BACKGROUND: Disease burden estimates rarely consider comorbidity. Using a recently developed methodology for integrating information about comorbidity into disease burden estimates, we examined the comparative burdens of nine mental and 10 chronic physical disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R). METHODS: Face-to-face interviews in a national household sample (n = 5,692) assessed associations of disorders with scores on a visual analog scale (VAS) of perceived health. Multiple regression analysis with interactions for comorbidity was used to estimate these associations. Simulation was used to estimate incremental disorder-specific effects adjusting for comorbidity. RESULTS: The majority of respondents (74.9%) reported one or more disorders. Of respondents with disorders, 73.8-98.2% reported having at least one other disorder. The best-fitting model to predict VAS scores included disorder main effects and interactions for number of disorders. Adjustment for comorbidity reduced individual-level disorder-specific burden estimates substantially, but with considerable between-disorder variation (0.07-0.69 ratios of disorder-specific estimates with and without adjustment for comorbidity). Four of the five most burdensome disorders at the individual level were mental disorders based on bivariate analyses (panic/agoraphobia, bipolar disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, major depression) but only two based on multivariate analyses, adjusting for comorbidity (panic/agoraphobia, major depression). Neurological disorders, chronic pain conditions, and diabetes were the other most burdensome individual-level disorders. Chronic pain conditions, cardiovascular disorders, arthritis, insomnia, and major depression were the most burdensome societal-level disorders. CONCLUSIONS: Adjustments for comorbidity substantially influence estimates of disease burden, especially those of mental disorders, underlining the importance of including information about comorbidity in studies of mental disorders.
BACKGROUND: Disease burden estimates rarely consider comorbidity. Using a recently developed methodology for integrating information about comorbidity into disease burden estimates, we examined the comparative burdens of nine mental and 10 chronic physical disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R). METHODS: Face-to-face interviews in a national household sample (n = 5,692) assessed associations of disorders with scores on a visual analog scale (VAS) of perceived health. Multiple regression analysis with interactions for comorbidity was used to estimate these associations. Simulation was used to estimate incremental disorder-specific effects adjusting for comorbidity. RESULTS: The majority of respondents (74.9%) reported one or more disorders. Of respondents with disorders, 73.8-98.2% reported having at least one other disorder. The best-fitting model to predict VAS scores included disorder main effects and interactions for number of disorders. Adjustment for comorbidity reduced individual-level disorder-specific burden estimates substantially, but with considerable between-disorder variation (0.07-0.69 ratios of disorder-specific estimates with and without adjustment for comorbidity). Four of the five most burdensome disorders at the individual level were mental disorders based on bivariate analyses (panic/agoraphobia, bipolar disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, major depression) but only two based on multivariate analyses, adjusting for comorbidity (panic/agoraphobia, major depression). Neurological disorders, chronic pain conditions, and diabetes were the other most burdensome individual-level disorders. Chronic pain conditions, cardiovascular disorders, arthritis, insomnia, and major depression were the most burdensome societal-level disorders. CONCLUSIONS: Adjustments for comorbidity substantially influence estimates of disease burden, especially those of mental disorders, underlining the importance of including information about comorbidity in studies of mental disorders.
Authors: Samuli I Saarni; Jaana Suvisaari; Harri Sintonen; Sami Pirkola; Seppo Koskinen; Arpo Aromaa; Jouko Lönnqvist Journal: Br J Psychiatry Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 9.319
Authors: Cynthia M Boyd; Carlos O Weiss; Jeff Halter; K Carol Han; William B Ershler; Linda P Fried Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Josep Maria Haro; Saena Arbabzadeh-Bouchez; Traolach S Brugha; Giovanni de Girolamo; Margaret E Guyer; Robert Jin; Jean Pierre Lepine; Fausto Mazzi; Blanca Reneses; Gemma Vilagut; Nancy A Sampson; Ronald C Kessler Journal: Int J Methods Psychiatr Res Date: 2006 Impact factor: 4.035
Authors: Kristin R Baughman; Natalie Bonfine; Sara E Dugan; Richard Adams; Mary Gallagher; R Scott Olds; Elizabeth Piatt; Christian Ritter Journal: Community Ment Health J Date: 2015-11-26
Authors: Mark J Edlund; Jiantong Wang; Kristen Gulledge Brown; Valerie L Forman-Hoffman; Sara L Calvin; Sarra L Hedden; Jonaki Bose Journal: Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol Date: 2018-06-29 Impact factor: 4.328
Authors: Jeffrey R Strawn; Lauren L Vollmer; Katherine M J McMurray; Jeffrey A Mills; Sarah A Mossman; Sara T Varney; Heidi K Schroeder; Renu Sah Journal: Brain Behav Immun Date: 2017-07-20 Impact factor: 7.217
Authors: Risë B Goldstein; Sharon M Smith; S Patricia Chou; Tulshi D Saha; Jeesun Jung; Haitao Zhang; Roger P Pickering; W June Ruan; Boji Huang; Bridget F Grant Journal: Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol Date: 2016-04-22 Impact factor: 4.328
Authors: Ignacio I De La Cruz; Karen M Freund; Tracy A Battaglia; Clara A Chen; Sharon Bak; Richard Kalish; Barbara Lottero; Patrick Egan; Tim Heeren; Andrea C Kronman Journal: J Health Care Poor Underserved Date: 2014-02
Authors: Catherine S John; Elizabeth I Sypek; William A Carlezon; Bruce M Cohen; Dost Öngür; Anita J Bechtholt Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2015-01-14 Impact factor: 7.853