Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Oct 12;16(10):e0258526. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258526

Urban scaling of opioid analgesic sales in the United States

Pricila H Mullachery 1,*,#, Usama Bilal 1,2,#
Editor: Nickolas D Zaller3
PMCID: PMC8509933  PMID: 34637453

Abstract

Opioid misuse is a public health crisis in the United States. The origin of this crisis is associated with a sharp increase in opioid analgesic prescribing. We used the urban scaling framework to analyze opioid prescribing patterns in US commuting zones (CZs), i.e., groups of counties based on commuting patterns. The urban scaling framework postulates that a set of scaling relations can be used to predict health outcomes and behaviors in cities. We used data from the Drug Enforcement Administration’s Automated Reports and Consolidated Ordering System (ARCOS) to calculate counts of oxycodone/hydrocodone pills distributed to 607 CZs in the continental US from 2006 to 2014. We estimated the scaling coefficient of opioid pill counts by regressing log(pills) on log(population) using a piecewise linear spline with a single knot at 82,363. Our results show that CZs with populations below the knot scaled superlinearly (β = 1.36), i.e., larger CZs had disproportionally larger pill counts compared to smaller CZs. On the other hand, CZs with populations above the knot scaled sublinearly (β = 0.92), i.e., larger CZs had disproportionally smaller pill counts compared to smaller CZs. This dual scaling pattern was consistent across US census regions. For CZs with population below the knot, the superlinear scaling of pills is consistent with the explanation that an increased number of successful matches between prescribers and users will lead to higher prescribing rates. The non-linear scaling behavior observed could be the result of a combination of factors, including stronger health care systems and prescribing regulation in largely populated commuting zones, as well as high availability of other opioids such as heroin in these commuting zones. Future research should explore potential mechanisms for the non-linearity of prescription opioid pills.

Introduction

Opioid misuse is a public health crisis in the United States where opioid overdoses have increased four-fold in the past 20 years [1]. The origin of this crisis is associated with a sharp increase in opioid analgesic prescribing, with prescriptions of oxycodone increasing more than five-fold between 1999 and 2011 [2]. Increases in opioid prescribing rates was in large part the result of aggressive marketing tactics by the pharmaceutical industry [2] and changes in guidelines for the treatment of chronic pain [3].

Small and rural communities are at the epicenter of the opioid crisis. A journalistic investigation by the Washington Post in 2019 revealed that, between 2006 and 2012, small and rural towns received a disproportionally large number of oxycodone and hydrocodone pills, two of the main analgesic opioids used in the US [4]. However, studies examining patterns across rural and urban counties found that higher density of pharmacies and availability of prescribers, both present in urban areas, are associated with higher prescribing rates [5, 6]. The finding of higher prescribing rates in urban communities is also consistent with the idea that people living in rural areas of the country are more likely to face barriers to access health care [7]. In this context, it is not clear whether urbanicity or population size have a role in the distribution of pills across the country. This paper uses the urban scaling framework to examine the relationship between population size and opioid prescribing patterns in the US.

Scaling is the response of complex systems, such as cities, to variation in their size [8]. The application of this framework has previously shown that a set of scaling relations can be used to predict several features of cities [9]. According to this framework, sublinear scaling is observed when features of cities, e.g. number of gas stations, length of the road network, are disproportionately smaller in larger versus smaller cities, as a consequence of economies of scale [9]. On the other hand, cities also exibit superlinear scaling, i.e., when outcomes such as economic productivity and creative outputs are disproportionally larger in larger versus smaller cities. For example, larger cities have a disproportionately higher economic productivity compared to smaller cities [10]. This phenomenon is the result of the densification of social networks due to an increase in population size; high number of social conections in large cities leads to a disproportional increase in various outcomes such as economic productivity and number of patents [11].

Health outcomes also show scaling behaviors [1214]. Non-communicable conditions such as diabetes and obesity exhibit sublinear scaling in the US, i.e., relatively less common in larger cities, possibly due to better access to resources and medical services in large cities [12]. On the other hand, sexually transmitted infections (i.e., chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis] exhibit superlinear scaling, i.e., relatively more common in larger cities [13, 14]. This type of superlinear behavior may be the result of a disproportionally larger number of social connections in dense urban centers, which in turn increases the changes of successful matches between cases and susceptible individuals [15]. Similar mechanisms related to differences in access to resources and number of social connections between large and small cities may play a role in the distribution of opioid pills across the US. In this paper, we estimate the scaling parameter for opioid analgesic pills distributed across 607 US Commuting Zones (CZs).

Materials and methods

We used data from the Drug Enforcement Administration’s Automated Reports and Consolidated Ordering System (ARCOS), made available by the Washington Post, to calculate counts of oxycodone/hydrocodone pills distributed to 607 Commuting Zones (CZs), which are all CZs in the continental US, from 2006 to 2014. CZs are aggregations of counties based on commuting patterns. We used CZs because they are more likely to account for the complex networks across counties that share interconnected economies, which may be important to the understanding of the macro-level determinants of opioid outcomes. We excluded CZs that include counties in non-contiguous states (Alaska and Hawaii) because they may not be a good representation of the commuting networks that, in the continental US, often cross state lines. Another advantage of using commuting zones as a spatial unit is that they provide a more complete picture of the country, from rural to highly urbanized areas. These CZs have a perfect overlap with county boundaries which make it straightforward to aggregate the measures from counties to compute CZ-level measures [16].

Data sources

Data from the Drug Enforcement Administration’s Automated Reports and Consolidated Ordering System (ARCOS) was made available by the Washington Post in July of 2019 and updated in February 2020. Access to the data by the Washington Post was gained as a result of a court order. The data set contains data on shipments of oxycodone and hydrocode pills to chain pharmacies, retail pharmacies and practitioners, including amount distributed and location of the pharmacy/office. Data included only oxycodone and hydrocodone pills. Other opioids were excluded because they were shipped in much lower quantities. The data was cleaned to remove shipments that did not go to consumers such as shipments from one distributer to another. We accessed the Washington Post data through the use of the R package ARCOS (https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/arcos), which also included population counts by year and county. Data and code used in this analysis can be found here: https://github.com/usamabilal/ARCOS_Pill_Scaling/. Commuting Zones were defined using 2010 boundaries [16]. We used population estimates from the US Census Bureau [17].

Analysis

First, we calculated the counts of oxycodone and hydrocodone in each CZ by aggregating all pills shipped to pharmacies/offices in counties within the CZ from 2006 to 2014. We also calculated the average population in each CZ from 2006 to 2014, We then estimated the scaling coefficient of opioid pill counts by regressing log(pills) on log(population). We used the following model:

ln(Yi)=α+β*ln(Ni)+ϵi

Where Yj is the log of the number of pills for the i-th CZ and Ni is the log of the population in the CZ. β is the scaling coefficient: β<1 corresponds to sublinear scaling, i.e., pill counts disproportionally higher in smaller CZs, and β>1 corresponds to superlinear scaling, i.e., pill counts disproportionally higher in larger CZs. We used the model described above following standard practice in the urban scaling literature and did not adjust for any variables that may be in the pathway between population size and the outcome.

After visually exploring initial results of the log-log plots, we detected a strong non-linear pattern. A plot of the residuals from the linear scaling model against the population size showed an “U” shape curve with the vertex located around a population of 100,000 (S1 Fig). To acknowledge this lack of linearity, we introduced a piecewise linear spline, which is a version of the power-law with a cut-off model described by Clauset et al. [18]. We looked for the knot position that best fit the data by using the segmented package in R, which looks for the knot position that minimizes the log likelihood resulting from the model with the spline. Based on this, we included a linear spline with a knot at a population of 82,363 (representing the 35th percentile of CZ population across our sample). We also checked whether the model with a linear spline had a better fit than the model without a spline by comparing the Akaike Information Criteria (AIC) for each model.

To visually depict the relationship between number of pills and population, we created a plot showing the log of population on the x axis and the log of pill counts on the y axis. To this plot, we added a linear fit with a linear spline at a population of 82,363. We also mapped the residuals (εi) from the model to the 607 CZs [19]. To explore potential place-specific effects, we adjusted the models for region where the CZ is located, i.e., Northeast, Midwest, South, and West, by including dummy variables for the regions. We also presented the scaling coefficients for each region individually; we estimated four separate models, one for each region.

Sensitivity analysis

To test whether our choice of spatial unit had an influence on the scaling behavior, we replicated the analysis using a different spatial definition–the Core-based Statistical Areas (CBSAs), stratified into Metropolitan areas (urban core with population of 50,000 or more) and Micropolitan areas (urban core with population between 10,000 and 50,000 people), using 2013 boundaries. We analyzed data from all 909 CBSAs (377 metro and 532 micro areas). Moreover, during the visual exploration of residuals to ascertain the non-linearity of scaling, we found three strong negative outliers. We repeated the scaling analysis of CZs by (a) excluding those outliers, but keeping the same spline knot (82,363), and (b) excluding those outliers and re-calculating the optimal spline knot (in this case, 151,631, representing the 49.5th percentile of CZ population).

All analyses were conducted in R v4.0.0.

Results

The scaling coefficient for opioid analgesic pills in all 607 US Commuting Zones from 2006 to 2014 was 1.08 (95% CI 1.05–1.11), corresponding to superlinear scaling. These results show that the number of analgesic opioid pills was disproportionately higher in large (vs. small) CZs (S2 Fig). Specifically, a CZ with 1% larger population had 1.08% greater pill count. However, we found that the model introducing a spline had a better fit than the model without a spline (AIC = 127.8 in the model with a spline vs AIC = 191.3 in the model without a spline), indicating a non-linear scaling behavior. Fig 1 shows that CZs with population below the knot (population of 82,363) scale superlinearly (β = 1.36, 95%CI 1.23 to 1.50), and CZs with population above the knot scale sublinearly (β = 0.92, 95%CI 0.88 to 0.95). This means that for CZs below the knot, a 1% larger CZ had a 1.36% higher pill count, while for CZs above the knot, a 1% larger CZ had a 0.92% higher pill count.

Fig 1. Non−linear scaling of pill sales including all 607 CZs: Piecewise regression with a spline at a population of 82,363.

Fig 1

Footnote: β is the coefficient of the regression log(pills) on log(population). Sources: ARCOS and Census Bureau.

Table 1 shows a comparison of the coefficients after adjustment and stratification for census region. These results show that unadjusted and adjusted models had similar coefficients, and that the overall pattern across regions was similar: superlinearity (or weaker sublinearity) in CZs below the knot and sublinearity (or weaker superlinearity) in CZs above the knot. However, CZs in the Midwest Region had a tendency towards a superlinear behavior, with those below the knot showing strong superlinearity (β = 1.42, 95%CI 1.20 to 1.64) and those above the knot showing linearity (β = 1.00, 95%CI 0.93 to 1.06). On the other hand, CZs in the Northeast Region showed a tendency towards a sublinear behavior, with those below the knot showing linearity (β = 1.05, 95%CI 0.81 to 1.30) and those above the knot showing sublinearity (β = 0.94, 95%CI 0.88 to 1.00).

Table 1. Scaling coefficients from a piecewise linear model.

  n  β1 (95% CI)a β2 (95% CI)a
Unadjusted 607 1.36 (1.23–1.50) 0.92 (0.88–0.95)
Adjusted for Regionb 607 1.35 (1.22–1.49) 0.92 (0.89–0.96)
Stratified by Regionc
    Midwest Region 202 1.42 (1.20–1.64) 1.00 (0.93–1.06)
    Northeast Region 38 1.05 (0.81–1.30) 0.94 (0.88–1.00)
    South Region 248 1.17 (1.01–1.33) 0.87 (0.82–0.92)
    West Region 119 1.39 (1.10–1.68) 0.94 (0.88–1.00)

aβ1 and β2 are the scaling coefficients below and above the knot (population of 82,363).

b Models adjusted for region included dummy variables for each region.

c Stratified models included the CZs for each region separately.

We also created models with CZs excluding the three negative outliers seen in Fig 1 and models adjusted for percentage of the population 0–14 and 65 and older. The results from these models are seen in S1 Table. They show that our findings were robust to all adjustments, in that patterns were qualitatively similar in direction and significance.

Fig 2 maps the residuals from the model to the 607 CZs in the continental US. The map shows clusters of CZs with higher-than-expected distribution counts in the Appalachians, Ozarks, and Northern California/Southern Oregon.

Fig 2. Map of residuals from the regression log(pills) on log(population).

Fig 2

Footnote: Commuting Zones were defined using 2010 boundaries. Source: ARCOS and Census Bureau.

The scaling parameters using CBSAs, instead of CZs, showed a similar pattern compared to that seen in the main analysis: superlinear scaling for micropolitan CBSAs (core county with population between 10,000 and less than 50,000 people) and sublinear scaling for metropolitan CBSAs (core county with population 50,000 or more) (S3 Fig).

Discussion

In this study on the scaling properties of opioid analgesic sales, we found three key results. First, we found that CZ stratified into two groups, i.e., those below and those above the a population of 82,363 (around the 35th percentile of population), exhibit different scaling behaviors. In CZs with a population below the knot, opioid analgesic pills scaled superlinearly, while in CZs above the knot opioid analgesic pills scaled sublinearly. Second, while we found a consistency in this pattern across census regions, CZs in the Midwest and Northeast Regions displayed a tendency towards more superlinear and sublinear behaviors, respectively. Lastly, we found a spatial distribution of residuals with high sales concentrated in the Appalachians, Ozarks and the West Coast.

