Skip to main content
PLOS Global Public Health logoLink to PLOS Global Public Health
. 2022 Jul 8;2(7):e0000533. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0000533

Calculating worldwide needs for morphine for pain in advanced cancer and proportions feasibly met by country estimates of requirements and consumption. Retrospective, time-series analysis (1997–2017)

Joseph Clark 1,*,#, Lucia Crowther 1,#, Miriam J Johnson 1,#, Christina Ramsenthaler 1,2, David C Currow 3,#
Editor: Nikita Mehra4
PMCID: PMC10021698  PMID: 36962467

Abstract

Lack of access to therapeutic opioids continuing causes global health inequalities. Access to morphine for symptom control is regulated under the terms of the Single Convention on Narcotics, countries must submit annual morphine requirement estimates and report consumption to the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB). INCB indicates access to morphine is increasing, however, estimated needs are unreported so changing proportions of needs feasibly met by requirements and consumption are unknown. Retrospective time series-analysis taking cross-sections every five years of gaps between calculated needs for morphine for people who die from cancer and total treatable using estimates of requirements and consumption (1997, 2002, 2007, 2012, 2017). We calculated need using INCB-recommended methods (80% of people who die from cancer require 67.5mg of morphine daily for 90 days (6.075g)) for countries reporting estimates and consumption using Global Burden of Disease cancer deaths by country. Gaps between calculated need and total treatable population using estimates and consumption were calculated. We report proportions of need feasibly met by estimates and consumption for included countries, by World Bank Income group. Global availability of morphine increased, from estimates sufficient to treat 86% of calculated needs in 1997, to 701% in 2017. However, proportion of countries estimating requirements feasibly meeting >100% of calculated needs rose only from 16% to 30%. Almost all Low-and-Middle-Income Countries submitted inadequate estimates with little change in 20 years. Consumption was lower than calculated needs at all time-points. Very few countries reported consumption greater than their estimate of requirement. Most countries submitted morphine estimates insufficient to meet analgesic needs of people who died from cancer. Estimates of requirements contextualise future Consumption, and increases in adequacy of estimates and consumption were minimal over 20 years. Annual publication of calculated morphine needs alongside estimates and consumption may be a key step to drive countries’ accountabilities.

Introduction

Morphine is listed as an essential medicine by the World Health Organization (WHO) and is a key therapy in the WHO 3-step pain ladder [1, 2]. Differences in the availability and utilisation of morphine for people with pain and advanced cancer generate key global health inequalities [3]. In 2018, 79% of the world’s population, living mainly in low- and middle-income countries, consumed only 13% of the world’s consumption of licit morphine used for the management of pain [4]. Access to appropriate pain relief is acknowledged as a human right [5, 6].

In addition to well established clinical indications, opioids including morphine may be used illicitly and can be highly addictive [7]. For complex socioeconomic reasons, over-consumption in some countries–primarily the United States–has caused significant suffering from addiction and through diversion of licit opioids to illicit channels since the 1990s [8]. Appropriate regulation of morphine must, therefore, achieve balance between availability for beneficial therapeutic purposes and restriction of illicit use.

Since 1961, morphine has been internationally regulated under the terms of the Single Convention on Narcotics, implementation of which is overseen by the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) [9]. The INCB is charged with prohibition of illicit production and supply of controlled substances, whilst ensuring use for medical treatment through use of the Estimates System [10].

Under the Estimates System, each year countries submit Estimates of Requirements for controlled substances to the INCB which set an upper limit on stock that can be held and the amount that can be traded across borders. Estimates of requirements are calculated quantities of controlled substances that countries can safely administer, not crude estimates of how much would be necessary to meet actual clinical needs. Gaps between calculated need and levels of calculated need feasibly met by estimates of requirements are not reported.

Flexibilities in global regulation are present, which allow for additional trade and consumption in unforeseen circumstances [11]. However, it is unclear whether countries avail themselves of this flexibility to increase consumption or if requirements determine consumption in practice.

To calculate Estimates of requirements, the INCB endorses three approaches [Box 1].

Box 1. Methods recommended by the INCB for the quantification of requirements for controlled substances

Method A. Consumption-based methods and variants

“The consumption-based method and its variants are based on past health-care demands for controlled substances. Where past use of controlled substances is stable, future requirements can be estimated by averaging the amounts consumed in recent years and adding a margin for unforeseeable increases [p.21]”.

Method B. Service-based method

“The service-based method starts by taking the quantities of controlled substances currently in use in standard health-care facilities and extrapolating those findings to similar facilities throughout the country [p.23]”.

