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 I ² 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 (I ² 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.

While the Food and Drug Administration’s black-box warnings caution against concurrent opioid and benzodiazepine (OPI–BZD) use, there is little guidance on how to deprescribe these medications. This scoping review analyzes the available opioid and/or benzodiazepine deprescribing strategies from the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases (01/1995–08/2020) and the gray literature. We identified 39 original research studies (opioids: n = 5, benzodiazepines: n = 31, concurrent use: n = 3) and 26 guidelines (opioids: n = 16, benzodiazepines: n = 11, concurrent use: n = 0). Among the three studies deprescribing concurrent use (success rates of 21–100%), two evaluated a 3-week rehabilitation program, and one assessed a 24-week primary care intervention for veterans. Initial opioid dose deprescribing rates ranged from (1) 10–20%/weekday followed by 2.5–10%/weekday over three weeks to (2) 10–25%/1–4 weeks. Initial benzodiazepine dose deprescribing rates ranged from (1) patient-specific reductions over three weeks to (2) 50% dose reduction for 2–4 weeks, followed by 2–8 weeks of dose maintenance and then a 25% reduction biweekly. Among the 26 guidelines identified, 22 highlighted the risks of co-prescribing OPI–BZD, and 4 provided conflicting recommendations on the OPI–BZD deprescribing sequence. Thirty-five states’ websites provided resources for opioid deprescription and three states’ websites had benzodiazepine deprescribing recommendations. Further studies are needed to better guide OPI–BZD deprescription.

Background: The cost of medically attended RSV LRI (lower respiratory infection) is critical in determining the economic value of new RSV immunoprophylaxes. However, most studies have focused on intermittent RSV encounters, not the episode of care that captures the entirety of RSV illness.Methods: We created age‐ and condition‐specific cohorts of children under 5 years of age using MarketScan® data (2015–2019). We contrasted aggregating healthcare costs over RSV‐LRTI episodes to ascertaining costs based on RSV‐specific encounters only. Economic burden was estimated by multiplying costs per encounter or per episode by their respective incidence rates.Results: Average cost was higher per episode than per encounter regardless of settings (inpatient: $28,586 vs. $18,056 and outpatient/ED: $2099 vs. $407 for infants). Across ages, the economic burden was highest for infants and RSV‐LRTI requiring inpatient care, but the burden in outpatient/ED settings was disproportionately higher than costs due to higher incidence rates (for inpatient vs. outpatient episodes: $226,403 vs. $101,269; for inpatient vs. outpatient encounters: $151,878 vs. $38,819 per 1000 infant‐years). For high‐risk children, cost and burden were up to 3–10 times higher, respectively.Conclusions: With a comprehensive stratification by settings and risk condition, the encounter‐ versus episode‐based estimates provide a robust range for policymakers' economic appraisal of new RSV immunoprophylaxes.

Background: Hypertension among persons with childbearing potential is on the rise. Maintaining proper blood pressure during pregnancy is vital to prevent maternal and neonatal complications. Yet, limited evidence on the risk-benefit of various antihypertensives presents challenges for informed decision-making during this critical period. This study aimed to examine the utilization patterns of different classes of antihypertensives among persons with pre-existing hypertension before, during, and after pregnancy. Methods: We used MarketScan® Commercial Database 2011−2020 to analyze antihypertensive utilization among pregnant persons aged 12 to 55 identified via a validated algorithm. Pre-existing hypertension was defined as ≥1 inpatient or ≥2 outpatient encounters for hypertension within the 180 days preceding the LMP. Antihypertensive utilization was described during target periods: 0–3 months (0-3M) before pregnancy, 1st/2nd/3rd trimester (T1/2/3), 0-3M, and 4-6M after pregnancy. Results: We identified 1,950,292 pregnancies, of which 20,576 (12,978 live and 7,598 non-live) had pre-existing hypertension. Both groups had similar antihypertensive use (80.1% and 81.0%, respectively) during the 6 months before pregnancy (baseline). For live-birth pregnancies, 13.9% of baseline users discontinued treatment during pregnancy, while 28.9% of non-users initiated antihypertensives during pregnancy, and 17.2% started postpartum. Before pregnancy, the predominant antihypertensives included thiazide diuretics (21.9%), combined α- and β-blockers (18.4%), and dihydropyridines (16.2%). During pregnancy, thiazide diuretics, cardioselective β-blockers, and ACE inhibitors declined (T3: 3.0%, 4.2%, and 0.8%). Dihydropyridine use was steady during pregnancy, but preference shifted from amlodipine to nifedipine in T3 (2.2.% vs.10.8%). Central α2‐agonists increased during pregnancy (up to 15.2% in T3) compared to both pre- (9.8%) and post-pregnancy (5.7%). ARBs mirrored ACE inhibitors, with less than 1% utilization in later trimesters. Combination agents dropped from 10.8% pre-pregnancy to 0.8% in T3, then rebounded to 7.3% post-pregnancy. Conclusion: Research is warranted to evaluate the choice of antihypertensives and optimal timing to switch to safer alternatives, considering maternal and fetal outcomes.