Our results show the nonlinear scaling behavior of opioid pills, a pattern that has been found in other outcomes [20]. This nonlinear scaling is driven by a disproportionally large number of pills in mid-sized CZs, which splits the CZs in two groups that can be better represented by generating two scaling coefficients. For CZs with population below the knot, the superlinear scaling of pills is consistent with the explanation that a disproportionally large number of social connections in relatively larger CZs creates an environment that facilitates a disproportionally larger number of successful matches between prescribers and patients, which in turn may lead to superlinear scaling of opioid analgesic pills [15]. However, for CZs with population at or above the knot, the pattern was inverted. One potential explanation is that the rate of successful matches decreases beyond a certain threshold. This explanation is plausible, but it does not necessarily account for the shift from superlinear to sublinear. Alternatively, the pattern observed could be the result of a combination of factors. Mid-sized CZs may have lower capacity to regulate prescribers and pharmacies, and train health care providers around safe prescription guidelines in comparison with large CZs [21, 22]. In addition, the existence of other opioids such as heroin, which are less expensive than prescription opioids in the underground market, are more likely to be available in larger cities [23]. This could have also contributed to the sublinear scaling of opioid pills in CZs above the knot. Future studies should explore these potential mechanisms with data on prescribers and practitioners and the presence or absence of specific regulations.

Results stratified by geographic region are consistent with the general pattern despite some variations. First, in the Midwest, the strong superlinear pattern in CZs below the knot paired with the linear pattern in CZs above the knot indicates a threshold effect, after which CZs have opioid pill counts that are proportional to their population. Second, the overall sublinear pattern in the Northeast indicates that smaller CZs in this region have a disproportionally high count of opioid pills compared to larger cities. Potential explanations include differences in the profile of opioids used, i.e., prescription opioid vs. heroin and illicitly manufactured synthetic opioids, across these regions [23]. The mapping of results also showed several clusters of high counts in the Appalachians and Ozarks, consistent with other studies [6, 19] that point to high rates of opioid misuse in Southern states in the late 2000’s.

Our analysis has limitations. First, studies have shown that the scaling behavior of cities is sensitive to the definition of the spatial unit [24, 25]. This phenomenon, also known as Modifiable Arial Unit Problem (MAUP), is not necessarily regarded as a failure of the urban scaling approach but an expression of the different nature of urban spaces such as city cores, which represent a denser environment, and a larger metropolitan area [25]. We chose commuting zones as our spatial unit because they are more likely to account for the complex networks across counties that share interconnected economies, while also including counties that are not part of a metropolitan area, many of which have elevated number of pills sales. To test whether our choice of spatial unit had an influence on the scaling behavior of opioid sales, we replicated the analysis using a different spatial definition–the Core-based Statistical Areas (CBSA). This analysis showed consistent result with those obtained from commuting zones. Finally, the ARCOS data set contains information on the number of pills distributed to providers and pharmacies and thus we cannot account for patients who may have obtained their medication from prescribers or pharmacies outside of their commuting zones. The fact that we used commuting zones rather than county may have minimized this issue as CZs include a larger area where people live and work.

Conclusions

Our results point to the potential role of population size in the distribution of opioid analgesic opioid pills. The study period, between 2006 and 2014, was also marked by an increase in the number of drug overdose deaths involving prescription opioids. Thus, future work should examine the links between population dynamics, opioid sales and drug overdose deaths, including testing of potential mechanisms leading to superlinear/sublinear scaling. And as more recent data on opioid analgesic distribution emerge, trends over time must also be examined. Understanding the patterns that emerge from population dynamics may have the potential to inform policies addressing the opioid epidemic. This is even more relevant as illicitly manufactured synthetic opioids such as fentanyl have been increasingly used in the production of counterfeit opioid analgesic pills [26], where fentanyl powder and pill presses are used to produce pills that resemble oxycodone and hydrocodone pills [23]. Fentanyl-related overdose deaths have spiked since the introduction of illicitly manufactured synthetic opioids in the US drug market around 2013 [26]. Understanding the dynamics of opioid pills distribution in highly urbanized areas may help predict future scenarios in these areas where a large number of people are potentially exposed to opioid misuse.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Residuals from linear scaling model of oxycodone/hydrocodone pills.

Source: ARCOS and Census Bureau*. *Copyright protection is not available for any work of the United States Government (Title 17 U.S.C., Section 105). Thus, you are free to reproduce census materials as you see fit. We would ask, however, that you cite the Census Bureau as the source. https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/maps-data/data/tiger/tgrshp2019/TGRSHP2019_TechDoc.pdf. Footnote: blue line is a loess smoother of standardized residuals on log(population) including all commuting zones; the red line excludes the three strong outliers.

(TIF)

S2 Fig. Number of oxycodone/hydrocodone pills distributed across U S Commuting Zones from 2006 to 2014 by population size.

Footnote: β is the coefficient of the regression log(pills) on log(population). Red-colored CZs represent positive residuals and green-colored CZs represent negative residuals. Source: ARCOS (through the Washington Post) and Census Bureau.

(TIF)

S3 Fig. Non-linear scaling of pill sales stratified by type of Core-based Statistical Areas (CBSA).

Footnote: β is the coefficient of the regression log(pills) on log(population). Micropolitan CBSAs (red) are those built around an urban cluster with population between 10,000 and less than 50,000 people. Metropolitan CBSAs (blue) are those built around urban clusters of 50,000 people or more. Sources: ARCOS and Census Bureau.

(TIF)

S1 Table. Scaling coefficients from adjusted models compared to unadjusted models.

(DOCX)

Data Availability

Data and code are available in a public repository: https://github.com/usamabilal/ARCOS_Pill_Scaling/.

