A head-to-head comparison of the validity and predictive ability for health outcomes of diagnosis versus medication-based comorbidity indices

诊断性合并症指数与基于药物的合并症指数在有效性和对健康结果的预测能力方面的直接比较

阅读:1

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Various comorbidity indices have been validated for individual health outcomes. However, systematic concurrent comparisons of multiple outcome measures in a single study remain relatively underrepresented but needed for practical decision support. AIMS: To compare the performance of the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) and Rx-Risk Comorbidity Index (Rx-Risk). METHODS: Baseline and six-month follow-up data from n = 221 patients recruited in n = 70 practices were used. CCI and Rx-Risk scores were calculated using documented diagnoses and prescribed medications. Outcomes assessed were health-related quality of life (HRQoL, EQ-5D-5 L), functional impairment (B-ADL), cognitive decline (MMSE), and healthcare utilization (physician visits, hospitalizations). Indices performance was evaluated regarding agreement (Cohens Kappa (k)), known-groups validity (ANOVA, t-test), convergent validity (correlation coefficient (r(s))) and predictive ability (R², Akaike information criterion (AIC)). RESULTS: Patients were, on average, 80 years old, mostly female (55%), with 12 diagnoses and seven medications. Agreement between both indices was poor for all conditions except diabetes (k = 0.645) and chronic airway diseases (k = 0.486). Rx-Risk differed more in known groups, especially for HRQoL and hospitalizations, and showed stronger correlations with the EQ-5D index (r(s), -0.215 vs. -0.134) and risk of hospitalization (r(s), 0.145 vs. 0.128) than CCI. Rx-Risk, again, performed better in predicting the change of EQ-5D index (R², 30 vs. 28%) and all EQ-5D dimensions, functional (R², 55 vs. 52%) and cognitive decline (R², 47 vs. 46%) and physician consultations (AIC, 649.2 vs. 651.0), except for hospitalization (AIC, 149.2 vs. 147.1). CONCLUSIONS: Rx-Risk demonstrated slightly superior validity and predictive ability for HRQoL and healthcare utilization, making it a promising option for studies focused on these outcomes. However, limitations regarding functional and cognitive impairment suggest alternative instruments are needed.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。