Method C. Morbidity-based method

“The morbidity-based method uses data on the frequency of health problems (morbidity) and an assumption of how those health problems will be treated (average standard treatment schedules) to calculate the requirements for controlled substances [p.26]”.

Source: International Narcotics Control Board. Guide on Estimating Requirements for Substances Under International Control, 2012. Available from: www.incb.org

Methods A and B calculate future estimates of requirements based upon historic usage, which in context of chronic under-consumption (because of a lack of availability) would perpetuate a cycle of under-availability [12]. However, in 2012, to support use of the ‘Morbidity-based method,’ the INCB published a recommended formula for calculating estimated requirements for morphine for people in pain with advanced cancer which appears responsive to changing clinical needs [13].

The INCB suggests that 80% of people with advanced cancer will require morphine, at an average of 67.5 mg per day in the last 90 days of life. Using numbers of people who die from cancer by country, it is therefore possible to calculate overall morphine needs for people with pain from advanced cancer by country using the INCB-endorsed approach.

In addition to Estimates of Requirements, countries submit their annual Consumption of controlled substances to the INCB. Methods with which individual countries calculate estimates of requirements are unreported. However, at the service-level, reporting of consumption to national regulators of controlled substances is a prerequisite to obtaining and maintaining a license to prescribe opioids. A controlled substance is regarded as “consumed” when it has been supplied to any person or enterprise for retail distribution, medical use or scientific research; and “consumption” is construed accordingly [4].

The Lancet Commission on Pain and Palliative Care applied INCB assumptions measuring the difference between palliative care-estimated needs and the quantity available for prescription for patients [3]. These calculations broadly demonstrated gaps between need and availability worldwide, and highlighted that Human Development Index ratings are associated with huge inequities in adequacy of clinical care provision.

No other study has investigated the adequacy of countries’ estimates of requirements nor described changes over time to explore the extent to which estimates of requirements contextualise future consumption. Adequate estimates of requirements would not ensure access to morphine for those with clinical need. However, INCB reports that “obtaining accurate information about the legitimate requirements for [controlled] substances is a prerequisite to ensuring their availability [p.iv, 2012] [13].” By contrast, overestimation of requirements relative to calculated needs increases the risks of opioid abuse and considerable impacts on the health and wellbeing of society.

We aimed to calculate needs for morphine for people who die from cancer using an adapted morbidity-based method [Box 1] and identify changes in proportions of calculated need which could feasibly be met by countries’ submitted estimates of requirements using INCB-recommended methods of calculation between 1997 and 2017 We report changes in consumption at five year intervals, to account for any consumption of morphine which is additional to estimates of requirements.

Aims

  • To calculate total needs for morphine using INCB’s assumption that 80% of people who die from cancer will require 67.5 mg of morphine per day in the last 90 days of life

  • To describe changes in the proportions of people in pain with advanced cancer feasibly treatable using existing data on morphine estimates of requirements and consumption reported to the INCB, by World Bank Income group over time (1997–2017).

Methods

Key terms

Our study uses a number of related but distinct key terms throughout the manuscript. Key terms are presented and defined in Box 2:

Box 2. Definitions of key terms

  • Estimates system–refers to the INCB’s method of implementation of the Single Convention on Narcotics, which requires countries to submit Estimates of Requirements for controlled substances annually.

  • Estimates of requirements–refers to estimated or calculated quantities of controlled substances individual countries submit to the INCB annually which can be safely administered for clinical or scientific purposes.

  • Consumption–refers to quantities of controlled substances reported annually to the INCB as having been ‘consumed.’ Controlled substances are considered to have been ‘consumed’ where it has been supplied to any person or enterprise for retail distribution, medical use or scientific research

  • Calculated need–refers to calculations of country-level need for morphine for people with advanced cancer at INCB-recommended dosage and duration used in this study (80% of people who die from cancer, 67.5mg per day for the last 90 days of life)

  • Total/feasibly treatable–refers to total or proportion of Calculated need feasibly met using Estimates of requirements or Consumption assuming that all morphine is administered to people who die from cancer at INCB-recommended dosage and duration.

*Estimates of requirements are not equivalent to country estimates of clinical needs. The INCB notes that “in an ideal system, the requirements for controlled substances would equal the needs [INCB, p6]. [4]”

Study design

This is a retrospective time series analysis taking repeated cross-sections every five years of gaps between calculated needs for morphine for people who die from advanced cancer and total treatable using estimates of requirements and countries’ reports of consumption. We apply INCB guidance for calculating estimates of requirements for morphine for people who die from cancer to calculate how many people could feasibly be treated with countries’ estimates of requirements and reported consumption. Our novel approach uses real-world data to apply global guidance and is therefore not reported in accordance with standard reporting checklists (e.g. STROBE, GATHER). For example, we provide crude calculations of need for morphine using total deaths and standard dosage/duration of morphine per patient, for which it is not necessary to evaluate uncertainty within the calculations.

Data collection

Total deaths from cancer and country population data were retrieved for 195 countries for the years: 1997, 2002, 2007, 2012 and 2017 using Global Burden of Disease (GBD) and Our World in Data [14, 15].

Country estimates of requirements for morphine and reports of morphine consumption were then retrieved from the INCB Narcotic Drug–Technical Reports for countries for which we had data for cancer deaths. Data for 2002, 2007, 2012 and 2017 were available from INCB’s website [16]. Further data regarding estimates of requirements and consumption data for 1997 were provided by the INCB on request. The INCB does not publish guidance on how to calculate estimates of requirements for other controlled substances which are used to treat pain in advanced cancer (e.g. codeine, fentanyl). Therefore, these are not included in our analysis. Morphine-equivalent doses were not calculated.

INCB reports of country consumption were altered from kilos into grams (consumption (kg) * 1000). For countries reporting “<1kg” consumption, we coded this as zero, as consumption <1kg is highly unlikely to have been systematically directed towards meeting the needs of people in pain from cancer.

Finally, we applied World Bank Income Group rankings for each included country for the relevant year to complete our dataset (1 = Low-income Country, 2 = Lower Middle-Income Country, 3 = Upper Middle-Income Country, 4 = High-income country) [17].

All data used in our study are aggregated data available in the public domain and we did not require ethical approval.

Sample size and eligibility criteria

We aimed to include all countries in the world in our analysis which report estimates of requirements to the INCB. However, several countries were excluded for each year in the study due to different conceptualisation of countries between GBD and INCB where estimates of requirements were not reported to INCB for a given year [Fig 1].

Fig 1. Flow chart of total countries included/excluded at each stage of analysis.

Fig 1

Our repeated cross-sectional study includes different countries at each time point. However, we report proportions of calculated need met be feasibly met by estimates of requirements at each time-point which allows direct comparisons. Analysis of proportions of calculated need feasibly met be country reports of morphine consumption includes countries which reported estimates of requirements and consumption, which further reduced the sample size at each time-point [Fig 1].

Data analysis

We applied INCB-assumptions that 80% of people with late-stage cancer require morphine at an average dose of 67.5 mg per day for 90 days (6.075 g) [13]. Applying this assumption to proportion of cancer deaths for each country, we calculated worldwide needs for morphine treatment of people who died from cancer and calculated the proportions of need feasibly met by countries’ estimates of requirements at INCB-recommended dosage and duration (1997–2017). To determine the extent to which estimates of requirements contextualise consumption, this method was applied to reports of morphine consumption to account for any consumption which is additional to that feasible from estimates of requirements. We conducted our analysis in three stages, summarised in Fig 2. Results are presented overall, by income group and by percentiles of need feasibly met by estimates of requirements and consumption [18].

Fig 2. Process of calculating needs and proportions of needs feasibly met by estimates of requirements and consumption.

Fig 2

Data were managed and analysed using Microsoft Excel version 16.0 and IBM SPSS Statistics version 26.

Results

The number of countries submitting estimates of requirements for morphine included within our sample, increased year on year between 1997 and 2017, from 176 in 1997 to 187 in 2017 [Table 1]. More people died from cancer year on year, increasing overall needs for morphine. Total calculated needs for morphine for pain in advanced cancer, increased at each time point accordingly, from approximately five million in 1997, to seven million people in 2017. Total countries’ estimates of requirement for morphine increased substantially, from 25,526kg in 2007 to 311,105kg in 2012, reducing slightly to 300,192kg in 2017.

Table 1. Total included countries, proportion of world population, cancer deaths and calculated totals of people who died from advanced cancer requiring morphine, and estimates of requirements by World Bank Income Group (1997–2017).