Funding Statement

This research was supported by Office of the Director of the National Institutes of Health under award number DP5OD026429. This grant was awarded to UB. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Jalal H, Buchanich JM, Roberts MS, Balmert LC, Zhang K, Burke DS. Changing dynamics of the drug overdose epidemic in the United States from 1979 through 2016. Science (80-). 2018;361(6408):eaau1184. doi: 10.1126/science.aau1184 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.United States. General Accounting Office. Prescription drugs OxyContin abuse and diversion and efforts to address the problem: report to congressional requesters. 2003.
  • 3.Haddox JD, Joranson D, Angarola RT, Brady A, Blonsky ER, Burchiel K, et al. The use of opioids for the treatment of chronic pain-A consensus statement from the American Academy of Pain Medicine and the American Pain Society. In: Pain Forum. 1997. p. 77–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.The Washington Post. The opioid files: Drilling into the DEA’s pain killer database. 2019;
  • 5.McDonald DC, Carlson K, Izrael D. Geographic variation in opioid prescribing in the US. J Pain. 2012;13(10):988–96. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2012.07.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Cerdá M, Gaidus A, Keyes KM, Ponicki W, Martins S, Galea S, et al. Prescription opioid poisoning across urban and rural areas: identifying vulnerable groups and geographic areas. Addiction. 2017;112(1):103–12. doi: 10.1111/add.13543 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Douthit N, Kiv S, Dwolatzky T, Biswas S. Exposing some important barriers to health care access in the rural USA. Public Health. 2015;129(6):611–20. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2015.04.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.West GB, Brown JH, Enquist BJ. Scaling in biology: patterns and processes, causes and consequences. Scaling Biol. 2000;87–112. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Bettencourt LMA. The origins of scaling in cities. Science (80-). 2013;340(6139):1438–41. doi: 10.1126/science.1235823 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Bettencourt LMA, Lobo J, Helbing D, Kühnert C, West GB. Growth, innovation, scaling, and the pace of life in cities. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2007;104(17):7301–6. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0610172104 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Arbesman S, Kleinberg JM, Strogatz SH. Superlinear scaling for innovation in cities. Phys Rev E. 2009;79(1):16115. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.79.016115 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Rocha LEC, Thorson AE, Lambiotte R. The non-linear health consequences of living in larger cities. J Urban Heal. 2015;92(5):785–99. doi: 10.1007/s11524-015-9976-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Patterson-Lomba O, Gomez-Lievano A. On the scaling patterns of infectious disease incidence in cities. arXiv Prepr arXiv180900277. 2018;
  • 14.Patterson-Lomba O, Goldstein E, Gómez-Liévano A, Castillo-Chavez C, Towers S. Per capita incidence of sexually transmitted infections increases systematically with urban population size: a cross-sectional study. Sex Transm Infect. 2015;91(8):610–4. doi: 10.1136/sextrans-2014-051932 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Puga D. The magnitude and causes of agglomeration economies. J Reg Sci. 2010;50(1):203–19. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Fowler CS, Rhubart DC, Jensen L. Reassessing and revising commuting zones for 2010: History, assessment, and updates for US ‘labor-sheds’ 1990–2010. Popul Res Policy Rev. 2016;35(2):263–86. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.United States. Census Bureau. Intercensal population estimates.
  • 18.Clauset A, Shalizi CR, Newman MEJ. Power-law distributions in empirical data. SIAM Rev. 2009;51(4):661–703. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.United States Census Bureau. 2013 TIGER/Line Shapefiles (machine readable data files). 2013.
  • 20.Leitao JC, Miotto JM, Gerlach M, Altmann EG. Is this scaling nonlinear? R Soc open Sci. 2016;3(7):150649. doi: 10.1098/rsos.150649 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Paone D, Tuazon E, Kattan J, Nolan ML, O’Brien DB, Dowell D, et al. Decrease in rate of opioid analgesic overdose deaths—Staten Island, New York City, 2011–2013. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2015;64(18):491. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Rutkow L, Chang H-Y, Daubresse M, Webster DW, Stuart EA, Alexander GC. Effect of Florida’s prescription drug monitoring program and pill mill laws on opioid prescribing and use. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(10):1642–9. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.3931 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.United States. Drug Enforcement Administration. 2018 National Drug Threat Assessment. Report. 2018.
  • 24.Arcaute E, Hatna E, Ferguson P, Youn H, Johansson A, Batty M. Constructing cities, deconstructing scaling laws. J R Soc interface. 2015;12(102):20140745. doi: 10.1098/rsif.2014.0745 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Cottineau C, Hatna E, Arcaute E, Batty M. Diverse cities or the systematic paradox of urban scaling laws. Comput Environ Urban Syst. 2017;63:80–94. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Pardo B, Taylor J, Caulkins JP, Kilmer B, Reuter P, Stein BD. Understanding America’s Surge in Fentanyl and Other Synthetic Opioids. 2019 [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Celine Rozenblat

19 Oct 2020

PONE-D-20-08832

Urban scaling of opioid analgesic sales in the United States

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mullachery,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’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.

==============================

It is an important topic, and the results would deserve to have a nice publication.

However, the paper still misses a strong development of the state of the art and the reflexion (ofllowing also reviewer 1)

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 03 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ 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 academic 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'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Celine Rozenblat

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2.Our internal editors have looked over your manuscript and determined that it is within the scope of our Cities as Complex Systems Call for Papers. This collection of papers is headed by a team of Guest Editors for PLOS ONE: Marta Gonzalez (University of California, Berkeley) and Diego Rybski (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research).

The Collection will encompass a diverse and interdisciplinary set of research articles applying the principles of complex systems and networks to problems in urban science.  Additional information can be found on our announcement page: https://collections.plos.org/s/cities.

If you would like your manuscript to be considered for this collection, please let us know in your cover letter and we will ensure that your paper is treated as if you were responding to this call. If you would prefer to remove your manuscript from collection consideration, please specify this in the cover letter.

3. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

4.We note that [Appendix 1 and Figure 2] in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

1.    You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Appendix 1 and Figure 2 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

2.    If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

It is an important topic, and the results would deserve to have a nice publication.

However, the paper misses in my point of view the theoretical hypotheses that would strengthen the interpretation. In particular, it does not contextualize the relation between medical treatments / deseases / medical infrastructure. It is argued that there are no studies on scaling and health that is not true: see for example L. E. C. Rocha, A. E. Thorson, R. Lambiotte (2015). The non-linear health consequences of living in larger cities, Journal of Urban Health 92 (5) and some others since that publication....

so please highly strength the state of the art and the reflexion (fllowing also reviewer 1)

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). 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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

PLOS ONE 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

Reviewer #2: 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: The submission tackles a very interesting question but fails in several ways. (a) The choice of spatial unit is not sufficiently justified. (b) Scaling is not about size but about how interactions are affected by scale. Thus one would not expect similar scaling behavior across spatial units which might represent different interactions. (c) The methodological choice of a linear spline at thre population mean is not justified.

Reviewer #2: 1. The manuscript is technically sound. The content is informative, new and interesting to public health institutions and also individuals seen the huge problematics of opioide misuse in the US.

2. I am no statistics expert, so I can not really evaluate the statistics topic.

3. Neverthesless from my limited understanding of statistics the data seem to be complete.

4. The manuscript is understandable and written in standard English (I found only some small typos).

Due to my limited understanding of statistics I suggest a minor revision by a person with more statistical knowledge.

**********

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.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: 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 One. 2021 Oct 12;16(10):e0258526. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258526.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


3 Nov 2020

Response to reviewers

We thank the editor and the reviewers for their comments. We appreciate your time and are confident that this version of our manuscript is significantly superior to the original version submitted. Please see below a point-by-point response to the comments.

Editor:

Comment: It is an important topic, and the results would deserve to have a nice publication.

However, the paper misses in my point of view the theoretical hypotheses that would strengthen the interpretation. In particular, it does not contextualize the relation between medical treatments / deseases / medical infrastructure. It is argued that there are no studies on scaling and health that is not true: see for example L. E. C. Rocha, A. E. Thorson, R. Lambiotte (2015). The non-linear health consequences of living in larger cities, Journal of Urban Health 92 (5) and some others since that publication....

so please highly strength the state of the art and the reflexion (fllowing also reviewer 1)

Response: Thank you for your comments. We have now added information to clarify the mechanisms underlying the scaling phenomenon of various outcomes. In the case of health outcomes, we also clarified the relationships between access to medical resources and the scaling behaviors of health outcomes. We also included other studies examining the scaling of health outcomes, including Rocha et al. (pages 4-5) See version with track changes

Reviewer 1:

Comment: (a)The submission tackles a very interesting question but fails in several ways. (a) The choice of spatial unit is not sufficiently justified.

Response: Thank you for your comments. We have now added a justification for the use of commuting zones (page 5, paragraph 2, and page 12). See version with track changes.

Comment: (b) Scaling is not about size but about how interactions are affected by scale. Thus one would not expect similar scaling behavior across spatial units which might represent different interactions.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have now added information to clarify the mechanisms underlying the scaling phenomenon of various outcomes (pages 3-5). In the case of health outcomes, we also clarified the relationships between access to medical resources and scaling behaviors of some outcomes. We also included other studies examining the scaling of health outcomes. (pages 4-5). We agree that the use of different spatial units can affect the scaling behavior. We have indicated that in the limitation section (page 12). To test whether our choice of spatial unit had an influence on the scaling behavior, we replicated the analysis using a different spatial definition– the Core-based Statistical Areas (CBSA). (S1 Fig 3). This analysis showed consistent result with those obtained from commuting zones.

Comment: (c) The methodological choice of a linear spline at the population mean is not justified.

Response: We have now added the justification for this choice in the method section (page 6-7)

Reviewer 2:

Comment: The manuscript is technically sound. The content is informative, new and interesting to public health institutions and also individuals seen the huge problematics of opioide misuse in the US.

2. I am no statistics expert, so I can not really evaluate the statistics topic.

3. Neverthesless from my limited understanding of statistics the data seem to be complete.

4. The manuscript is understandable and written in standard English (I found only some small typos).

Response: Thank you for your comments. We have carefully reviewed the manuscript and fixed these typos.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Celine Rozenblat

14 Jan 2021

PONE-D-20-08832R1

Urban scaling of opioid analgesic sales in the United States

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mullachery,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’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.

==============================

Thanks for the improvement of the paper. Please finalize this improvement following the recommendations of the Reviewer 3.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 28 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ 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 academic 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'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Celine Rozenblat

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Thanks for the improvement of the paper. Please finalize this improvement following the recommendations of the Reviewer 3.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

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 #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

Reviewer #3: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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

PLOS ONE 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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 #2: It seems that there has been a substantial improvement in content and, as mentioned by reviewer 1,

clearing of other available contextual literature and research. It also seems that all data are fully available and accesible on the gitHub platforme. In the abstract there is still a small typo (line 14: superlinear (not superliner). Soures / literature are added and also explained. The structure of the document is now much clearer. (All this under the precondition that I am not an expert in statistics neither in opioid/medical-social topics).

Reviewer #3: Report on “Urban scaling of opioid analgesic sales in the United States”

The authors analyze the prescription of opioid pills in commuting zones (CZ) in the USA. Analyzing the entire set of CZ they find super-linear scaling, ie in large cities more pills are prescribed. However, the authors find that the residuals exhibit a systematic deviation in a U-shape from which the authors infer two different scaling regimes. Separating the CZ into two groupd according to the median, a super-linear (below the median) and a super-linear (above the median) regime are found. The authors hypothesize reasons for this different scaling regimes.

Overall, this is a nice little paper. It is mostly well written and relevant to the urban scaling community and probably also for the opioid-crisis community. Accordingly, I recomment publication.

The only (non-mandatory) thing that the authors could consider is a better statistical treatment. They could automatically find a best division value for the two regimes (instead of the median), ie an optimization. In addition, colleagues with statistics background would appreciate seeing some test statistics that the model with two regimes fits better than the model with only one beta. In this context Akaike Information Criterion might be useful.

Specific comments:

- which location is use, address of patient, doctor, or pharmacy?

- “Scaling is the response of complex systems, such as cities, to changes in their size.” might be misleading. In most cases urban scaling is studied cross-sectionally (fixed year), but “changes” suggests change over time

- beginning of page.11: “For example” is just repeating what is already said in the previous sentence

- “disporportionally high number of social conections in large cities leads to an exponential increase in various outcomes such as economic productivity and number of patents”: the increase is probably not exponential

- why 607 CZ? Is this the total number? If not, how have they been chosen, why have others been omitted?

- “After visually exploring initial results, we detected a strong non-linear pattern” In log-log representation, I assume

- how do the authors deal with zero-values? Ie are there any CZ with no pills? If they, then the log-value cannot be shown

- why are the Figures in the SI?

- “we added a linear fit with a linear spline at the population median” spline is not visible, is the linear regressions are discontinuous

- Tab.1: it is not clear how adjustment and stratification has been done

- somehow the authors describe more Figures than were in my pdf

- to me the probable better availability of illegal drugs in large cities (the third reason mentioned by the authors) sounds most plausible for the sub-linear scaling of CZ above the median

- how do the years 2006-2014 go into the analysis? Is it that the values simply represent the total pills prescribed in this period?

**********

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.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: 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 One. 2021 Oct 12;16(10):e0258526. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258526.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


1 Feb 2021

Response to reviewers.

Thank you for your comments. Below we provide a point-by-point response to the comments.

Reviewer #2: It seems that there has been a substantial improvement in content and, as mentioned by reviewer 1, clearing of other available contextual literature and research. It also seems that all data are fully available and accessible on the gitHub platforme. In the abstract there is still a small typo (line 14: superlinear (not superliner). Soures / literature are added and also explained. The structure of the document is now much clearer. (All this under the precondition that I am not an expert in statistics neither in opioid/medical-social topics).

R: Thank you so much for your careful review of our manuscript. We have fixed the typo indicated.

Reviewer #3: Report on “Urban scaling of opioid analgesic sales in the United States”

The authors analyze the prescription of opioid pills in commuting zones (CZ) in the USA. Analyzing the entire set of CZ they find super-linear scaling, ie in large cities more pills are prescribed. However, the authors find that the residuals exhibit a systematic deviation in a U-shape from which the authors infer two different scaling regimes. Separating the CZ into two groups according to the median, a super-linear (below the median) and a super-linear (above the median) regime are found. The authors hypothesize reasons for this different scaling regimes.

Overall, this is a nice little paper. It is mostly well written and relevant to the urban scaling community and probably also for the opioid-crisis community. Accordingly, I recommend publication.

The only (non-mandatory) thing that the authors could consider is a better statistical treatment. They could automatically find a best division value for the two regimes (instead of the

R: Thank you so much for your careful review. We agree with the reviewer and have re-run the analysis with the spline using a data-driven approach. Specifically, we have now explored for the best-fitting spline knot, selected as the knot that maximizes model fit. While results are not substantially different from our original findings, we have now reported this as the main analysis. We have also provided a measure of fit (AIC) between the no-spline model and the model with a spline, finding a much better fit in the spline model.

Specific comments:

- which location is use, address of patient, doctor, or pharmacy?

R: We used the location of the pharmacy or clinic. We have added sentences to make that clean in the text on pages 5 (last paragraph) and 6 (paragraph 2). See version with track changes.

- “Scaling is the response of complex systems, such as cities, to changes in their size.” might be misleading. In most cases urban scaling is studied cross-sectionally (fixed year), but “changes” suggests change over time.

R: The have changed to “variations” in size.

- beginning of page.11: “For example” is just repeating what is already said in the previous sentence.

R: We have now removed this sentence as it was, as indicated by the reviewer, completely redundant. See paragraph 3 of the introduction.

- “disporportionally high number of social connections in large cities leads to an exponential increase in various outcomes such as economic productivity and number of patents”: the increase is probably not exponential.

R: We meant to say: ”high number of social connections in large cities leads to a disproportional increase in various outcomes…” Thank you for identifying this issue. We have now fixed it. See track changes in paragraph 3 of the introduction.

