Edurne Alonso-Morán1, Roberto Nuño-Solinis1, Graziano Onder2, Giuseppe Tonnara3. 1. O+berri, Basque Institute for Healthcare Innovation, Torre del BEC (Bilbao Exhibition Centre), Ronda de Azkue 1, 48902 Barakaldo, Spain. 2. Department of Geriatrics, Centro Medicina dell'Invecchiamento, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy; Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA), Rome, Italy. 3. Department of Geriatrics, Centro Medicina dell'Invecchiamento, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy. Electronic address: giuseppe.tonnara@gmail.com.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Risk stratification tools were developed to assess risk of negative health outcomes. These tools assess a variety of variables and clinical factors and they can be used to identify targets of potential interventions and to develop care plans. The role of multimorbidity in these tools has never been assessed. OBJECTIVES: To summarize validated risk stratification tools for predicting negative outcomes, with a specific focus on multimorbidity. METHODS: MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and PubMed database were interrogated for studies concerning risk prediction models in medical populations. Review was conducted to identify prediction models tested with patients in both derivation and validation cohorts. A qualitative synthesis was performed focusing particularly on how multimorbidity is assessed by each algorithm and how much this weighs in the ability of discrimination. RESULTS: Of 3674 citations reviewed, 36 articles met criteria. Of these, 29 had as outcome hospital admission/readmission. The most common multimorbidity measure employed in the models was the Charlson Comorbidity Index (12 articles). C-statistics ranged between 0.5 and 0.85 in predicting hospital admission/ readmission. The highest c-statistics was 0.83 in models with disability as outcome. For healthcare cost, models which used ACG-PM case mix explained better the variability of total costs. CONCLUSIONS: This review suggests that predictive risk models which employ multimorbidity as predictor variable are more accurate; CHF, cerebro-vascular disease, COPD and diabetes were strong predictors in some of the reviewed models. However, the variability in the risk factors used in these models does not allow making assumptions.
INTRODUCTION: Risk stratification tools were developed to assess risk of negative health outcomes. These tools assess a variety of variables and clinical factors and they can be used to identify targets of potential interventions and to develop care plans. The role of multimorbidity in these tools has never been assessed. OBJECTIVES: To summarize validated risk stratification tools for predicting negative outcomes, with a specific focus on multimorbidity. METHODS: MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and PubMed database were interrogated for studies concerning risk prediction models in medical populations. Review was conducted to identify prediction models tested with patients in both derivation and validation cohorts. A qualitative synthesis was performed focusing particularly on how multimorbidity is assessed by each algorithm and how much this weighs in the ability of discrimination. RESULTS: Of 3674 citations reviewed, 36 articles met criteria. Of these, 29 had as outcome hospital admission/readmission. The most common multimorbidity measure employed in the models was the Charlson Comorbidity Index (12 articles). C-statistics ranged between 0.5 and 0.85 in predicting hospital admission/ readmission. The highest c-statistics was 0.83 in models with disability as outcome. For healthcare cost, models which used ACG-PM case mix explained better the variability of total costs. CONCLUSIONS: This review suggests that predictive risk models which employ multimorbidity as predictor variable are more accurate; CHF, cerebro-vascular disease, COPD and diabetes were strong predictors in some of the reviewed models. However, the variability in the risk factors used in these models does not allow making assumptions.
Authors: Janet L MacNeil-Vroomen; Mary Thompson; Linda Leo-Summers; Richard A Marottoli; Ming Tai-Seale; Heather G Allore Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2020-07-30 Impact factor: 16.655
Authors: Ivan Dueñas-Espín; Emili Vela; Steffen Pauws; Cristina Bescos; Isaac Cano; Montserrat Cleries; Joan Carles Contel; Esteban de Manuel Keenoy; Judith Garcia-Aymerich; David Gomez-Cabrero; Rachelle Kaye; Maarten M H Lahr; Magí Lluch-Ariet; Montserrat Moharra; David Monterde; Joana Mora; Marco Nalin; Andrea Pavlickova; Jordi Piera; Sara Ponce; Sebastià Santaeugenia; Helen Schonenberg; Stefan Störk; Jesper Tegner; Filip Velickovski; Christoph Westerteicher; Josep Roca Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-04-15 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Katie Palmer; Angelo Carfì; Carmen Angioletti; Antonella Di Paola; Rokas Navickas; Laimis Dambrauskas; Elena Jureviciene; Maria João Forjaz; Carmen Rodriguez-Blazquez; Alexandra Prados-Torres; Antonio Gimeno-Miguel; Mabel Cano-Del Pozo; María Bestué-Cardiel; Francisca Leiva-Fernández; Elisa Poses Ferrer; Ana M Carriazo; Carmen Lama; Rafael Rodríguez-Acuña; Inmaculada Cosano; Juan José Bedoya-Belmonte; Ida Liseckiene; Mirca Barbolini; Jon Txarramendieta; Esteban de Manuel Keenoy; Ane Fullaondo; Mieke Rijken; Graziano Onder Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-12-11 Impact factor: 3.390