Year analysed
1997 2002 2007 2012 2017
Total included countries (n) 176 181 186 186 187
Population 5.73 billion 6.23 billion 6.66 billion 7.08 billion 7.50 billion
People who died from cancer 6,142,563 6,747,754 7,223,673 8,003,555 8,811,563
People requiring morphine (calculated need)* 4,914,050 5,398,203 5,778,938 6,402,844 7,049,250
Estimated morphine needs (kg) 29,853 32,794 35,107 38,897 42,824
Total estimate of requirement 25,526 277,574 264,246 311,105 300,192
By level of World Bank country income category Low-Income Countries 54 61 49 37 35
% of total countries 31 34 23 20 19
Total population 1,951,847,968 2,529,922,992 1,276,933,000 847,078,000 718,489,000
% of world population 34 41 19 12 10
People who died from cancer 1,001,365 1,327,893 725,383 458,530 344,488
People requiring morphine (calculated need)* 801,092 1,062,314 580,306 366,824 275,590
Morphine needs^ 4,867 6,454 3,525 2,228 1,674
Estimate of requirement (kg) 470 10,832** 478 414 655
Lower middle-income countries 54 52 51 45 43
% of total countries 31 29 27 24 23
Total population 2,309,154,032 2,434,515,064 3,484,886,944 2,542,306,960 2,961,446,984
% of world population 40 39 52 36 39
People who died from cancer 2,558,249 2,929,128 3,121,798 1,561,385 1,960,931
People requiring morphine (calculated need)* 2,046,599 2,343,302 2,497,438 1,249,108 1,568,745
Morphine needs^ 12,433 14,236 15,172 7,588 9,530
Estimate of requirement (kg) 3,189 32,698 22,042 10,336 15,921
Upper middle-income countries 30 29 40 52 54
% of total countries 17 16 22 28 29
Total population 574,424,992 330,804,000 870,549,000 2,426,880,960 2,613,612,958
% of world population 10 5 13 34 35
People who died from cancer 592,732 396,495 1,103,314 3,180,085 3,786,096
People requiring morphine (calculated need)* 474,186 317,196 882,651 2,544,068 3,028,877
Morphine needs^ 2,881 1,927 5,362 15,455 18,400
Estimate of requirement (kg) 1,072 15,323 9,328 42,429 28,603
High-income countries 35 39 46 52 55
% of total countries 20 22 15 28 29
Total population 899,514,984 931,338,008 1,023,183,000 1,265,167,000 1,209,952,992
% of world population 16 15 15 18 16
People who died from cancer 1,990,217 2,094,238 2,273,178 2,803,555 2,720,048
People requiring morphine (calculated need)* 1,592,174 1,675,390 1818542 2,242,844 2,176,038
Morphine needs^ 9,672 10,178 11,048 13,625 13,219
Estimate of requirement (kg) 20,795 218,721 232,398 257,926 255,012

*Calculated at 80% of people who died from cancer;

^calculated as number of people x 67.5 mg per day x 90 days reported in kilograms

** A large spike in estimate of requirement in this year is accounted for by a large increase in a single country’s (India) estimate of requirement for morphine in this year.

In 1997, global estimates of requirements for morphine could feasibly meet only 86% of calculated global needs for people with advanced cancer (total estimated requirement/calculated needs for morphine*100). However, since 1997, availability of morphine has increased substantially with estimates of requirements sufficient to drastically exceed calculated needs for people with advanced cancer in 2002 (846%), 2007 (753%), 2012 (800%) and 2017 (701%).

The total number and proportion of High-income Countries (HICs) increased in our sample, although the proportion of world population in HICs did not. Total estimate of requirements for morphine accounted for in HICs increased from 81% (20,795/25,526*100) in 1997 to 85% (255,012/300,19,*100) in 2017. However, the proportion of total calculated need in HICs reduced in this time period, indicating that inequality in availability of morphine increased between income groups between 1997 and 2017. Increased gaps between proportion of calculated need for morphine and proportion of world estimate of requirement increased in Lower Middle-Income Countries (LMICs) and Upper Middle-Income Countries (UMICs).

For all country groups, fluctuations are present in population, calculated needs for morphine and estimates of requirement between time-points, notably in low-income and upper-middle income countries. Fluctuations are accounted for both by changes to individual countries’ estimate of requirement and differences in countries included within each income group, either due to some countries not submitting estimates of requirements for individual years, or movement between income group of countries.

Fig 3 shows the proportion of total countries submitting estimates of requirements which could feasibly meet and exceed calculated needs for morphine of people with advanced cancer, increased: 1997 (28/176, 16%), 2002 (43/181, 24%), 2007 (42/186, 23%), 53/186, 28%), 2017 (57/187, 30%). In such countries, calculated need for morphine for people with advanced cancer could feasibly be met, with additional morphine supplies available for other clinical indications.

Fig 3. Proportion of included countries submitting estimates of requirements which could feasibly meet > or ≤ 100% of calculated need for morphine of people with advanced cancer, 1997–2017.

Fig 3

Whilst this shows that availability of morphine is increasing worldwide, the proportion of countries submitting estimates of requirements which did not even have the possibility of meeting the calculated needs of people with advanced cancer, reduced only from 84% in 1997, to 70% in 2017.