- why 607 CZ? Is this the total number? If not, how have they been chosen, why have others been omitted?

R: 607 are all CZs in the continental US. We have clarified that and explained the rationale in the first paragraph of the methods.

- “After visually exploring initial results, we detected a strong non-linear pattern” In log-log representation, I assume.

R: Yes. We have clarified that in the fourth paragraph of the method section.

- how do the authors deal with zero-values? Ie are there any CZ with no pills? If they, then the log-value cannot be shown.

R: All CZs had at least one pill so there were no CZs with zero values. The number of CZs (607) in the final model can be seen on the tables. We have also added that information in the title of Figure 1.

- why are the Figures in the SI?

R: SI (Supplementary Information) contain the figures and tables that resulted from the sensitivity or exploratory analysis that were not part of the main analysis. Regarding the main paper figures, it may be that PLOS ONE is grouping them after the SI in the review PDF.

- “we added a linear fit with a linear spline at the population median” spline is not visible, is the linear regressions are discontinuous.

R: The linear regressions are discontinuous because they represent two different slopes: one for the CZs above the median and the other for the CZs below the median. However, to make this clearer, we have added a flag on the main figure indicating where the knot position is.

- Tab.1: it is not clear how adjustment and stratification has been done.

R: We have added information about the adjustment and region-specific analysis on page 7 (paragraph 2). See version with track changes. For the adjustment we used dummy variables for regions. For the stratified analysis, we estimated coefficients for each region separately. We have also added a footnote to table 1.

- somehow the authors describe more Figures than were in my pdf.

R: We are sorry about this. This issue may emerge from some figures that are in the supplementary information. We have now corrected this. We have also re-ordered the description of the Figures and Tables in the result section to prioritize results from the main analysis followed by results from the sensitivity analysis (which were included in the SI).

- how do the years 2006-2014 go into the analysis? Is it that the values simply represent the total pills prescribed in this period?

R: We summed all pills for the period for each CZ. We have now added this information in the third paragraph of the methods section.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Nickolas D Zaller

8 Apr 2021

PONE-D-20-08832R2

Urban scaling of opioid analgesic sales in the United States

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mullachery,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’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.  One reviewer noted a few minor suggestions which could further strengthen the manuscript.  

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 21, 2021. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ 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 academic 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'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Nickolas D. Zaller

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

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 #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). 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 #2: Yes

**********

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

PLOS ONE 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 #2: 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 #2: It is visible see that you worked hard on the last version and answered to all comments of the reviewers. It seems to me (as already mentioned, I am not a statistics expert) that you did a lot of new research.

I found the discussion and explanations with the reviewer very interesting and helpful.

Maybe in general it is helpful to explain results in this way. It depends also on the target group how you formulate your text. Myself as a scientist with a backgroud in Geology/Paleontogy and Systems Scientist I am always working on making results easily understandable (also for "oursiders").

Therefore I very much appreciate your documentation of the discussion and review process.

Finally two small typos again in the downloaded Fig 2 & 3: I suppose the legend should be named "coefficient" (not "coefificient").

**********

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.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: 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 One. 2021 Oct 12;16(10):e0258526. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258526.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 2


14 Apr 2021

Response to reviewers

Thank you for your comments. Below we provide a point-by-point response to the comments.

Reviewer #2: It is visible see that you worked hard on the last version and answered to all comments of the reviewers. It seems to me (as already mentioned, I am not a statistics expert) that you did a lot of new research.

I found the discussion and explanations with the reviewer very interesting and helpful.

Maybe in general it is helpful to explain results in this way. It depends also on the target group how you formulate your text. Myself as a scientist with a backgroud in Geology/Paleontogy and Systems Scientist I am always working on making results easily understandable (also for "oursiders").

Therefore I very much appreciate your documentation of the discussion and review process.

Finally two small typos again in the downloaded Fig 2 & 3: I suppose the legend should be named "coefficient" (not "coefificient").

R: Thank you for your comments. We appreciate the time and effort put in this review. We genuinely believe that this has made our paper much stronger.

We have now fixed the typos in Fig 1 and supplemental Figs 2 and 3. Thank you.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 3

Nickolas D Zaller

27 Jul 2021

PONE-D-20-08832R3

Urban scaling of opioid analgesic sales in the United States

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mullachery,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE and for your patience during the review process. I am terribly sorry for the delay, it has been quite challenging securing reviewers during the current pandemic.  I have tried to do my due diligence in soliciting reviews for your revised manuscript after at least one prior reviewer was no longer available.  As you can see from the reviewer comments, there are still some points that need to be addressed in the revised manuscript.  I believe that these comments are addressable and therefore, I invite you to submit a revised manuscript. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by August 31, 2021. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ 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 academic 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'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Nickolas D. Zaller

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

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 #4: (No Response)

Reviewer #5: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). 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 #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: Yes

**********

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

PLOS ONE 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 #4: Yes

Reviewer #5: 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 #4: 1. It would help to better justify the research approach. All prescription opioid counts from 2006 to 2014 were aggregated for each county over a period of increasing prescriptions. Why isn’t the outcome of interest the growth of prescriptions over the time period rather than the total amount? (It seems like from a policy perspective, you would want to know where prescriptions increased substantially given the introduction section.) Do any of the CZs grow substantially over the time period? If so, then this seems like information you would want to examine (if not, it justifies the averaging of population size and should be stated). That is, do fast growing populations correlate with fast growing prescriptions? Is this a confounder to worry about? What I’m getting at is the paper reads as if a couple variables were chosen without much thought to see if they were or weren’t correlated. Why is the chosen correlation the one to focus on rather than a different one? Explaining this would help justify the statistical approach.

2. It’s not clear why Alaska and Hawaii were excluded. Are they weird outliers for some reason? At a minimum the authors should explain more clearly why they should be excluded and test whether the estimates change in any meaningful way if Alaska and Hawaii are included. If there is no real difference, this should be stated. If the estimates do change in meaningful ways, then omitting them really needs a stronger justification.

3. The U-shaped pattern in Fig S1 seems largely driven by the three outlier residuals in the lower left of the figure. Indeed, when omitted in Table S1, the coefficient for beta1 falls a large amount. Although the “findings are robust” to this, meaning the signs of the coefficients and statistical significance presumably don’t change, the magnitude of the coefficient changes and needs to be discussed. Does the U-shape disappear? Does the optimal spline change? Are the outliers located in a particular region, perhaps explaining some of the stratification results?

4. In Table 1, what does “adjusted for region” mean? Does it mean a dummy variable was included for each region in the estimates? Or something else? This can be clarified in the text or Table 1 notes.

5. There is no interpretation of the coefficients. What does a beta1 of 1.42 vs 1.17 mean from a practical perspective? Both are superlinear, but does the difference of magnitude mean anything? How should they be interpreted? Why should we care about these specific numbers? Does a beta1 of 1.01 and a beta2 of 0.99 have any real meaning? If not, what level of these coefficients should matter? Or does it not matter and only the superlinear or not question is what matters (if so why?)?

6. If it is really a U-shaped relationship, why not use a quadratic estimation equation (add a population squared term)? Does it fit the data better? If so, how would you interpret the results?

7. The discussion needs work. The first sentence of the second paragraph is “Our results highlight the importance of exploring nonlinear scaling”, but nowhere is the “importance” explained. That it is detected in the estimates does not mean it is “important”. More care needs to be taken in explaining the importance of the results if this is the goal. (PLOS ONE does not judge things based on importance, so the highlighting of the importance could be removed if the author does not want to justify the importance of the results.)

8. Discussion says “One potential explanation [that below a threshold, higher populations are more strongly correlated with more opioid prescriptions, and above it, less] is that increases in potential matches beyond a certain threshold no longer translate into higher rates of successful matches.” But isn’t it that beyond some threshold, the higher rates of successful matches slows down, not that it disappears? Or am I missing something? It’s not like there is a sharp break at a threshold, but a (very) gradual flattening of the curve.

9. Several potential explanations are given in the discussion, but it would be helpful if it was explained why these (or other confounders) were not included in the analysis. Can you control for number of pharmacies/prescribers or not? Levels of prescription opioid vs heroin deaths in a CZ? It seems there are a potential long list of confounders that the limitations should highlight (poverty rates, unemployment, demographic profile, number of physicians, income level, existence of PDMP programs, opioid treatment availability, etc.). In addition, since PLOS ONE requires "appropriate controls", the lack of any controls needs justification.

Small typo: “42th” is used instead of 42nd.

Reviewer #5: The authors did a great job addressing previous reviewers comments. The revisions helped to clarify the methods and results.

On page 5, line 6, "maybe" should be "may be"

On page 10, line 7, "Last" should be "Lastly"

On page 11, line 3, insert "be" between "could" and "the"

On page 12, line 12, insert a reference for the statement about patients filling prescriptions close to home or work.

**********

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.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #4: No

Reviewer #5: 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 One. 2021 Oct 12;16(10):e0258526. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258526.r008

Author response to Decision Letter 3


18 Aug 2021

Response to reviewers

Thank you for your comments. Below we provide a point-by-point response.

Reviewer #4: 1. It would help to better justify the research approach. All prescription opioid counts from 2006 to 2014 were aggregated for each county over a period of increasing prescriptions. Why isn’t the outcome of interest the growth of prescriptions over the time period rather than the total amount? (It seems like from a policy perspective, you would want to know where prescriptions increased substantially given the introduction section.) Do any of the CZs grow substantially over the time period? If so, then this seems like information you would want to examine (if not, it justifies the averaging of population size and should be stated). That is, do fast growing populations correlate with fast growing prescriptions? Is this a confounder to worry about? What I’m getting at is the paper reads as if a couple variables were chosen without much thought to see if they were or weren’t correlated. Why is the chosen correlation the one to focus on rather than a different one? Explaining this would help justify the statistical approach.

Response:

Thank you for your comments. The growth in opioid prescription has been described elsewhere in the vast literature about the US opioid epidemic (see for example Jalal Science 2018, describing a long-term exponential growth in opioid deaths). Instead, the aim of our paper was to understand how opioid prescriptions scale with city size by leveraging the urban scaling framework. From the perspective of the population size, population did not change considerably in the period studied (median relative change from 2006 to 2014=+2.3% [IQR: -0.2% to 5.4%]), playing into our decision to use the pooled period rather than the year-by-year trend. Population growth can also be an important driver of health outcomes. This issue is being examined in other papers we are currently working on, but the examination of this phenomenon extends beyond the aim of this paper.

The variable population size was chosen after much thought considering the urban scaling framework. Scaling is the response of complex systems, such as cities, to variation in their size. The application of this framework has previously shown that a set of scaling relations can be used to predict several features of cities. Specifically, for the outcome opioid pills, one possible mechanism explaining the relationship between population size and opioid pills is that a disproportionally large number of social connections in relatively larger CZs creates an environment that facilitates a larger than expected number of successful matches between prescribers and patients, which in turn may lead to superlinear scaling of opioid analgesic pills. We explain these relationships in detail in the introduction and discussion of the paper. We have now made several edits to the introduction to make the aim and the theoretical framework more explicit.

2. It’s not clear why Alaska and Hawaii were excluded. Are they weird outliers for some reason? At a minimum the authors should explain more clearly why they should be excluded and test whether the estimates change in any meaningful way if Alaska and Hawaii are included. If there is no real difference, this should be stated. If the estimates do change in meaningful ways, then omitting them really needs a stronger justification.

Response:

We excluded Alaska and Hawaii because the commuting patterns in these states are expected to be different from those in the continental US since they are not connected by land to other states. Commuting patterns are key in the definition of Commuting Zones (CZs), one of the geographic delimitations we used in this paper. We have the justification in the text of the article. “We excluded CZs that include counties in non-contiguous states (Alaska and Hawaii) because they may not be a good representation of these networks that, in the continental US, often cross state lines.”

3. The U-shaped pattern in Fig S1 seems largely driven by the three outlier residuals in the lower left of the figure. Indeed, when omitted in Table S1, the coefficient for beta1 falls a large amount. Although the “findings are robust” to this, meaning the signs of the coefficients and statistical significance presumably don’t change, the magnitude of the coefficient changes and needs to be discussed. Does the U-shape disappear? Does the optimal spline change? Are the outliers located in a particular region, perhaps explaining some of the stratification results?

Response:

We thank the reviewer for this important insight. These three outliers are three small commuting zones (<10,000 pop) in New Mexico, South Dakota, and Montana. We have modified Fig S1 to reflect how the u-shape changes after removing these outliers. The pattern above for larger cities remains unchanged, but the pattern for smaller cities is now flat. This indicates that while the model without a spline is a good fit to smaller commuting zones, it still fails to reproduce patterns of opioid prescribing in larger cities. We have now reflected this in the text and in Figure S1. We have also explored whether the spline knot changes, and indeed it does change from 81,000 to 151,000 (very close to the median of 154,000). We have now added an extra robustness check by showing the scaling coefficients without the outliers and with the new threshold. As with the previous sensitivity analysis, the direction (and significance) of coefficients remains unchanged, although there’s a weaker superlinearity in smaller commuting zones (going from 1.36 in the main analysis to 1.24 after excluding outliers and changing the knot location).

4. In Table 1, what does “adjusted for region” mean? Does it mean a dummy variable was included for each region in the estimates? Or something else? This can be clarified in the text or Table 1 notes.

Response:

We have added a footnote in Table 1 indicating that we included dummy variables for region (or stratified, in the case of stratified models):

“b Models adjusted for region included dummy variables for each region.

c Stratified models included the CZs for each region separately.”

5. There is no interpretation of the coefficients. What does a beta1 of 1.42 vs 1.17 mean from a practical perspective? Both are superlinear, but does the difference of magnitude mean anything? How should they be interpreted? Why should we care about these specific numbers? Does a beta1 of 1.01 and a beta2 of 0.99 have any real meaning? If not, what level of these coefficients should matter? Or does it not matter and only the superlinear or not question is what matters (if so why?)?

