Deborah A Marshall1, Sonia Vanderby2, Cheryl Barnabe1, Karen V MacDonald1, Colleen Maxwell3, Dianne Mosher1, Tracy Wasylak4, Lisa Lix5, Ed Enns6, Cy Frank7, Tom Noseworthy8. 1. University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 2. University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada. 3. University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. 4. Alberta Health Services, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 5. University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. 6. Alberta Bone and Joint Health Institute, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 7. Alberta Innovates-Health Solutions and University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 8. Alberta Health Services and University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: With aging and obesity trends, the incidence and prevalence of osteoarthritis (OA) is expected to rise in Canada, increasing the demand for health resources. Resource planning to meet this increasing need requires estimates of the anticipated number of OA patients. Using administrative data from Alberta, we estimated OA incidence and prevalence rates and examined their sensitivity to alternative case definitions. METHODS: We identified cases in a linked data set spanning 1993 to 2010 (population registry, Discharge Abstract Database, physician claims, Ambulatory Care Classification System, and prescription drug data) using diagnostic codes and drug identification numbers. In the base case, incident cases were captured for patients with an OA diagnostic code for at least 2 physician visits within 2 years or any hospital admission. Seven alternative case definitions were applied and compared. RESULTS: Age- and sex-standardized incidence and prevalence rates were estimated to be 8.6 and 80.3 cases per 1,000 population, respectively, in the base case. Physician claims data alone captured 88% of OA cases. Prevalence rate estimates required 15 years of longitudinal data to plateau. Compared to the base case, estimates are sensitive to alternative case definitions. CONCLUSION: Administrative databases are a key source for estimating the burden and epidemiologic trends of chronic diseases such as OA in Canada. Despite their limitations, these data provide valuable information for estimating disease burden and planning health services. Estimates of OA are mostly defined through physician claims data and require a long period of longitudinal data.
OBJECTIVE: With aging and obesity trends, the incidence and prevalence of osteoarthritis (OA) is expected to rise in Canada, increasing the demand for health resources. Resource planning to meet this increasing need requires estimates of the anticipated number of OA patients. Using administrative data from Alberta, we estimated OA incidence and prevalence rates and examined their sensitivity to alternative case definitions. METHODS: We identified cases in a linked data set spanning 1993 to 2010 (population registry, Discharge Abstract Database, physician claims, Ambulatory Care Classification System, and prescription drug data) using diagnostic codes and drug identification numbers. In the base case, incident cases were captured for patients with an OA diagnostic code for at least 2 physician visits within 2 years or any hospital admission. Seven alternative case definitions were applied and compared. RESULTS: Age- and sex-standardized incidence and prevalence rates were estimated to be 8.6 and 80.3 cases per 1,000 population, respectively, in the base case. Physician claims data alone captured 88% of OA cases. Prevalence rate estimates required 15 years of longitudinal data to plateau. Compared to the base case, estimates are sensitive to alternative case definitions. CONCLUSION: Administrative databases are a key source for estimating the burden and epidemiologic trends of chronic diseases such as OA in Canada. Despite their limitations, these data provide valuable information for estimating disease burden and planning health services. Estimates of OA are mostly defined through physician claims data and require a long period of longitudinal data.
Authors: Stefan Nehrer; Richard Ljuhar; Peter Steindl; Rene Simon; Dietmar Maurer; Davul Ljuhar; Zsolt Bertalan; Hans P Dimai; Christoph Goetz; Tiago Paixao Journal: Cartilage Date: 2019-11-24 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: Jorge U Carmona; Diana L Ríos; Catalina López; María E Álvarez; Jorge E Pérez; Mabel E Bohórquez Journal: BMC Vet Res Date: 2016-07-01 Impact factor: 2.741
Authors: Deborah A Marshall; Xiaoxiao Liu; Cheryl Barnabe; Karen Yee; Peter D Faris; Claire Barber; Dianne Mosher; Thomas Noseworthy; Jason Werle; Lisa Lix Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-11-21 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Dahai Yu; Kelvin P Jordan; John Bedson; Martin Englund; Fiona Blyth; Aleksandra Turkiewicz; Daniel Prieto-Alhambra; George Peat Journal: Rheumatology (Oxford) Date: 2017-11-01 Impact factor: 7.580