BMJ Open (May 2023)

Comparative effectiveness of urine drug screening strategies alongside opioid agonist treatment in British Columbia, Canada: a population-based observational study protocol

  • Malcolm Maclure,
  • M Eugenia Socías,
  • Evan Wood,
  • Paul Gustafson,
  • Robert W Platt,
  • Bohdan Nosyk,
  • Jeong Eun Min,
  • Micah Piske,
  • Julie Bruneau,
  • U Siebert,
  • P Todd Korthuis,
  • Paxton Bach,
  • B Carolina Guerra-Alejos,
  • Megan Kurz,
  • Laura M Dale,
  • X Joan Hu,
  • Kyle Kampman,
  • Tom Loughin

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-068729
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 13, no. 5

Abstract

Read online

Introduction Urine drug tests (UDTs) are commonly used for monitoring opioid agonist treatment (OAT) responses, supporting the clinical decision for take-home doses and monitoring potential diversion. However, there is limited evidence supporting the utility of mandatory UDTs—particularly the impact of UDT frequency on OAT retention. Real-world evidence can inform patient-centred approaches to OAT and improve current strategies to address the ongoing opioid public health emergency. Our objective is to determine the safety and comparative effectiveness of alternative UDT monitoring strategies as observed in clinical practice among OAT clients in British Columbia, Canada from 2010 to 2020.Methods and analysis We propose a population-level retrospective cohort study of all individuals 18 years of age or older who initiated OAT from 1 January 2010 to 17 March 2020. The study will draw on eight linked health administrative databases from British Columbia. Our primary outcomes include OAT discontinuation and all-cause mortality. To determine the effectiveness of the intervention, we will emulate a ‘per-protocol’ target trial using a clone censoring approach to compare fixed and dynamic UDT monitoring strategies. A range of sensitivity analyses will be executed to determine the robustness of our results.Ethics and dissemination The protocol, cohort creation and analysis plan have been classified and approved as a quality improvement initiative by Providence Health Care Research Ethics Board and the Simon Fraser University Office of Research Ethics. Results will be disseminated to local advocacy groups and decision-makers, national and international clinical guideline developers, presented at international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals electronically and in print.