Christine Y Lu1, John Barratt, Agnes Vitry, Elizabeth Roughead. 1. Quality Use of Medicines and Pharmacy Research Centre, Sansom Institute for Health Research, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia. christine.lu@unisa.edu.au
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of Charlson index and Rx-Risk score using data from Australian Department of Veterans' Affairs. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A study of older adults (N=94,714) who had both Charlson and Rx-Risk scores based on their hospital diagnoses and prescription medication dispensings during the baseline year (January 2005-December 2005). Predictive ability of 1-year and 3-year mortality was compared by Akaike information criterion model fit statistic and c statistic in logistic regression models. We also compared the scores for identifying specific medical conditions. RESULTS: Both indices were significant predictors of all-cause mortality (P<0.0001). Of the population identified with a condition from either score, Rx-Risk score identified more than 95% of patients with gastric, respiratory, or cardiovascular condition, compared with Charlson index only identifying 2%, 31%, and 14%, respectively. The indices were comparable regarding diabetes. The Charlson index identified 83% of patients with dementia and 67% of those with cancers, whereas Rx-Risk score identified 38% and 43%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Both the Charlson and Rx-Risk scores predict mortality, but neither index identified all comorbidities. Based on data availability, preferences, and research purposes, investigators can use either Charlson index or Rx-Risk score to adjust for comorbidity.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance of Charlson index and Rx-Risk score using data from Australian Department of Veterans' Affairs. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A study of older adults (N=94,714) who had both Charlson and Rx-Risk scores based on their hospital diagnoses and prescription medication dispensings during the baseline year (January 2005-December 2005). Predictive ability of 1-year and 3-year mortality was compared by Akaike information criterion model fit statistic and c statistic in logistic regression models. We also compared the scores for identifying specific medical conditions. RESULTS: Both indices were significant predictors of all-cause mortality (P<0.0001). Of the population identified with a condition from either score, Rx-Risk score identified more than 95% of patients with gastric, respiratory, or cardiovascular condition, compared with Charlson index only identifying 2%, 31%, and 14%, respectively. The indices were comparable regarding diabetes. The Charlson index identified 83% of patients with dementia and 67% of those with cancers, whereas Rx-Risk score identified 38% and 43%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Both the Charlson and Rx-Risk scores predict mortality, but neither index identified all comorbidities. Based on data availability, preferences, and research purposes, investigators can use either Charlson index or Rx-Risk score to adjust for comorbidity.
Authors: Thomas R Radomski; Xinhua Zhao; Carolyn T Thorpe; Joshua M Thorpe; Jennifer G Naples; Maria K Mor; Chester B Good; Michael J Fine; Walid F Gellad Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2017-05-01 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Aymen Ali Al-Qurain; Lemlem G Gebremichael; Muhammad Suleman Khan; Desmond B Williams; Lorraine Mackenzie; Craig Phillips; Patrick Russell; Michael S Roberts; Michael D Wiese Journal: Drugs Aging Date: 2020-04 Impact factor: 3.923
Authors: Thomas R Radomski; Xinhua Zhao; Joseph T Hanlon; Joshua M Thorpe; Carolyn T Thorpe; Jennifer G Naples; Florentina E Sileanu; John P Cashy; Jennifer A Hale; Maria K Mor; Leslie R M Hausmann; Julie M Donohue; Katie J Suda; Kevin T Stroupe; Chester B Good; Michael J Fine; Walid F Gellad Journal: Healthc (Amst) Date: 2019-04-26
Authors: Aymen Ali Al-Qurain; Lemlem G Gebremichael; Mohammed S Khan; Desmond B Williams; Lorraine Mackenzie; Craig Phillips; Patrick Russell; Michael S Roberts; Michael D Wiese Journal: Int J Clin Pharm Date: 2020-11-18