![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 20 of 20. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by robbieboy74 on August 30, 2008, at 11:11:26
ow long does Alprazolam (Xanax) stay detectable in a urine or blood test?
I know it depends on the dose, but say you are not a chronic user and never take more than 2 mg's per day and don't have a history of using it.
I know this question has been asked before, but no good, science-based answers have appeared.
Posted by Phillipa on August 30, 2008, at 12:32:49
In reply to How long does Alprazolam (Xanax) stay detectable.., posted by robbieboy74 on August 30, 2008, at 11:11:26
It's short acting and I feel we all metabolize meds differently. Phillipa
Posted by dbc on August 30, 2008, at 12:53:45
In reply to Re: How long does Alprazolam (Xanax) stay detectable.. » robbieboy74, posted by Phillipa on August 30, 2008, at 12:32:49
The general answer for anything water soluble is 3 days.
If you're asking because of a drug test dont bother worrying. The NIDA 5 doesnt cover benzos at all and as the name says it only covers 5 drugs. Its the standard test for jobs/probation. The other test is very expensive and usually is only used for important things like applying for federal jobs/law enforcement.
Posted by robbieboy74 on August 30, 2008, at 13:29:23
In reply to Re: How long does Alprazolam (Xanax) stay detectable.., posted by dbc on August 30, 2008, at 12:53:45
Unfortunately the place I go to DOES test for benzos. They even test for QUAALUDE, which doesn't even exist. They even order a separate test for Darvon, which has no non-synthetic metabolites.
So I do need to know the number of hours approx. The max and min and mean or mode or quantiles would be nice. but i bet only the first two are available.
Thanks so much!
Sincerely,
Rob!
Posted by Racer on August 30, 2008, at 14:58:52
In reply to Re: How long does Alprazolam (Xanax) stay detectable.., posted by robbieboy74 on August 30, 2008, at 13:29:23
> Unfortunately the place I go to DOES test for benzos. They even test for QUAALUDE, which doesn't even exist. They even order a separate test for Darvon, which has no non-synthetic metabolites.
>Wellll....
Quaaludes don't exist, but it's sometimes still possible to find methaqualone out there...
I'm very curious about why the extensive drug testing, and whether a doctor's prescription will make a difference for you? That is, are you trying not to disclose the disorder for which Xanax is being prescribed, or is this a situation in which it doesn't matter if the Pope, the President, the Prime Minister, and the Heavyweight Champion of the World couldn't change the prohibition for this medication? (You know, something where it might actually make a very real difference -- commercial pilot, air traffic controller, rodeo clown; a profession which requires a high level of alertness at all times.)
I did a little search, and the answer I got that looked most reliable said that Xanax would probably not be detectable after 6-7 days. The site that looked least reliable to me said 1 - 6 weeks. It's going to vary based on how efficient your metabolism of the medication is, but I'd speculate that a week or so should be safe.
I very much hope that helps.
Posted by Larry Hoover on August 30, 2008, at 15:14:16
In reply to Re: How long does Alprazolam (Xanax) stay detectable.., posted by robbieboy74 on August 30, 2008, at 13:29:23
> So I do need to know the number of hours approx. The max and min and mean or mode or quantiles would be nice. but i bet only the first two are available.
>
> Thanks so much!
>
> Sincerely,
> Rob!It's pretty hard to say with any certainty at all. Lots of variables.....individual dose, chronicity of dose, metabolic rate, detection method....
The metabolic rate issue gives a factor of four range, all by itself. "Using a specific assay methodology, the mean plasma elimination half-life of alprazolam has been found to be about 11.2 hours (range: 6.3-26.9 hours) in healthy adults." Note, that's healthy adults. Older people, drinkers, hepatitis increase the half-life.
The usual rule for plasma clearance is five half-lives (1/16 of peak dose remaining), giving a range of 32 to 135 hours for healthy people.
Looking at lab websites, I found one that said: "The half-lives of benzodiazepines range from 2 to 40 hours, depending on the duration of use. Benzodiazepines may be detected in the urine up to 10 days after use." Applying an adjustment for the upper range for alprazolam half-life might give you detection for as long as a week.
However, a different lab website, with the same limit of detection (200 ng/mL), says "up to 72 hours." http://www.ncsconline.org/wc/publications/res_judedu_substanceabusematerial19pub.pdf
The primary enzyme pathway is 3A4, which is an inducible enzyme, i.e. the rate can be increased by other substances. That would be to your benefit, but be aware, there are far more rate inhibitors than there are inducers. Sample list here: http://smbrower.com/mediawiki/index.php/CYP_3A4_Inducers
Good luck.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on August 30, 2008, at 16:01:10
In reply to Re: How long does Alprazolam (Xanax) stay detectable.. » robbieboy74, posted by Larry Hoover on August 30, 2008, at 15:14:16
> The usual rule for plasma clearance is five half-lives (1/16 of peak dose remaining), giving a range of 32 to 135 hours for healthy people.
Oops. (1/2)^5 = 1/32, not 1/16.
Lar
Posted by robbieboy74 on August 30, 2008, at 16:19:27
In reply to Re: How long does Alprazolam (Xanax) stay detectable.., posted by Larry Hoover on August 30, 2008, at 16:01:10
no offense, but these answers aren't great. I want the number of hours. Most sites I see say 24-48 hours. What is the merit of this? What about the fact that xanax has a short half life.
Posted by Racer on August 30, 2008, at 16:46:00
In reply to Re: How long does Alprazolam (Xanax) stay detectable.., posted by robbieboy74 on August 30, 2008, at 16:19:27
> no offense, but these answers aren't great. I want the number of hours. Most sites I see say 24-48 hours. What is the merit of this? What about the fact that xanax has a short half life.
No offense, but honestly Larry gave you about the most complete answer anyone can give you -- according to RxList.com, mean plasma elimination half-life is 11.2 hours in healthy adults.
For a long time when I read something about half-lives, I only sorta-kinda understood just how it worked. This is meant only for those who only kinda-sorta get it, and is meant to be helpful -- the half-life is pretty much exactly that, but it gets extended: if the elimination half-life of a substance is 11 hours, then half the initial dose has been eliminated after 11 hours; half of the remaining half has been eliminated after 22 hours; etc. Again -- that nutshell explanation is meant ONLY to help anyone who doesn't already understand it, and I hope that those reading who *do* already get it will respect that intent.
The actual rates cited range from just over 6 to just under 27 hours. That broad a range indicates that there's really no way to say how long it will take for any one individual's body to eliminate all detectable levels of the drug -- except to have a drug test to see if it's detectable, and in this case the goal is to avoid exactly that.
I know it can be frustrating to post here and not get the sort of answer one wanted -- still, I usually try to lean towards assuming everyone who answers is trying to be helpful. (Operative word is "try" -- I certainly don't always succeed.)
Peace.
Posted by robbieboy74 on August 30, 2008, at 17:46:42
In reply to Re: How long does Alprazolam (Xanax) stay detectable.. » robbieboy74, posted by Racer on August 30, 2008, at 16:46:00
wait a second, urine tests are very standard and need a certain level of drug to detect. this is too much info. i don't need to know the amount needed for detection and approx half life and so I can do the calc myself. it sucks, I just want someone who already knows the infomation about how long it takes before it's not detectable typically??
Posted by Larry Hoover on August 30, 2008, at 18:03:06
In reply to Re: How long does Alprazolam (Xanax) stay detectable.., posted by robbieboy74 on August 30, 2008, at 16:19:27
> no offense, but these answers aren't great. I want the number of hours. Most sites I see say 24-48 hours. What is the merit of this? What about the fact that xanax has a short half life.
Xanax doesn't have a short half-life, if yours is over 24 hours.
I didn't find any sites that said 24-48 hours, but then I'm a chemist, and I only assess sites that meet certain quality standards.
The tests are standard, but people and doses aren't. 3-7 days is what I found. If you're as concerned about this as you sound, I'd go with 7 days.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on August 30, 2008, at 18:06:44
In reply to Re: How long does Alprazolam (Xanax) stay detectable.. » robbieboy74, posted by Larry Hoover on August 30, 2008, at 18:03:06
Just hope they don't do a hair test. The alprazolam is deposited in the hair shaft as your hair grows, leaving something like "tree rings" evidence of use.
Lar
Posted by dbc on August 30, 2008, at 22:33:31
In reply to P.S. » Larry Hoover, posted by Larry Hoover on August 30, 2008, at 18:06:44
I think if they do a hair test they can know any illicit substance you've ingested more or less but the only reason to do those would be what...security clearances?
Posted by Larry Hoover on August 30, 2008, at 22:41:49
In reply to Re: P.S., posted by dbc on August 30, 2008, at 22:33:31
> I think if they do a hair test they can know any illicit substance you've ingested more or less
Yes, I think so.
> but the only reason to do those would be what...security clearances?
I don't know why. I just know they can. They can detect picograms/gram, or parts per trillion, in hair. Very costly to do it, though. You would need a good reason.
Lar
Posted by robbieboy74 on August 31, 2008, at 0:08:37
In reply to Re: P.S. » dbc, posted by Larry Hoover on August 30, 2008, at 22:41:49
No it's not a hair test. It's for a job on Wall Street. They just do urine.
Posted by Racer on August 31, 2008, at 0:56:29
In reply to Re: P.S. » dbc, posted by Larry Hoover on August 30, 2008, at 22:41:49
> > but the only reason to do those would be what...security clearances?
>
> I don't know why. I just know they can. They can detect picograms/gram, or parts per trillion, in hair. Very costly to do it, though. You would need a good reason.
>
> Lar
>My ex's younger son was drug tested for a job -- standard urine -- and came back showing clear evidence of extensive use of methamphetamine. I'm not saying this because of the relationship, since he and I never got along, but I did know the kid -- he did NOT do meth, just not his style. He drinks with his friends, probably not to excess, and has smoked pot a few times -- here in this area of California, that really isn't outside the norm. No meth -- he just ain't that kind.
Job screening urine test showed serious addiction levels of meth -- not casual, even if regular, use. Lab was considered by all quite reputable and reliable. So, kid's hair was sent off to prove the test wrong -- and came back negative.
An investigation showed the the tech who set up the test had swapped samples to help out a buddy -- ex's kid just got the lucky number on it. Just outcome all around -- kid was hired, I think the company even compensated him for the delay in starting the job as apology.
So, confirming the results of a urine screen is one reason to go for a hair test. And I can see using the hair test on someone with a history of substance use to prevent fraud in the urine test.
And I'm sure James Bond's hair was tested...
Posted by Jay_Bravest_Face on August 31, 2008, at 9:25:32
In reply to I know one good reason for it » Larry Hoover, posted by Racer on August 31, 2008, at 0:56:29
I find this so odd, like a massive breach of my/others civil rights. I can understand for some technically important job, like a pilot or a trucker, but the rest sound like the U.S. is overstepping people's civil liberties. Here in Canada, our Supreme Court has upheld our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and hasn't allowed drug-testing for many jobs. Just the ones that require technical persuasion.
Jay
Posted by Racer on August 31, 2008, at 10:30:40
In reply to Re: Drug Screening » Racer, posted by Jay_Bravest_Face on August 31, 2008, at 9:25:32
> I find this so odd, like ... the rest sound like the U.S. is overstepping people's civil liberties. Here in Canada, our Supreme Court has upheld our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and hasn't allowed drug-testing for many jobs.
Well, Jay, I guess we do live in different countries, huh? While the picture you paint of Canada sounds remarkably close to paradisaical, others I know up there -- including two I know only from Babble and their reports of trying to get medical or psychiatric treatment up there -- have quite a differing view.
Equally, the view you seem to present of the US doesn't seem to describe the country I live in -- only the sort of view one might get of us from a single source, especially onewhich really only presents the side of the issue which sounds kinda like 'the employer's rights always and appropriately trump individual rights.' I'm not saying that you are trying to communicate this sort of message -- only letting you know that reading it often sounds that way to at least one reader. Maybe knowing how it's sometimes interpreted by someone down here will help you -- like the Burns poem?
"O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!"The United States of America is made up of the same myriad shades of political views as the rest of the world. Our country is quite large, and quite varied -- in many cases, individual cities are larger than entire European countries. That being the case, in many ways our identity if far better represented by the first part of our formal name -- The United States. Canada is similar in that respect, especially the English and French splits, but I don't think it's quite so pronounced overall. Heck, Jay -- people from Georgia will often be insulted if they're mistaken for being from North Carolina! Homogeneity is not something which can be assumed, in any area, is what I'm trying to say here.
And I'm really not the sort of person with the sort of patriotism best expressed by the phrase, "My Country -- Right or Wrong!" There are times when I am downright ashamed to admit I'm an American -- but I am, it is part of my identity, and I see much to admire in the evolution of the experimental republic named The United States of America. And please remember -- I was uninsured, and received sub-adequate mental health care that did a lot of damage to me. I have experienced, first hand, some of this country's deficits.As for drug testing, the issue goes back and forth -- on the one hand, the courts have been reasonable about testing employees: random testing is a violation of individual rights. Testing for cause is a different story -- and there are few employers who would go to the trouble and expense of testing an employee for cause unless that cause was related to job performance impairment. It's not that the testing costs so much and is some complex and time consuming -- it's because there an awful lot of employees out there who are fully aware of the probability that they'd prevail if they challenged their employer's request for a urine sample, and an equal number of attorneys whose mouths water at the chance to remind the world that our legal system is based on a constitution created by some very clever guys, guys we're pretty proud of.
Pre-employment screening is another matter, though. At that point, there are a few things employers can't ask directly -- "how old are you?" "Are you planning to have children?" (There's a joke about that last one -- you're not even allowed to ask that question to a woman who's eight months along. Funny, silly -- and true. It's considered discriminatory, and I do get satisfaction when our anti-discrimination rules don't allow for the thin end of the wedge, even if it sometimes sounds silly.) Some employers choose to use drug screening as part of their pre-employment screening. Some have probably discovered that their hiring managers have a poor track record when it comes to screening out people who bring their substance abuse problems to their work. Some are just trying to find ways to standardize their hiring process to the point a blood test would one day suffice as a resume; often those are large employers, with a range of lower wage/lower skilled jobs. Jobs that often hire high school/college age students. Other employers -- most notably those down-stream from government contracts -- have to require such testing as part of those contracts. Ideally, that wouldn't be a good enough reason to require testing, employers would defend the rights of their employees against all comers -- at least, that's part of my belief system.
It's also not realistic in our current economic and political climate.
I'm sorry this is so long, Jay, but I don't think you mean to offend with posts like this -- at least I hope and trust you don't -- and wanted to let you know that at least one person's interpretation of some of your posts could lead to feeling kinda offended. Kinda like telling someone about an open zipper -- someone might figure it out, but there's some embarrassment involved that could be avoided pretty easily if someone had offered a head's up about it, you know?
Peace, Jay. I haven't been many places in Canada, but those places were all lovely.
Posted by Larry Hoover on August 31, 2008, at 19:11:47
In reply to Re: P.S., posted by robbieboy74 on August 31, 2008, at 0:08:37
> No it's not a hair test. It's for a job on Wall Street. They just do urine.
Standard pre-employment screening is via a method called EMIT. Think of those drug-store pregnancy tests.....same process.
In a previous post, I referenced a link to a .pdf file. I hope you bothered to look at it. It's the best reference I found.
Lar
Posted by Phillipa on August 31, 2008, at 19:27:32
In reply to Re: P.S. » robbieboy74, posted by Larry Hoover on August 31, 2008, at 19:11:47
And the post is about xanax and how long positive in a urine pre-employment test. I know when nursing as long as had a legit script and was asked to bring all bottles of my meds with me it was fine to be on xanax as I always was. At A dose that was considered safe. Phillipa
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.