Bryant R England1, Harlan Sayles1, Ted R Mikuls1, Dannette S Johnson2, Kaleb Michaud3. 1. Omaha Veterans Affairs Medical Center and University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha. 2. G. V. Sonny Montgomery Veterans Affairs Medical Center and University of Mississippi, Jackson. 3. Omaha Veterans Affairs Medical Center and University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, and National Data Bank for Rheumatic Diseases, Wichita, Kansas.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: There is no consensus on which comorbidity index is optimal for rheumatic health outcomes research. We compared a new Rheumatic Disease Comorbidity Index (RDCI) with the Charlson-Deyo Index (CDI), Functional Comorbidity Index (FCI), Elixhauser Total Score (ETS), Elixhauser Point System (EPS), and a simple comorbidity count (COUNT) using a US cohort of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. METHODS: Using administrative diagnostic codes and patient self-reporting, we tested predictive values of the RDCI, CDI, FCI, ETS, EPS, and COUNT for 2 outcomes: all-cause mortality and physical functioning. Indices were compared using 3 models: bare (consisting of age, sex, and race), administrative (bare plus visit frequency, body mass index, and treatments), and clinic (administrative plus erythrocyte sedimentation rate, nodules, rheumatoid factor positivity, and patient activity scale). RESULTS: The ETS and RDCI best predicted death, with FCI performing the worst. The FCI best predicted function, with ETS and RDCI performing nearly as well. CDI predicted function poorly. The order of indices remained relatively unchanged in the different models, though the magnitude of improvement in Akaike's information criterion decreased in the administrative and clinic models. CONCLUSION: The RDCI and ETS are excellent indices as a means of accounting for comorbid illness when the RA-related outcomes of death and physical functioning are studied using administrative data. The RDCI is a versatile index and appears to perform well with self-report data as well as administrative data. Further studies are warranted to compare these indices using other outcomes in diverse study populations.
OBJECTIVE: There is no consensus on which comorbidity index is optimal for rheumatic health outcomes research. We compared a new Rheumatic Disease Comorbidity Index (RDCI) with the Charlson-Deyo Index (CDI), Functional Comorbidity Index (FCI), Elixhauser Total Score (ETS), Elixhauser Point System (EPS), and a simple comorbidity count (COUNT) using a US cohort of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. METHODS: Using administrative diagnostic codes and patient self-reporting, we tested predictive values of the RDCI, CDI, FCI, ETS, EPS, and COUNT for 2 outcomes: all-cause mortality and physical functioning. Indices were compared using 3 models: bare (consisting of age, sex, and race), administrative (bare plus visit frequency, body mass index, and treatments), and clinic (administrative plus erythrocyte sedimentation rate, nodules, rheumatoid factor positivity, and patient activity scale). RESULTS: The ETS and RDCI best predicted death, with FCI performing the worst. The FCI best predicted function, with ETS and RDCI performing nearly as well. CDI predicted function poorly. The order of indices remained relatively unchanged in the different models, though the magnitude of improvement in Akaike's information criterion decreased in the administrative and clinic models. CONCLUSION: The RDCI and ETS are excellent indices as a means of accounting for comorbid illness when the RA-related outcomes of death and physical functioning are studied using administrative data. The RDCI is a versatile index and appears to perform well with self-report data as well as administrative data. Further studies are warranted to compare these indices using other outcomes in diverse study populations.
Authors: Sizheng Steven Zhao; Helga Radner; Stefan Siebert; Stephen J Duffield; Daniel Thong; David M Hughes; Robert J Moots; Daniel H Solomon; Nicola J Goodson Journal: Rheumatology (Oxford) Date: 2019-10-01 Impact factor: 7.580
Authors: Joshua F Baker; Bryant R England; Ted R Mikuls; Harlan Sayles; Grant W Cannon; Brian C Sauer; Michael D George; Liron Caplan; Kaleb Michaud Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2018-12 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Joshua F Baker; Bryant R England; Ted R Mikuls; Jesse Y Hsu; Michael D George; Sofia Pedro; Harlan Sayles; Kaleb Michaud Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2020-02-12 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Caroline B McCulley; Jennifer L Barton; Grant W Cannon; Brian C Sauer; Chia Chen Teng; Michael D George; Liron Caplan; Bryant R England; Ted R Mikuls; Joshua F Baker Journal: Clin Exp Rheumatol Date: 2018-11-07 Impact factor: 4.473
Authors: Hemalkumar B Mehta; Shan Yong; Sneha D Sura; Byron D Hughes; Yong-Fang Kuo; Stephen B Williams; Douglas S Tyler; Taylor S Riall; James S Goodwin Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2019-10-01 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Bogdan Batko; Karol Urbański; Jerzy Świerkot; Piotr Wiland; Filip Raciborski; Mariusz Jędrzejewski; Mateusz Koziej; Marta Cześnikiewicz-Guzik; Tomasz J Guzik; Marcin Stajszczyk Journal: Clin Rheumatol Date: 2019-05-10 Impact factor: 2.980
Authors: Andrew Chiou; Bryant R England; Harlan Sayles; Geoffrey M Thiele; Michael J Duryee; Joshua F Baker; Namrata Singh; Grant W Cannon; Gail S Kerr; Andreas Reimold; Angelo Gaffo; Ted R Mikuls Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2020-06-07 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Ming Zhao; Lilli Mauer; Harlan Sayles; Grant W Cannon; Andreas Reimold; Gail S Kerr; Joshua F Baker; Geoffrey M Thiele; Bryant R England; Ted R Mikuls Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 2019-03-01 Impact factor: 4.666
Authors: Joshua F Baker; Brian C Sauer; Grant W Cannon; Chia-Chen Teng; Kaleb Michaud; Said Ibrahim; Erik Jorgenson; Lisa Davis; Liron Caplan; Amy Cannella; Ted R Mikuls Journal: Arthritis Rheumatol Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 10.995