine, opiates and amphetamine
.
J Anal Toxicol
.
2018
;
43
(2)
:
88
95
.
69.
Miyaguchi
H,
Takahashi
H,
Ohashi
T,
et al.
Rapid analysis of methamphetamine in hair by micropulverized extraction and microchip-based competitive ELISA
.
Forensic Sci Int
.
2009
;
184
(1–3)
:
1
5
.
70.
Christodoulides
N,
De La Garza
II R,
Simmons
GW,
et al.
Programmable bio-nano-chip system for saliva diagnostics
.
Proc SPIE
.
2014
;
9112
:
911206
.
71.
Christodoulides
N,
De La Garza
II R,
Simmons
GW,
et al.
Application of programmable bio-nano-chip system for the quantitative detection of drugs of abuse in oral fluids
.
Drug Alcohol Depend
.
2015
;
153
:
306
313
.
72.
Christodoulides
N,
De La Garza
R,
Simmons
GW,
et al.
Next generation programmable bio-nano-chip system for on-site detection in oral fluids
.
J Drug Abuse
.
2015
;
1
(1)
:
1
.
73.
Ouyang
Z,
Cooks
RG.
Miniature mass spectrometers
.
Annu Rev Anal Chem
.
2009
;
2
:
187
214
.
74.
Ferreira
CR,
Yannell
KE,
Jarmusch
AK,
Pirro
V,
Ouyang
Z,
Cooks
RG.
Ambient ionization mass spectrometry for point-of-care diagnostics and other clinical measurements
.
Clin Chem
.
2016
;
62
(1)
:
99
110
.
75.
Li
L,
Chen
T-C,
Ren
Y,
Hendricks
PI,
Cooks
RG,
Ouyang
Z.
Mini 12, miniature mass spectrometer for clinical and other applications introduction and characterization
.
Anal Chem
.
2014
;
86
(6)
:
2909
2916
.
76.
Zhou
X,
Liu
J,
Cooks
RG,
Ouyang
Z.
Development of miniature mass spectrometry systems for bioanalysis outside the conventional laboratories
.
Bioanalysis
.
2014
;
6
(11)
:
1497
1508
.
77.
Kirby
AE,
Lafrenière
NM,
Seale
B,
Hendricks
PI,
Cooks
RG,
Wheeler
AR.
Analysis on the go: quantitation of drugs of abuse in dried urine with digital microfluidics and miniature mass spectrometry
.
Anal Chem
.
2014
;
86
(12)
:
6121
6129
.
78.
Otero-Fernández
M,
Cocho
JÁ,
Tabernero
MJ,
Bermejo
AM,
Bermejo-Barrera
P,
Moreda-Piñeiro
A.
Direct tandem mass spectrometry for the simultaneous assay of opioids, cocaine and metabolites in dried urine spots
.
Anal Chim Acta
.
2013
;
784
:
25
32
.
79.
Hadland
SE,
Levy
S.
Objective testing: Urine and other drug tests
.
Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am
.
2016
;
25
(3)
:
549
565
.
80.
Carreiro
S,
Smelson
D,
Ranney
M,
et al.
Real-time mobile detection of drug use with wearable biosensors: a pilot study
.
J Med Toxicol
.
2015
;
11
(1)
:
73
79
.
81.
Hariman
KW.
A Review of the Use of Mobile Technology in Substance Abuse Treatment [master's thesis]. Pokfulam, Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong; 2016
.
2019
.
82.
Swendsen
J.
Contributions of mobile technologies to addiction research
.
Dialogues Clin Neurosci
.
2016
;
18
(2)
:
213
.
83.
Barak
A,
Klein
B,
Proudfoot
JG.
Defining internet-supported therapeutic interventions
.
Ann Behav Med
.
2009
;
38
(1)
:
4
17
.
84.
Gianluca Quaglio GE
.
Technological innovation strategies in substance use disorders. European Parliamentary Research Service, Scientific Foresight Unit
.
2019
.
85.
Bariya
M,
Nyein
HYY,
Javey
A.
Wearable sweat sensors
.
Nat. Electron
.
2018
;
1
(3)
:
160
.
86.
Heikenfeld
J,
Jajack
A,
Rogers
J,
et al.
Wearable sensors: modalities, challenges, and prospects
.
Lab Chip
.
2018
;
18
(2)
:
217
248
.
87.
Selvam
AP,
Muthukumar
S,
Kamakoti
V,
Prasad
S.
A wearable biochemical sensor for monitoring alcohol consumption lifestyle through ethyl glucuronide (EtG) detection in human sweat
.
Sci Rep
.
2016
;
6
:
23111
.
88.
Kim
J,
Jeerapan
I,
Imani
S,
et al.
Noninvasive alcohol monitoring using a wearable tattoo-based iontophoretic-biosensing system
.
ACS Sens
.
2016
;
1
(8)
:
1011
1019
.
89.
Tai
LC,
Gao
W,
Chao
M,
et al.
Methylxanthine drug monitoring with wearable sweat sensors
.
Adv Mater
.
2018
;
30
(23)
:
1707442
.
90.
Campbell
AS,
Kim
J,
Wang
J.
Wearable electrochemical alcohol biosensors
.
Curr Opin Electrochem
.
2018
;
10
:
126
135
.
91.
Saleheen
N,
Ali
AA,
Hossain
SM,
et al.
puffMarker: a multi-sensor approach for pinpointing the timing of first lapse in smoking cessation
.
Proc ACM Int Conf Ubiquitous Comput.
2015
;
999
1010
.
92.
Carreiro
S,
Wittbold
K,
Indic
P,
Fang
H,
Zhang
J,
Boyer
EW.
Wearable biosensors to detect physiologic change during opioid use
.
J Med Toxicol
.
2016
;
12
(3)
:
255
262
.
93.
Josh
Q.
Prototype wristband detects overdose in wearer. Carnegie Mellon University
.
2019
.
94.
Bandodkar
AJ,
Jeerapan
I,
Wang
J.
Wearable chemical sensors: present challenges and future prospects
.
ACS Sensors
.
2016
;
1
(5)
:
464
482
.
95.
Poltorak
L,
Eggink
I,
Hoitink
M,
Sudholter
EJ,
de Puit
M.
Electrified soft interface as a selective sensor for cocaine detection in street samples
.
Anal Chem
.
2018
;
90
(12)
:
7428
7433
.
96.
Smolinska-Kempisty
K,
Ahmad
OS,
Guerreiro
A,
Karim
K,
Piletska
E,
Piletsky
S.
New potentiometric sensor based on molecularly imprinted nanoparticles for cocaine detection
.
Biosens Bioelectron
.
2017
;
96
:
49
54
.

Author notes

The authors have no relevant financial interest in the products or companies described in this article.