In countries submitting estimates of requirements sufficient to meet ≤100% of calculated needs, our analysis suggests that at least 1.75M people died from cancer in 2017 with zero chance of receiving INCB-recommended morphine analgesia. Put another way, in 2017, countries submitting estimates of requirements sufficient to meet ≤100% of calculated needs, submitted estimates of requirements which could, in a best case scenario, meet only 56% of calculated needs.

In 1997, 16 countries submitted estimates of requirements, but did not list any morphine, meaning that 0% of calculated needs could possibly be met [Fig 4]. This number reduced to two countries by 2017. However, a high proportion of countries in all income settings submitted estimates of requirements which could feasibly meet only a small proportion of calculated needs. The proportion and distribution of countries which report estimates of requirements which could feasibly meet only a fraction of calculated needs do not appear to change materially over a 20 year period.

Fig 4. Proportion of calculated need feasibly met by estimates of requirements in 1997 (n = 176), 2002 (n = 181), 2007 (n = 186), 2012 (n = 186) and 2017 (n = 187).

Fig 4

The proportion of countries which submitted estimates of requirements sufficient to meet >100% of calculated needs increased from 16% in 1997 to 30% in 2017. This indicates that an increasing proportion of world countries are submitting estimates of requirements for morphine which exceeds quantities necessary to treat people who die from advanced cancer at INCB-recommended dosage and duration, with additional morphine then available for other approved clinical and scientific indications such as post-operative and trauma analgesia.

Income group and morphine availability

Countries submitting estimates of requirements for morphine insufficient for meeting 100% of calculated needs are present in all income groups [Fig 5]. The number of countries within income groups changes within our sample. However, the proportion of countries within each income group submitting estimates of requirements which could feasibly meet calculated needs for morphine for cancer-related pain relief, with additional capacity to treat others requiring morphine, changes little between 1997 and 2017 in any income group.

Fig 5. Proportion of countries within each income group submitting estimates of requirements able to meet ≤ or > 100% of calculated need by year.

Fig 5

Consumption of morphine (morphine feasibly accessed by people with advanced cancer)

Of countries reporting both estimates of requirements and consumption for an included year, patterns of morphine consumption worldwide are consequently highly consistent with those identified for estimates of requirements [S1S3 Figs], with lower proportions of calculated need feasibly met by consumption than estimates of requirements [Table 2].

Table 2. Total included countries reporting both estimates of requirements and consumption, proportion of world population, cancer deaths and proportions of calculated need feasibly met by countries’ estimates of requirements and consumption, by World Bank Income Group (1997–2017).
Year analysed
1997 2002 2007 2012 2017
Total included countries reporting both Estimates of requirements and Consumption (n) 143 156 156 144 153
Total population 5.51 billion 6.09 billion 6.42 billion 6.73 billion 7,01 billion
Number of people who died from cancer 5,978,734 6,674,669 7,021,569 7,780,895 8,549,962
Number of people requiring morphine (calculated need)* 4,782,987 5,339,736 5,617,255 6,224,716 6,839,969
Total Estimate of requirement (kg) 25,486 277,494 263,305 310,843 299,638
Total Consumption 17,850 27,374 39,369 45,265 43,170
Proportion of calculated need feasibly treatable using Estimates of requirements 88 855 772 822 721
Proportion of calculated need feasibly treatable using Consumption 61 84 115 120 104
By level of World Bank country income category Low-income countries 32 49 38 20 19
Total population 1,775,004,968 2,438,094,992 1,177,084,000 583,716,000 389,045,000
Number of people who died from cancer 893,778 1,281,473 675,380 304,268 179,011
Number of people requiring morphine (calculated need) 715,023 1,025,178 540,304 243,414 143,209
Total Estimate of requirement (kg) 450 10,823 429 304 327
Total Consumption 31 70 104 79 162
Proportion of calculated need feasibly treatable using Estimates of requirements 10 174 13 21 38
Proportion of calculated need feasibly treatable using Consumption 1 1 3 5 19
Lower middle-income countries 48 45 40 32 35
Total population 2,260,732,032 2,392,636,064 3,354,455,944 2,502,958,960 2,859,820,984
Number of people who died from cancer 2,504,071 2,905,174 2,981,286 1,532,230 1,911,678
Number of people requiring morphine (calculated need) 2,003,257 2,324,139 2,385,029 1,225,784 1,529,343
Total Estimate of requirement (kg) 3,171 32,633 21,172 10,231 15,796
Total Consumption 728 1,380 1,514 338 548
Proportion of calculated need feasibly treatable using Estimates of requirements 26 231 146 137 170
Proportion of calculated need feasibly treatable using Consumption 6 10 10 5 6
Upper middle-income countries 28 25 36 43 45
Total population 572,023,992 327,907,000 864,609,000 2,378,196,960 2,550,288,952
Number of people who died from cancer 2,504,071 394,029 1,092,793 3,141,650 3,739,336
Number of people requiring morphine (calculated need) 472,534 315,223 874,234 2,513,320 2,991,469
Total Estimate of requirement (kg) 1,070 15,320 9308 42,385 28,503
Total Consumption 918 577 1537 2,630 3,621
Proportion of calculated need feasibly treatable using Estimates of requirements 37 800 175 278 157
Proportion of calculated need feasibly treatable using Consumption 32 30 29 17 20
High-income countries 35 37 42 49 54
Total population 899,514,984 931,202,008 1,021,932,000 1,264,728,000 1,209,857,992
Number of people who died from cancer 1,990,218 2,093,993 2,272,110 2,802,747 2,719,935
Number of people requiring morphine (calculated need) 1,592,174 1,675,195 1,817,688 2,242,198 2,175,959
Total Estimate of requirement (kg) 20,795 218,719 232,396 257,922 255,012
Total Consumption 16,173 25,346 36,214 42,218 38,839
Proportion of calculated need feasibly treatable using Estimates of requirements 215 2,149 2,105 1,894 1,929
Proportion of calculated need feasibly treatable using Consumption 167 249 328 310 294

For each stage of analysis, proportions of calculated needs for morphine feasibly treatable from reports of consumption were lower than those reported for estimates of requirements indicating that estimates of requirements contextualise future consumption. Very few individual countries reported consumption levels that exceeded estimates of requirements (1997,22/143 (15%), 2002, 14/156 (9%), 2007, 12/156 (8%), 2012, 7/144 (5%), 2017, 15/153 (10%)). This indicates that few countries avail of flexibilities within the estimates system to increase consumption beyond estimates of requirements and existing stocks and supplies.

Discussion

Worldwide under-consumption of morphine is well reported, notably by the Lancet Commission on Pain and Palliative Care [4]. However, the role of estimates of requirements in relation to reported under-consumption has not been previously explored empirically. Although morphine is indicated for a number of clinical problems (e.g. trauma), the INCB only publishes guidance on how to calculate estimates of requirements for people who died with moderate-severe cancer-related pain (80% of people who die from cancer will require 67.5 mg per day for 90 days). We therefore present a ‘best case scenario’ for the prospects of people who die from advanced cancer receiving morphine over time. Legitimate needs for morphine for other medical purposes should be considered as additional to our calculations.

Our analysis indicates most countries worldwide systematically submit estimates of requirements for morphine guaranteed not to meet the needs of people who die from cancer and that estimates of requirements contextualise inadequate consumption. This means countries submitting estimates of requirements insufficient to meet clinical needs are guaranteed to make inadequate morphine available for prescribing in that year.

We identify startling stability over twenty years in proportions of countries submitting inadequate estimates of requirements. In a twenty year period, the proportion of countries submitting estimates of requirements which could feasibly meet >100% of calculated need for people who die from cancer increased only from 16% to 30% between 1997 and 2017. In every included year within our sample globally, >70% of countries were guaranteed to provide inadequate availability of morphine for people with moderate-severe pain in advanced cancer.

Our model shows that the proportion of calculated need for morphine of people who died from advanced cancer feasibly met by estimates of requirements rose from 86% in 1997 to 701% in 2017. This means that some countries have increased the proportions of calculated need feasibly met by estimates of requirements, with additional morphine for people with other clinical conditions. However, the vast majority of increased estimates of requirements has occurred in HICs and global inequity has not reduced. In HICs, between 1997 and 2017, calculated need for morphine increased from 9,672kg to 13,219kg, however, estimates of requirements increased from 20,795kg to 255,012kg. This huge discrepancy indicates potential overuse of morphine in HICs, that a significant amount of requirements are for indications other than cancer pain, or, that the formula for calculating needs of people who die from cancer is a vast underestimation.

Of the three approaches to calculating country estimates of requirements recommended by the INCB [Box 1], the apparent stability of inadequate estimates of requirements makes it likely that most countries use the consumption-based method, which uses previous consumption levels to estimate future estimates of requirements. This means that historic (inadequate) consumption is used to estimate future requirements, systematising a cycle of inadequate availability and utilisation of morphine [12]. We conclude that for the majority of countries worldwide, either the methods of estimating requirements relative to need have not improved in the last twenty years or no progress has been made in terms of system capacity to ensure safety of the supply chain.

Inadequate estimates of requirements contextualise endemic under-consumption of morphine in most countries worldwide. Between 1997 and 2017, countries reporting consumption sufficient to meet >100 of calculated needs of people who died from cancer, increased only from 13% in 1997, to 19% in 2017. This means in 2017, 81% of countries reported consumption levels guaranteed to provide inadequate availability of morphine for people with moderate-severe pain in advanced cancer.

