0410 Utility of the Urine Drug Screen in Maintenance of Wakefulness Testing Interpretation - A Single-Center, Retrospective Analysis in Pediatric Patients. (25th May 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Witt, Rochelle; Wisniewski, Benjamin; Cole, Melissa; Gurbani, Neepa; Huang, Guixia; Hossain, Md Monir; Simakajornboon, Narong
• Is Part Of: Sleep. Volume 45(2022)Supplement 1
• Page Start: A183
• Page End: A184
• Publication Date: 2022-05-25
• Subjects: Sleep -- Physiological aspects -- Periodicals; Sleep disorders -- Periodicals; Sommeil -- Aspect physiologique -- Périodiques; Sommeil, Troubles du -- Périodiques; Sleep disorders; Sleep -- Physiological aspects; Sleep -- physiological aspects; Sleep Wake Disorders; Psychophysiology; Electronic journals; Periodicals; 616.8498
• DOI: 10.1093/sleep/zsac079.407
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0161-8105

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction: Accurate assessment of hypersomnia depends upon consideration of several factors, including use of medications that affect alertness and sleep organization. Urine drug screens (UDS) are recommended when assessing hypersomnia, but there is little standardization with respect to screening methods, types of substances detected, and use in maintenance of wakefulness test (MWT) interpretation, in part because there is scant literature relating UDS results to patients' characteristics, MWT findings and implications. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed in adolescents evaluated at Cincinnati Children's Sleep Center between 2008 and 2021 who underwent MWT with concurrent UDS to determine the adequacy of hypersomnia treatment. UDS in our laboratory were performed by Qualitative Immunoassay/Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry/Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry. Results: A total of 109 MWTs were accompanied by UDS in 79 patients. Patients were 17.7 [16.6, 18.6] years old (median, [IQ range]), 41.3% female, 68.8% White, 25.7% Black, 5.5% Other, with a BMI of 25.8 [22.1, 31.8] kg/m2. 85.3% had narcolepsy. In addition to prescribed medications, caffeine was positive in 54.1% of UDS, and diphenhydramine was positive in 58.7%. No patients reported use of caffeine or diphenhydramine on the day of MWT. There were no significant demographic differences between those who tested positive and negative for caffeine. The median sleep latency in those with caffeine-positive UDS was longer than those with caffeine-negative UDS, although it did not reach statistical significance (27.3 [14.7, 38.3] vs 19.1 [9.8, 36.1] minutes; P=0.15). Patients with a positive UDS for diphenhydramine all took modafinil/armodafinil. In addition, 80% of patients taking modafinil/armodafinil had diphenhydramine-positive results. Nicotine and cannabinoids were detected in 2 UDS. Conclusion: Two unexpected substances (caffeine and diphenhydramine) were found on UDS during MWTs in a significant proportion of our cohort. Caffeine may influence the results of MWTs, although further investigations are warranted. The unexpected presence of diphenhydramine is a false positive for those patients on modafinil/armodafinil (supported by literature and confirmed by our laboratory director). Sleep clinicians should be aware of these findings and the implications of unexpected substances when interpreting MWTs. Support (If Any): Cincinnati Children's Hospital Research Fund