Peer Review History

Original SubmissionNovember 17, 2025
Decision Letter - Lalit Gupta, Editor

Dear Dr. Carrero,

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.

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

Clinical guidelines are lacking for opioid use in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), who have higher risks for overdose and mortality from high-dose opioid use. The authors' study found that patient data stratified by eGFR generally showed a lower risk of escalation to higher opioid doses, likely due to a more cautious approach in prescribing for patients with CKD whose renal clearance of drugs may be impaired. See my specific comments for the authors in the attached pdf file. In general ,this article may benefit from discussing more details regarding different types of pain in CKD, as well as use of non-opioid pharmacological agents and non-pharmacological strategies for pain management. Of particular interest is the potential role of dietary phosphorus restriction, often recommended in CKD, which should be investigated in future studies of pain management, especially for pain associated with CKD-bone mineral disorders.

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 26 2026 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.

  • A 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 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: https://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,

Lalit Gupta

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. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. For studies involving human research participant data or other sensitive data, we encourage authors to share de-identified or anonymized data. However, when data cannot be publicly shared for ethical reasons, we allow authors to make their data sets available upon request. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible.

Please update your Data Availability statement in the submission form accordingly.

3. Please provide a complete Data Availability Statement in the submission form, ensuring you include all necessary access information or a reason for why you are unable to make your data freely accessible. If your research concerns only data provided within your submission, please write "All data are in the manuscript and/or supporting information files" as your Data Availability Statement.

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. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

6. 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.

Additional Editor Comments :

Clinical guidelines are lacking for opioid use in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), who have higher risks for overdose and mortality from high-dose opioid use. The authors' study found that patient data stratified by eGFR generally showed a lower risk of escalation to higher opioid doses, likely due to a more cautious approach in prescribing for patients with CKD whose renal clearance of drugs may be impaired. See my specific comments for the authors in the attached pdf file. In general ,this article may benefit from discussing more details regarding different types of pain in CKD, as well as use of non-opioid pharmacological agents and non-pharmacological strategies for pain management. Of particular interest is the potential role of dietary phosphorus restriction, often recommended in CKD, which should be investigated in future studies of pain management, especially for pain associated with CKD-bone mineral disorders.

[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?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Clinical guidelines are lacking for opioid use in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), who have higher risks for overdose and mortality from high-dose opioid use. The authors' study found that patient data stratified by eGFR generally showed a lower risk of escalation to higher opioid doses, likely due to a more cautious approach in prescribing for patients with CKD whose renal clearance of drugs may be impaired. See my specific comments for the authors in the attached pdf file. In general ,this article may benefit from discussing more details regarding different types of pain in CKD, as well as use of non-opioid pharmacological agents and non-pharmacological strategies for pain management. Of particular interest is the potential role of dietary phosphorus restriction, often recommended in CKD, which should be investigated in future studies of pain management, especially for pain associated with CKD-bone mineral disorders.

Reviewer #2: This is a well-conducted and clearly presented study addressing an important and clinically relevant question. The methodology is robust, the statistical analysis is appropriate, and the findings are interpreted in a balanced and thoughtful manner. I have no further comments and recommend acceptance in its current form.

**********

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: Yes: Dr. Devang Bharti

**********

[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.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: PONE-D-25-59036_reviewer.pdf
Revision 1

24 February 2026

Dear Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Revision of Manuscript Entitled: Patterns of opioid dose escalation in patients with chronic kidney disease initiated on opioids for the treatment of non-cancer pain (PONE-D-25-59036)

We would like to sincerely thank you for your careful review of our manuscript and for your constructive and insightful comments. We are grateful for the positive evaluation of our work and for the valuable suggestions, which have helped us to improve the clarity, clinical relevance, and overall quality of the manuscript.

We have carefully revised the manuscript in response to all comments. All changes have been highlighted in the revised version using track changes. Below, we provide a point-by-point response to the issues raised.

Response to Editor’s Comments

Comment:

The manuscript would benefit from further discussion on different types of pain in CKD, non-opioid pharmacological agents, non-pharmacological strategies, and the potential role of dietary phosphorus restriction.

Response:

We have expanded the Discussion section to include a more detailed description of pain phenotypes in CKD, alternative pharmacological therapies, non-pharmacological interventions, and nutritional considerations related to CKD–mineral and bone disorders. We have also highlighted the limited empirical evidence regarding dietary phosphorus restriction and framed this as an important direction for future research. These additions are presented in the revised Discussion section (pages 332-348).

Response to Reviewer #1

Comment:

The article may benefit from discussing different types of pain in CKD, non-opioid pharmacological agents, non-pharmacological strategies, and dietary phosphorus restriction.

Response:

Same as above comments (pages 332-348)

Data Availability Statement

Comment:

Please clarify restrictions on data sharing and provide appropriate access information.

Response:

We have revised the Data Availability Statement as below:

“ The data used in this study originate from Swedish national healthcare registers and are protected under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and Swedish legislation. Therefore, the data cannot be shared publicly. Researchers interested in accessing Swedish register data may submit an application to the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare (Socialstyrelsen) in accordance with Swedish law. Information on how to apply for data access is available at: https://www.socialstyrelsen.se/en/statistics-and-data/apply-for-data/ or by contacting registerservice@socialstyrelsen.se.”

We believe that these revisions have strengthened the manuscript and addressed all concerns raised by the Editor and reviewers. We sincerely appreciate the time and effort invested in reviewing our work and thank you for the opportunity to revise and improve the manuscript. We hope that the revised version will now be suitable for publication in PLOS ONE.

Thank you for your kind consideration.

Yours sincerely,

Che Suraya Zin, PhD

Department of Pharmacy Practice

Kulliyyah of Pharmacy, International Islamic University Malaysia

Email: chesuraya@iium.edu.my

Juan-Jesús Carrero, PhD

Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics

Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden

Email: juan.jesus.carrero@ki.se

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers2_PONE-D-25-59036.docx
Decision Letter - Lalit Gupta, Editor

Patterns of opioid dose escalation in patients with chronic kidney disease initiated on opioids for the treatment of non-cancer pain

PONE-D-25-59036R1

Dear Dr. Carrero,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

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,

Lalit Gupta

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The manuscript has been carefully revised in accordance with the thoughtful recommendations provided by the reviewers in the previous round. All concerns have been thoroughly addressed, resulting in what we believe is a significantly improved and more rigorous paper. This manuscript is now in an acceptable form and meets the high standards required for publication.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: I am satisified with the authors' revision regarding alternative pharmacological, non-pharmacological, and other therapies for pain management, including nutritional guidance recommendatios, for different types of pain in chronic kidney disease.

**********

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

**********

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Lalit Gupta, Editor

PONE-D-25-59036R1

PLOS One

Dear Dr. Carrero,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, 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.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@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. Lalit Gupta

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .