Suppr超能文献

衰老和痴呆症中的共病:量表不同,差异很重要。

Comorbidity in aging and dementia: scales differ, and the difference matters.

机构信息

Alzheimer's Disease Research Center Satellite, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, 98195-6560, USA.

出版信息

Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2010 Nov;18(11):999-1006. doi: 10.1097/JGP.0b013e3181d695af.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Accurate assessment of the effect of dementia on healthcare utilization and costs requires separation of the effects of comorbid conditions, often poorly accounted for in existing claims-based studies.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether two different types of comorbidity and risk adjustment scales, the Chronic Disease Score (CDS) and the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale for Geriatrics (CIRS-G), perform similarly in older persons with and without dementia.

METHODS

All subjects in the community-outreach diagnostic program of the University of Washington Alzheimer's Disease Research Center Satellite were included (N = 619). Subjects' mean age was 75 ± 9 years; 40% were cognitively normal, 17% were cognitively impaired but not demented, and 43% were demented. CDS and CIRS-G scores (neuropsychiatric disorders excluded to reduce colinearity with group) were examined across strata of age, education, and cognitive classification by using analysis of variance, analysis of covariance, and linear regression.

RESULTS

CIRS-G scores were sensitive to factors known to be associated with chronic disease burden, including age (F = 21.3 [df = 2, 616], p <0.001), education (F = 6.6 [df = 3, 614], p <0.001), and cognitive status (F = 40.5 [df = 2, 616], p <0.001), whereas the CDS was not. In the subset of persons with CDS scores of 0 (40% of the total sample), CIRS-G scores ranged from very low to high burden of disease and remained significantly different across age, education, and cognitive status groups. In regression analyses predicting CIRS-G score, CDS score and cognitive status interacted (β = -0.10, t = 1.9 [df = 1, 609], p = 0.06). After controlling for age, the amount of variance shared by the CIRS-G-13 and CDS differed by cognitive group (>32% for normal and mildly impaired groups combined, 17% for dementia).

CONCLUSION

Different methods of measuring and adjusting for comorbidity are not equivalent, and dementia amplifies the discrepancies. The CDS, if used to control for comorbidity in comparative studies of healthcare utilization and costs for persons with and without dementia, will underestimate burden of comorbid disease and artificially inflate the costs attributed to dementia.

摘要

背景

准确评估痴呆对医疗保健利用和成本的影响需要分离合并症的影响,而现有基于索赔的研究往往对此考虑不足。

目的

确定两种不同类型的合并症和风险调整量表,即慢性疾病评分(CDS)和老年累积疾病评分量表(CIRS-G),在有和没有痴呆的老年人中的表现是否相似。

方法

纳入了华盛顿大学阿尔茨海默病研究中心卫星社区外展诊断计划的所有受试者(N=619)。受试者的平均年龄为 75±9 岁;40%认知正常,17%认知受损但无痴呆,43%痴呆。通过方差分析、协方差分析和线性回归,在年龄、教育和认知分类的各个层次上检查 CDS 和 CIRS-G 评分(排除神经精神障碍以减少与组的共线性)。

结果

CIRS-G 评分对已知与慢性疾病负担相关的因素敏感,包括年龄(F=21.3[df=2,616],p<0.001)、教育(F=6.6[df=3,614],p<0.001)和认知状态(F=40.5[df=2,616],p<0.001),而 CDS 则不然。在 CDS 评分为 0(总样本的 40%)的受试者亚组中,CIRS-G 评分的疾病负担从非常低到高不等,并且在年龄、教育和认知状态组之间仍然存在显著差异。在预测 CIRS-G 评分的回归分析中,CDS 评分和认知状态相互作用(β=-0.10,t=1.9[df=1,609],p=0.06)。在控制年龄后,CIRS-G-13 和 CDS 之间共享的方差量因认知组而异(正常和轻度受损组组合超过 32%,痴呆组为 17%)。

结论

不同的测量和调整合并症的方法并不等效,痴呆症会放大差异。如果在有和没有痴呆的人之间比较医疗保健利用和成本的研究中使用 CDS 来控制合并症,则会低估合并症疾病的负担,并人为地夸大归因于痴呆症的成本。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

7
Multimorbidity and Opioid Prescribing in Hospitalized Older Adults.老年住院患者的共病和阿片类药物处方
J Palliat Med. 2020 Apr;23(4):475-482. doi: 10.1089/jpm.2019.0260. Epub 2019 Nov 5.

本文引用的文献

6
Dementia and Medicare at life's end.生命末期的痴呆症与医疗保险
Health Serv Res. 2008 Apr;43(2):714-32. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2007.00787.x.
10
Survival after initial diagnosis of Alzheimer disease.阿尔茨海默病初诊后的生存率。
Ann Intern Med. 2004 Apr 6;140(7):501-9. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-140-7-200404060-00008.

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验