Dataset Information

Inches, Centimeters, and Yards: Overlooked Definition Choices Inhibit Interpretation of Morphine Equivalence.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Morphine-standardized doses are used in clinical practice and research to account for molecular potency. Ninety milligrams of morphine equivalents (MME) per day are considered a "high dose" risk threshold in guidelines, laws, and by payers. Although ubiquitously cited, the "CDC definition" of daily MME lacks a clearly defined denominator. Our objective was to assess denominator-dependency on "high dose" classification across competing definitions.

Methods

To identify definitional variants, we reviewed literature and electronic prescribing tools, yielding 4 unique definitions. Using Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs data (July to September 2018), we conducted a population-based cohort study of 3,916,461 patients receiving outpatient opioid analgesics in California (CA) and Florida (FL). The binary outcome was whether patients were deemed "high dose" (>90 MME/d) compared across 4 definitions. We calculated I2 for heterogeneity attributable to the definition.

Results

Among 9,436,640 prescriptions, 42% overlapped, which led denominator definitions to impact daily MME values. Across definitions, average daily MME varied 3-fold (range: 17 to 52 [CA] and 23 to 65 mg [FL]). Across definitions, prevalence of "high dose" individuals ranged 5.9% to 14.2% (FL) and 3.5% to 10.3% (CA). Definitional variation alone would impact a hypothetical surveillance study trying to establish how much more "high dose" prescribing was present in FL than CA: from 39% to 84% more. Meta-analyses revealed strong heterogeneity (I2 range: 86% to 99%). In sensitivity analysis, including unit interval 90.0 to 90.9 increased "high dose" population fraction by 15%.

Discussion

While 90 MME may have cautionary mnemonic benefits, without harmonization of calculation, its utility is limited. Comparison between studies using daily MME requires explicit attention to definitional variation.

SUBMITTER: Dasgupta N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8270512 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundInterpretation of shoulder motion across studies has been complicated due to the use of numerous scapular coordinate systems in the literature. Currently, there are no simple means by which to compare scapular kinematics between coordinate system definitions when data from only one coordinate system is known.Research questionHow do scapular kinematics vary based on the choice of coordinate system and can average rotation matrices be used to accurately convert kinematics between scapular local coordinate systems?MethodsAverage rotation matrices derived from anatomic landmarks of 51 cadaver scapulae (29 M/22 F; 59 ± 13 yrs; 26R/25 L; 171 ± 11 cm; 70 ± 19 kg; 23.7 ± 5.5 kg/m2) were generated between three common scapular coordinate systems. Absolute angle of rotation was used to determine if anatomical variability within the cadaver population influenced the matrices. To quantify the predictive capability to convert kinematics between the three coordinate systems, the average rotation matrices were applied to scapulothoracic motion data collected from 19 human subjects (10 M/9 F; 43 ± 17 yrs; 19R; 173 ± 9 cm; 71 ± 16 kg; 23.6 ± 4.5 kg/m2) using biplane fluoroscopy. Root mean squared error (RMSE) was used to compare kinematics from an original coordinate system to the kinematics expressed in each alternative coordinate system.ResultsThe choice of scapular coordinate system resulted in mean differences in scapulothoracic rotation of up to 23°, with overall different shapes and/or magnitudes of the curves. A single average rotation matrix between any two coordinate systems achieved accurate conversion of scapulothoracic kinematics to within 4° of RMSE of the known solution. The average rotation matrices were independent of sex, side, decomposition sequence, and motion.SignificanceScapulothoracic kinematic representations vary in shape and magnitude based solely on the choice of local coordinate system. The results of this study enhance interpretability and reproducibility in expressing scapulothoracic motion data between laboratories by providing a simple means to convert data between common coordinate systems. This is necessitated by the variety of available motion analysis techniques and their respective scapular landmark definitions.

Project description:BackgroundInterventional trials that evaluate treatment effects using surrogate endpoints have become increasingly common. This paper describes four linked empirical studies and the development of a framework for defining, interpreting and reporting surrogate endpoints in trials.MethodsAs part of developing the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) and SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) extensions for randomised trials reporting surrogate endpoints, we undertook a scoping review, e-Delphi study, consensus meeting, and a web survey to examine current definitions and stakeholder (including clinicians, trial investigators, patients and public partners, journal editors, and health technology experts) interpretations of surrogate endpoints as primary outcome measures in trials.FindingsCurrent surrogate endpoint definitional frameworks are inconsistent and unclear. Surrogate endpoints are used in trials as a substitute of the treatment effects of an intervention on the target outcome(s) of ultimate interest, events measuring how patients feel, function, or survive. Traditionally the consideration of surrogate endpoints in trials has focused on biomarkers (e.g., HDL cholesterol, blood pressure, tumour response), especially in the medical product regulatory setting. Nevertheless, the concept of surrogacy in trials is potentially broader. Intermediate outcomes that include a measure of function or symptoms (e.g., angina frequency, exercise tolerance) can also be used as substitute for target outcomes (e.g., all-cause mortality)-thereby acting as surrogate endpoints. However, we found a lack of consensus among stakeholders on accepting and interpreting intermediate outcomes in trials as surrogate endpoints or target outcomes. In our assessment, patients and health technology assessment experts appeared more likely to consider intermediate outcomes to be surrogate endpoints than clinicians and regulators.InterpretationThere is an urgent need for better understanding and reporting on the use of surrogate endpoints, especially in the setting of interventional trials. We provide a framework for the definition of surrogate endpoints (biomarkers and intermediate outcomes) and target outcomes in trials to improve future reporting and aid stakeholders' interpretation and use of trial surrogate endpoint evidence.FundingSPIRIT-SURROGATE/CONSORT-SURROGATE project is Medical Research Council Better Research Better Health (MR/V038400/1) funded.

Project description:The use of agricultural resources or environments by wildlife may result in opportunities for transmission of infections amongst wild animals, livestock and humans. Targeted use of biosecurity measures may therefore reduce disease risks, although this requires practical knowledge of where such measures would be most effective, and effective means of communicating risks so that stakeholders can make informed decisions about such investment. In parts of Europe, the European badger Meles meles may act as a wildlife reservoir for Mycobacterium bovis, the causative agent of bovine tuberculosis, and badger visits to farmyards may provide potential opportunities for transmission of M. bovis to cattle. Biosecurity measures are effective in reducing badger activity in farmyards, although it is unclear which farms should be targeted with such measures. We used cameras to monitor badger activity in 155 farmyards in south west England and Wales, and related variations in the presence and frequency of badger visits to farm characteristics. Badgers were recorded on camera in 40% of farmyards monitored. However, the frequency of visits was highly variable, with badgers recorded on >50% of nights in only 10% of farms. The presence of badgers in farmyards was positively associated with the density of badger setts, the number of feed stores and the number of cattle sheds, and negatively associated with the distance to the nearest active badger sett, the presence of a house/dwelling and the number of cattle housed on the farm. The frequency of visits was negatively associated with the distance to the nearest active badger sett and the number of cattle housed. Models predicted the presence/absence of badgers in farmyards with 73% accuracy (62% sensitivity, 81% specificity, using a cut off value of 0.265). Models could not distinguish between farms with low/high frequency of visits, although farms predicted as having badgers present typically had a higher frequency of visits than those that were not. We developed and present an interactive web based application: the Badger Farm Assessment Tool (BFAT), to allow users to enter the characteristics of a farm and generate a relative risk score describing the likelihood of badger visits.