Response:

We have now added the interpretation to the results. See results:

“The scaling coefficient for opioid analgesic pills in all 607 US Commuting Zones from 2006 to 2014 was 1.08 (95% CI 1.05-1.11), corresponding to superlinear scaling. These results show that the number of analgesic opioid pills was disproportionately higher in large (vs. small) CZs (S2 Fig.). Specifically, a CZ with 1% larger population had 1.08% greater pill count. However, we found that the model introducing a spline had a better fit than the model without a spline (AIC=127.8 in the model with a spline vs AIC=191.3 in the model without a spline), indicating a non-linear scaling behavior. Fig. 1 shows that CZs with population below the knot (population of 82,363) scale superlinearly (β=1.36, 95%CI 1.23 to 1.50), and CZs with population above the knot scale sublinearly (β=0.92, 95%CI 0.88 to 0.95). This means that for CZs below the knot, a 1% larger CZ had a 1.36% higher pill count, while for CZs above the knot, a 1% larger CZ had a 0.92% higher pill count.”

A superlinear scaling coefficient of 1.08 means that a CZ with a 1% larger population had a 1.08% greater pill count, meaning that that the pill count was disproportionally larger even after accounting for the fact that the CZ has greater population. A larger coefficient (or smaller in the case of sublinear scaling) means stronger scaling which is important to characterize the behavior of cities regarding specific outcomes.

6. If it is really a U-shaped relationship, why not use a quadratic estimation equation (add a population squared term)? Does it fit the data better? If so, how would you interpret the results?

We agree with the author that a quadratic polynomial for population (so log(pills)=b0+b1*logpopulation+b2*logpopulation^2) would also probably fit the data best. However, interpreting such coefficients is challenging, as they would no longer provide an estimate of the scaling behavior of opioid pill sales. Our approach is a version of the “power law with cut-off” approach described in Clauset et al. (SIAM 2009). We have now referenced this on the methods section.

7. The discussion needs work. The first sentence of the second paragraph is “Our results highlight the importance of exploring nonlinear scaling”, but nowhere is the “importance” explained. That it is detected in the estimates does not mean it is “important”. More care needs to be taken in explaining the importance of the results if this is the goal. (PLOS ONE does not judge things based on importance, so the highlighting of the importance could be removed if the author does not want to justify the importance of the results.)

Response:

We adjusted the discussion to address this issue by not mentioning the importance of exploring nonlinear scaling. This paragraphs now reads: “Our results show the nonlinear scaling behaviour of opioid pills, a pattern that has been found in other outcomes”. The goal of the paper was to explore the distribution of pills using the urban scaling framework. We believe this can be important to understand larger patterns in cities.

8. Discussion says “One potential explanation [that below a threshold, higher populations are more strongly correlated with more opioid prescriptions, and above it, less] is that increases in potential matches beyond a certain threshold no longer translate into higher rates of successful matches.” But isn’t it that beyond some threshold, the higher rates of successful matches slows down, not that it disappears? Or am I missing something? It’s not like there is a sharp break at a threshold, but a (very) gradual flattening of the curve.

Response:

Thank you for identifying this issue. We have adjusted the discussion. It now says: “One potential explanation is that the rate of successful matches decreases beyond a certain threshold”.

9. Several potential explanations are given in the discussion, but it would be helpful if it was explained why these (or other confounders) were not included in the analysis. Can you control for number of pharmacies/prescribers or not? Levels of prescription opioid vs heroin deaths in a CZ? It seems there are a potential long list of confounders that the limitations should highlight (poverty rates, unemployment, demographic profile, number of physicians, income level, existence of PDMP programs, opioid treatment availability, etc.). In addition, since PLOS ONE requires "appropriate controls", the lack of any controls needs justification.

Response:

Variables such as number of pharmacies, number of physicians, and poverty are hypothesized to be part of the mechanism for why population size is associated with opioid pills. Adjusting for these variables would block the mechanisms that lead to the association. For example, a larger population may lead to a larger concentration of physicians which in turn leads to a larger number of prescriptions. Given that we want to examine the broader relationship between population and outcome and describe the world as is, we believe that these variables should not be adjusted for. Future studies looking to explain mechanisms behind these patterns can explore whether scaling behaviors are attenuated after controlling for these variables. We have added this justification in the method section: “We used the model described above following standard practice in the urban scaling literature and did not adjust for any variables that may be in the pathway between population size and the outcome.”. We have also indicated in the discussion that future studies may want to explore these mechanisms.

Small typo: “42th” is used instead of 42nd.

Response: Thank you. We have now fixed that.

Reviewer #5: The authors did a great job addressing previous reviewers comments. The revisions helped to clarify the methods and results.

On page 5, line 6, "maybe" should be "may be"

On page 10, line 7, "Last" should be "Lastly"

On page 11, line 3, insert "be" between "could" and "the"

On page 12, line 12, insert a reference for the statement about patients filling prescriptions close to home or work.

Response:

Thank you for your additional comments. We have now fixed the issues that you raised. We have re-phrased the sentence on page 12, line 12, to reflect a general statement about commuting zones (vs. a specific statement about where patients fill their prescriptions, for which we do not have data).

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 4

Nickolas D Zaller

30 Sep 2021

Urban scaling of opioid analgesic sales in the United States

PONE-D-20-08832R4

Dear Dr. Mullachery,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

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 onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Nickolas D. Zaller

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

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 #4: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). 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 #4: Yes

**********

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

PLOS ONE 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 #4: 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 #4: The authors have addressed all of my comments. The authors have clarified their statistical approach and discussion.

**********

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.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #4: No

Acceptance letter

Nickolas D Zaller

4 Oct 2021

PONE-D-20-08832R4

Urban scaling of opioid analgesic sales in the United States

Dear Dr. Mullachery:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Nickolas D. Zaller

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Residuals from linear scaling model of oxycodone/hydrocodone pills.

    Source: ARCOS and Census Bureau*. *Copyright protection is not available for any work of the United States Government (Title 17 U.S.C., Section 105). Thus, you are free to reproduce census materials as you see fit. We would ask, however, that you cite the Census Bureau as the source. https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/maps-data/data/tiger/tgrshp2019/TGRSHP2019_TechDoc.pdf. Footnote: blue line is a loess smoother of standardized residuals on log(population) including all commuting zones; the red line excludes the three strong outliers.

    (TIF)

    S2 Fig. Number of oxycodone/hydrocodone pills distributed across U S Commuting Zones from 2006 to 2014 by population size.

    Footnote: β is the coefficient of the regression log(pills) on log(population). Red-colored CZs represent positive residuals and green-colored CZs represent negative residuals. Source: ARCOS (through the Washington Post) and Census Bureau.

    (TIF)

    S3 Fig. Non-linear scaling of pill sales stratified by type of Core-based Statistical Areas (CBSA).

    Footnote: β is the coefficient of the regression log(pills) on log(population). Micropolitan CBSAs (red) are those built around an urban cluster with population between 10,000 and less than 50,000 people. Metropolitan CBSAs (blue) are those built around urban clusters of 50,000 people or more. Sources: ARCOS and Census Bureau.

    (TIF)

    S1 Table. Scaling coefficients from adjusted models compared to unadjusted models.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    Data and code are available in a public repository: https://github.com/usamabilal/ARCOS_Pill_Scaling/.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES