Refine
Document Type
- Article (13)
Language
- English (13)
Has Fulltext
- yes (13)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (13)
Keywords
- Multimorbidity (3)
- Chronic disease (2)
- Depression (2)
- Primary care (2)
- Agreement (1)
- Assessment of care (1)
- Atherosclerosis (1)
- Burden of disease (1)
- CVD biomarker (1)
- Cardiovascular diseases (1)
Institute
- Medizin (13)
Aims: Carotid intima media thickness (CIMT) predicts cardiovascular (CVD) events, but the predictive value of CIMT change is debated. We assessed the relation between CIMT change and events in individuals at high cardiovascular risk.
Methods and results: From 31 cohorts with two CIMT scans (total n = 89070) on average 3.6 years apart and clinical follow-up, subcohorts were drawn: (A) individuals with at least 3 cardiovascular risk factors without previous CVD events, (B) individuals with carotid plaques without previous CVD events, and (C) individuals with previous CVD events. Cox regression models were fit to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) of the combined endpoint (myocardial infarction, stroke or vascular death) per standard deviation (SD) of CIMT change, adjusted for CVD risk factors. These HRs were pooled across studies.
In groups A, B and C we observed 3483, 2845 and 1165 endpoint events, respectively. Average common CIMT was 0.79mm (SD 0.16mm), and annual common CIMT change was 0.01mm (SD 0.07mm), both in group A. The pooled HR per SD of annual common CIMT change (0.02 to 0.43mm) was 0.99 (95% confidence interval: 0.95–1.02) in group A, 0.98 (0.93–1.04) in group B, and 0.95 (0.89–1.04) in group C. The HR per SD of common CIMT (average of the first and the second CIMT scan, 0.09 to 0.75mm) was 1.15 (1.07–1.23) in group A, 1.13 (1.05–1.22) in group B, and 1.12 (1.05–1.20) in group C.
Conclusions: We confirm that common CIMT is associated with future CVD events in individuals at high risk. CIMT change does not relate to future event risk in high-risk individuals.
Aims: Averaged measurements, but not the progression based on multiple assessments of carotid intima-media thickness, (cIMT) are predictive of cardiovascular disease (CVD) events in individuals. Whether this is true for conventional risk factors is unclear.
Methods and results: An individual participant meta-analysis was used to associate the annualised progression of systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol with future cardiovascular disease risk in 13 prospective cohort studies of the PROG-IMT collaboration (n = 34,072). Follow-up data included information on a combined cardiovascular disease endpoint of myocardial infarction, stroke, or vascular death. In secondary analyses, annualised progression was replaced with average. Log hazard ratios per standard deviation difference were pooled across studies by a random effects meta-analysis. In primary analysis, the annualised progression of total cholesterol was marginally related to a higher cardiovascular disease risk (hazard ratio (HR) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.07). The annualised progression of systolic blood pressure, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol was not associated with future cardiovascular disease risk. In secondary analysis, average systolic blood pressure (HR 1.20 95% CI 1.11 to 1.29) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HR 1.09, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.16) were related to a greater, while high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.97) was related to a lower risk of future cardiovascular disease events.
Conclusion: Averaged measurements of systolic blood pressure, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol displayed significant linear relationships with the risk of future cardiovascular disease events. However, there was no clear association between the annualised progression of these conventional risk factors in individuals with the risk of future clinical endpoints.
Objectives The aims of our study were to examine the anticholinergic drug use and to assess the association between anticholinergic burden and cognitive function in the multimorbid elderly patients of the MultiCare cohort.
Setting MultiCare was conducted as a longitudinal cohort study in primary care, located in eight different study centres in Germany.
Participants 3189 patients (59.3% female).
Primary and secondary outcome measures Baseline data were used for the following analyses. Drugs were classified according to the well-established anticholinergic drug scale (ADS) and the recently published German anticholinergic burden (German ACB). Cognitive function was measured using a letter digit substitution test (LDST) and a mixed-effect multivariate linear regression was performed to calculate the influence of anticholinergic burden on the cognitive function.