The stability in global inequity of access to pain relief suggests that the Estimates system is not succeeding in its purpose as a pre-requisite of ensuring availability [13]. The lack of apparent progress in improving proportions of calculated need met by estimates of requirements and consumption over 20 years should be of concern to patients’ advocates, clinicians and policy makers. Of further concern, there is no apparent immediate increase in proportions of need met, following the commitment of countries to ensure access to pain relief as part of the 2014 World Health Assembly Resolution strengthen palliative care as a component of comprehensive health care.

Since 2016, the INCB has supported countries in improving their estimates of requirements through the INCB Learning program [19]. It will be important to evaluate this program as to its usefulness in improving the functioning of the estimates system. Publication of calculated needs alongside country requirements would highlight gaps between need and provision and both drive countries accountability to meet the pain treatment needs of their populations and guard against overestimation, which risks inappropriate over access.

If countries take measures to improve appropriate access to morphine, increased estimates of requirements will be the first indication of potential changes in adequacy of consumption. Without reform, trends of inadequate estimation of requirements identified by our study, contextualising under (and over) access to morphine appear likely to continue, leaving millions suffering avoidably.

Study limitations

Our data do not allow us to infer that in countries estimating >100% of calculated needs, all people with advanced cancer will receive morphine appropriately. However, absolute conclusions can be reached for countries reporting estimates of requirements which feasibly meet ≤100% of calculated needs.

Nevertheless, our analysis uses assumptions which introduce systematic over- and under-calculation of needs for morphine of people who died from cancer. Morphine is indicated for several clinical problems (e.g. trauma, [20] post-operative analgesia) in addition to people who die from cancer [21]. However, given no data are available as to the purposes for which estimates of requirements are made nor consumed, our analysis assumes that all estimates of requirements and country consumption are for the purposes of treating people who die from advanced cancer. Additionally, much morphine worldwide is used in the manufacture of other medicines which means that clinical availability will be over-estimated. Additionally, as it is defined by 1961 Convention, a drug shall be regarded as “consumed” when it has been supplied to any person or enterprise for retail distribution, medical use or scientific research–meaning again, that we overcalculate proportions of need feasibly met by consumption.

Population estimates of people who died from cancer are also likely to systematically under-estimate mortality, due to under-registration of cancer as cause of death. By using Income Group as our unit of analysis, our approach also does not identify individual countries who may have either increased (or decreased) proportions of need met by requirements/consumption.

Additionally, our use of a repeated time-series approach means that total countries included at each time point differ by year. This explains some of the fluctuation in our outcome variables presented in Table 1. For example, there is notable fluctuation in countries’ population, calculated need and estimate of requirements in low-income countries, between 1997, 2002 and 2007. This is accounted for by an increase of six countries in the sample from 1997 to 2002 and a significant increase in India’s estimates of requirement between the dates, from 400kg in 1997, to 10,000kg in 2002. India was included as a lower-middle income country by 2002, where after total estimate of requirement in low-income countries dropped to similar levels seen in 1997 and remained consistent.

Nevertheless, given the systematic biases mentioned and the clear trends of inadequate estimations of requirement and reported consumption, we offer a starting point for consideration of estimates of requirements and consumption, in context of calculated needs to drive the accountability of global regulation and countries worldwide.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Proportion of included countries reporting consumption which could feasibly meet > or ≤ 100% of calculated need for morphine of people with advanced cancer, 1997–2017.

(DOCX)

S2 Fig. Proportion of included countries within income groups reporting consumption which could feasibly meet or ≤ or >100% of calculated needs by year, 1997–2017.

(DOCX)

S3 Fig. Proportion of calculated need feasibly met by consumption, 1997–2017.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the INCB for responding to our request and providing estimated requirements and consumption data for 1997.

Data Availability

All data used are available in the public domain using references provided in the paper.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

PLOS Glob Public Health. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0000533.r001

Decision Letter 0

Nikita Mehra

20 Apr 2022

PGPH-D-21-01017

Calculating worldwide needs for morphine for pain in advanced cancer and proportions theoretically met by country estimates of requirements and consumption. Retrospective, time-series analysis (1997-2017)

PLOS Global Public Health

Dear Dr. Clark,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Global Public Health. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

This study adds immense value to a rather underrepresented aspect of global public health in oncology. I congratulate the authors for their commendable work. Look forward to your submission in response to the revisions suggested.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 6, 2022. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at globalpubhealth@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pgph/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Nikita Mehra, M.D., DM.,

Academic Editor

PLOS Global Public Health

Journal Requirements:

1. Your co-authors, Miriam J Johnson (miriam.johnson@hyms.ac.uk), Christina Ramsenthaler (christina.ramsenthaler@hyms.ac.uk), and David C Currow (david.currow@uts.edu.au), have not confirmed authorship of the manuscript. We have resent them the authorship confirmation email; however please check that the above email address for them is correct and follow up personally to ensure they confirm. Please note that we cannot pass your manuscript to Production until we have received confirmations from all co-authors.

Just in case your co-authors are having difficulty confirming their authorship, you may advise them to send us an email at globalpubhealth@plos.org and we will confirm their authorship on the authors' behalf.

2. Please provide a detailed Financial Disclosure statement. This is published with the article, therefore should be completed in full sentences and contain the exact wording you wish to be published.

i) Please include all sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants (with grant number) or organizations (with url) that supported your study, including funding received from your institution. 

ii). State the initials, alongside each funding source, of each author to receive each grant.

iii). State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

iv). If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

If you did not receive any funding for this study, please simply state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

3. Please update your Competing Interests statement. If you have no competing interests to declare, please state: “The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.”

4. Please note that your Data Availability Statement is currently missing the repository name and/or the DOI/accession number of each dataset OR a direct link to access each database. If your manuscript is accepted for publication, you will be asked to provide these details on a very short timeline. We therefore suggest that you provide this information now, though we will not hold up the peer review process if you are unable.

5. We do not publish any copyright or trademark symbols that usually accompany proprietary names, eg (R), (C), or TM (e.g. next to drug or reagent names). Therefore please remove all instances of trademark/copyright symbols throughout the text, including IBM® SPSS® on page 9.

Comments to the Author

1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Global Public Health does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Overall

This is an important work and highlights a neglected issue in LMIC context. Overall paper is hard to read and follow as the terms need, requirement, theoretical availability and consumption are very hard to understand. Authors need to give clear definitions and use consistent language to make it understandable. It will useful to use only 2-3 key indicators to explain trends. The paper uses very important concepts from supply chain management which may not be well understood by medical / public health audience.

Specific comments

• Introduce the audience to key supply chain management concepts relevant to the paper such as forecasting, availability and consumption.

• Operational definitions in methods: Estimated need, estimated requirement, theoretical availability and consumption should be clearly defined in the methods section. Ensure use of consistent terminology in methods, results and tables for clear understanding.

• Box 2 is very useful. Connect the methods given in box to indicators. Estimated need, estimated requirement, theoretical availability –mention which is based on consumption and which is based on morbidity method.

• Table 1 : Estimated requirement for year 2002 for low and low middle income countries is very high compared to subsequent years. Explain in results and discussion.

• Table 1 : In the upper middle income countries, estimated requirement follows a fluctuating patterns. Explain in results and discussion.

• Line 201- 205 – Need vs requirement not clear

• Table 2 interpretation – line 231 -234 is not clear . Is this table adding to the overall conclusions? If not, it can be removed.

• Consumption of morphine Lines 239 -249 – This is an important para and should be supported by a table.

• Add a table which should compare consumption versus what countries had projected as the need and reported overall and if possible by country groups.

• Figure 4 and 5 – very hard to follow. Consider simplifying or explaining in the results

• Lines 265 – 278 Discussion section explains results. Consider moving it to results

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLOS Glob Public Health. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0000533.r003

Decision Letter 1

Julia Robinson, Nikita Mehra

21 Jun 2022

Calculating worldwide needs for morphine for pain in advanced cancer and proportions feasibly met by country estimates of requirements and consumption. Retrospective, time-series analysis (1997-2017)

PGPH-D-21-01017R1

Dear Dr. Clark,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Calculating worldwide needs for morphine for pain in advanced cancer and proportions feasibly met by country estimates of requirements and consumption. Retrospective, time-series analysis (1997-2017)' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Global Public Health.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact globalpubhealth@plos.org.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Global Public Health.

Best regards,

Nikita Mehra, M.D., DM.,

Academic Editor

PLOS Global Public Health

***********************************************************

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Global Public Health’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Global Public Health does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Proportion of included countries reporting consumption which could feasibly meet > or ≤ 100% of calculated need for morphine of people with advanced cancer, 1997–2017.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Fig. Proportion of included countries within income groups reporting consumption which could feasibly meet or ≤ or >100% of calculated needs by year, 1997–2017.

    (DOCX)

    S3 Fig. Proportion of calculated need feasibly met by consumption, 1997–2017.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All data used are available in the public domain using references provided in the paper.


    Articles from PLOS Global Public Health are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES