Published: Journal of Analytical Toxicology, ISSN 0146-4760, Volume 27, Number 7, October 2003, pp. 412-428

Opiate Recidivism in a Drug-Treatment Program: Comparison of Hair and Urine Data
Bradley K. Charles1, Jayme E. Day1, Douglas E. Rollins1, David Andrenyak1, Walter Ling2, and Diana G. Wilkins1
1Center for Human Toxicology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah and 2Integrated Substance Abuse Programs, Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California

The objective of this preliminary study was to determine whether hair can be used as an adjunct specimen for the monitoring of opiate use in a drug-treatment program. Subjects (n = 10) initiating clinical therapy for opiate addiction were monitored for up to 17 weeks with hair and urinalysis. Questionnaires were administered weekly to document hair cuts and chemical treatments. Hair specimens were collected weekly by cutting at the scalp and segmented into 1-cm lengths prior to analysis. Codeine (COD), morphine (MOR), and 6-monoacetylmorphine (6-MAM) concentrations in hair were measured by liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry (LC–MS) [limit of detection (LOD): 20 pg/mg for COD and 6-MAM; 50 pg/mg MOR]. Urine specimens were analyzed by semiquantitative radioimmunoassay (25-ng/mL cutoff) and LC–MS for codeine (COD), morphine (MOR), morphine-3b-glucuronide (M3G), morphine-6b-glucuronide (M6G), and 6-monoacetylmorphine (6-MAM). The LOD and limit of quantitation (LOQ) in urine for COD, M3G, M6G, and 6-MAM were 10 ng/mL and 25 ng/mL for MOR. Interpretation of the segmental hair data in this study was complex and generally was not in agreement with urine data in most cases. Evaluation of hair data suggested that 6 of 10 subjects discontinued opiate use by the end of the study, whereas 3 of 10 appeared to have reduced their use. One subject appeared not to have used opiates throughout the entire study. In contrast, evaluation of urine data suggested that only 4 of 10 subjects significantly reduced use, and 6 of 10 continued drug use on at least an intermittent basis. Urine appeared to be a more sensitive indicator of changes in the pattern(s) of drug use during the course of clinical drug treatment.

Reproduction of editorial content of this journal is prohibited without publisher’s permission.

| Home | Subscribe | Current Issue | Back Issues | Search | Advertise | Other Publications |