Results Patients used 1764 anticholinergic drugs according to ADS and 2750 anticholinergics according to the German ACB score (prevalence 38.4% and 53.7%, respectively). The mean ADS score was 0.8 (±1.3), and the mean German ACB score was 1.2 (±1.6) per patient. The most common ADS anticholinergic was furosemide (5.8%) and the most common ACB anticholinergic was metformin (13.7%). The majority of the identified anticholinergics were drugs with low anticholinergic potential: 80.2% (ADS) and 73.4% (ACB), respectively. An increasing ADS and German ACB score was associated with reduced cognitive function according to the LDST (−0.26; p=0.008 and −0.24; p=0.003, respectively).
Conclusion Multimorbid elderly patients are in a high risk for using anticholinergic drugs according to ADS and German ACB score. We especially need to gain greater awareness for the contribution of drugs with low anticholinergic potential from the cardiovascular system. As anticholinergic drug use is associated with reduced cognitive function in multimorbid elderly patients, the importance of rational prescribing and also deprescribing needs to be further evaluated.
Trial registration number ISRCTN89818205.
Background: The elderly population deals with multimorbidity (three chronic conditions) and increasinged drug use with age. A comprehensive characterisation of the medication – including prescription and over-the-counter (OTC) drugs – of elderly patients in primary care is still insufficient.
Objectives: This study aims to characterise the medication (prescription and OTC) of multimorbid elderly patients in primary care and living at home by identifying drug patterns to evaluate the relationship between drugs and drug groups and reveal associations with recently published multimorbidity clusters of the same cohort.
Methods: MultiCare was a multicentre, prospective, observational cohort study of 3189 multimorbid patients aged 65 to 85 years in primary care in Germany. Patients and general practitioners were interviewed between 2008 and 2009. Drug patterns were identified using exploratory factor analysis. The relations between the drug patterns with the three multimorbidity clusters were analysed with Spearman-Rank-Correlation.
Results: Patients (59.3% female) used in mean 7.7 drugs; in total 24,535 drugs (23.7% OTC) were detected. Five drug patterns for men (drugs for obstructive pulmonary diseases (D-OPD), drugs for coronary heart diseases and hypertension (D-CHD), drugs for osteoporosis (D-Osteo), drugs for heart failure and drugs for pain) and four drug patterns for women (D-Osteo, D-CHD, D-OPD and drugs for diuretics and gout) were detected. Significant associations between multimorbidity clusters and drug patterns were detectable (D-CHD and CMD: male: ρ = 0.376, CI 0.322–0.430; female: ρ = 0.301, CI 0.624–0.340).
Conclusion: The drug patterns demonstrate non-random relations in drug use in multimorbid elderly patients and systematic associations between drug patterns and multimorbidity clusters were found in primary care.
Background: In primary care, patients with multiple chronic conditions are the rule rather than the exception. The Chronic Care Model (CCM) is an evidence-based framework for improving chronic illness care, but little is known about the extent to which it has been implemented in routine primary care. The aim of this study was to describe how multimorbid older patients assess the routine chronic care they receive in primary care practices in Germany, and to explore the extent to which factors at both the practice and patient level determine their views.
Methods: This cross-sectional study used baseline data from an observational cohort study involving 158 general practitioners (GP) and 3189 multimorbid patients. Standardized questionnaires were employed to collect data, and the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) questionnaire used to assess the quality of care received. Multilevel hierarchical modeling was used to identify any existing association between the dependent variable, PACIC, and independent variables at the patient level (socio-economic factors, weighted count of chronic conditions, instrumental activities of daily living, health-related quality of life, graded chronic pain, no. of contacts with GP, existence of a disease management program (DMP) disease, self-efficacy, and social support) and the practice level (age and sex of GP, years in current practice, size and type of practice).
Results: The overall mean PACIC score was 2.4 (SD 0.8), with the mean subscale scores ranging from 2.0 (SD 1.0, subscale goal setting/tailoring) to 3.5 (SD 0.7, delivery system design). At the patient level, higher PACIC scores were associated with a DMP disease, more frequent GP contacts, higher social support, and higher autonomy of past occupation. At the practice level, solo practices were associated with higher PACIC values than other types of practice.
Conclusions: This study shows that from the perspective of multimorbid patients receiving care in German primary care practices, the implementation of structured care and counseling could be improved, particularly by helping patients set specific goals, coordinating care, and arranging follow-up contacts. Studies evaluating chronic care should take into consideration that a patient’s assessment is associated not only with practice-level factors, but also with individual, patient-level factors.
Objectives Our study aimed to assess the frequency of potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) use (according to three PIM lists) and to examine the association between PIM use and cognitive function among participants in the MultiCare cohort. Design MultiCare is conducted as a longitudinal, multicentre, observational cohort study. Setting The MultiCare study is located in eight different study centres in Germany. Participants 3189 patients (59.3% female). Primary and secondary outcome measures The study had a cross-sectional design using baseline data from the German MultiCare study. Prescribed and over-the-counter drugs were classified using FORTA (Fit fOR The Aged), PRISCUS (Latin for ‘time-honoured’) and EU(7)-PIM lists. A mixed-effect multivariate linear regression was performed to calculate the association between PIM use patients’ cognitive function (measured with (LDST)). Results Patients (3189) used 2152 FORTA PIM (mean 0.9±1.03 per patient), 936 PRISCUS PIM (0.3±0.58) and 4311 EU(7)-PIM (1.4±1.29). The most common FORTA PIM was phenprocoumon (13.8%); the most prevalent PRISCUS PIM was amitriptyline (2.8%); the most common EU(7)-PIM was omeprazole (14.0%). The lists rate PIM differently, with an overall overlap of 6.6%. Increasing use of PIM is significantly associated with reduced cognitive function that was detected with a correlation coefficient of −0.60 for FORTA PIM (p=0.002), −0.72 for PRISCUS PIM (p=0.025) and −0.44 for EU(7)-PIM (p=0.005). Conclusion We identified PIM using FORTA, PRISCUS and EU(7)-PIM lists differently and found that PIM use is associated with cognitive impairment according to LDST, whereby the FORTA list best explained cognitive decline for the German population. These findings are consistent with a negative impact of PIM use on multimorbid elderly patient outcomes.
Background Multimorbidity is a highly frequent condition in older people, but well designed longitudinal studies on the impact of multimorbidity on patients and the health care system have been remarkably scarce in numbers until today. Little is known about the long term impact of multimorbidity on the patients' life expectancy, functional status and quality of life as well as health care utilization over time. As a consequence, there is little help for GPs in adjusting care for these patients, even though studies suggest that adhering to present clinical practice guidelines in the care of patients with multimorbidity may have adverse effects. Methods The study is designed as a multicentre prospective, observational cohort study of 3.050 patients aged 65 to 85 at baseline with at least three different diagnoses out of a list of 29 illnesses and syndromes. The patients will be recruited in approx. 120 to 150 GP surgeries in 8 study centres distributed across Germany. Information about the patients' morbidity will be collected mainly in GP interviews and from chart reviews. Functional status, resources/risk factors, health care utilization and additional morbidity data will be assessed in patient interviews, in which a multitude of well established standardized questionnaires and tests will be performed. Discussion The main aim of the cohort study is to monitor the course of the illness process and to analyse for which reasons medical conditions are stable, deteriorating or only temporarily present. First, clusters of combinations of diseases/disorders (multimorbidity patterns) with a comparable impact (e.g. on quality of life and/or functional status) will be identified. Then the development of these clusters over time will be analysed, especially with regard to prognostic variables and the somatic, psychological and social consequences as well as the utilization of health care resources. The results will allow the development of an instrument for prediction of the deterioration of the illness process and point at possibilities of prevention. The practical consequences of the study results for primary care will be analysed in expert focus groups in order to develop strategies for the inclusion of the aspects of multimorbidity in primary care guidelines.
Background: Multimorbidity is a common phenomenon in primary care. Until now, no clinical guidelines for multimorbidity exist. For the development of these guidelines, it is necessary to know whether or not patients are aware of their diseases and to what extent they agree with their doctor. The objectives of this paper are to analyze the agreement of self-reported and general practitioner-reported chronic conditions among multimorbid patients in primary care, and to discover which patient characteristics are associated with positive agreement.
Methods: The MultiCare Cohort Study is a multicenter, prospective, observational cohort study of 3,189 multimorbid patients, ages 65 to 85. Data was collected in personal interviews with patients and GPs. The prevalence proportions for 32 diagnosis groups, kappa coefficients and proportions of specific agreement were calculated in order to examine the agreement of patient self-reported and general practitioner-reported chronic conditions. Logistic regression models were calculated to analyze which patient characteristics can be associated with positive agreement.
Results: We identified four chronic conditions with good agreement (e.g. diabetes mellitus κ = 0.80;PA = 0,87), seven with moderate agreement (e.g. cerebral ischemia/chronic stroke κ = 0.55;PA = 0.60), seventeen with fair agreement (e.g. cardiac insufficiency κ = 0.24;PA = 0.36) and four with poor agreement (e.g. gynecological problems κ = 0.05;PA = 0.10).Factors associated with positive agreement concerning different chronic diseases were sex, age, education, income, disease count, depression, EQ VAS score and nursing care dependency. For example: Women had higher odds ratios for positive agreement with their GP regarding osteoporosis (OR = 7.16). The odds ratios for positive agreement increase with increasing multimorbidity in almost all of the observed chronic conditions (OR = 1.22-2.41).
Conclusions: For multimorbidity research, the knowledge of diseases with high disagreement levels between the patients' perceived illnesses and their physicians' reports is important. The analysis shows that different patient characteristics have an impact on the agreement. Findings from this study should be included in the development of clinical guidelines for multimorbidity aiming to optimize health care. Further research is needed to identify more reasons for disagreement and their consequences in health care.
Background: It is not well established how psychosocial factors like social support and depression affect health-related quality of life in multimorbid and elderly patients. We investigated whether depressive mood mediates the influence of social support on health-related quality of life.
Methods: Cross-sectional data of 3,189 multimorbid patients from the baseline assessment of the German MultiCare cohort study were used. Mediation was tested using the approach described by Baron and Kenny based on multiple linear regression, and controlling for socioeconomic variables and burden of multimorbidity.
Results: Mediation analyses confirmed that depressive mood mediates the influence of social support on health-related quality of life (Sobel's p < 0.001). Multiple linear regression showed that the influence of depressive mood (beta = -0.341, p < 0.01) on health-related quality of life is greater than the influence of multimorbidity (beta = -0.234, p < 0.01).
Conclusion: Social support influences health-related quality of life, but this association is strongly mediated by depressive mood. Depression should be taken into consideration in research on multimorbidity, and clinicians should be aware of its importance when caring for multimorbid patients.
Obesity and associated lifestyle in a large sample of multi-morbid German primary care attendees
(2014)
Background: Obesity and the accompanying increased morbidity and mortality risk is highly prevalent among older adults. As obese elderly might benefit from intentional weight reduction, it is necessary to determine associated and potentially modifiable factors on senior obesity. This cross-sectional study focuses on multi-morbid patients which make up the majority in primary care. It reports on the prevalence of senior obesity and its associations with lifestyle behaviors.
Methods: A total of 3,189 non-demented, multi-morbid participants aged 65–85 years were recruited in primary care within the German MultiCare-study. Physical activity, smoking, alcohol consumption and quantity and quality of nutritional intake were classified as relevant lifestyle factors. Body Mass Index (BMI, general obesity) and waist circumference (WC, abdominal obesity) were used as outcome measures and regression analyses were conducted.
Results: About one third of all patients were classified as obese according to BMI. The prevalence of abdominal obesity was 73.5%. Adjusted for socio-demographic variables and objective and subjective disease burden, participants with low physical activity had a 1.6 kg/m2 higher BMI as well as a higher WC (4.9 cm, p<0.001). Current smoking and high alcohol consumption were associated with a lower BMI and WC. In multivariate logistic regression, using elevated WC and BMI as categorical outcomes, the same pattern in lifestyle factors was observed. Only for WC, not current but former smoking was associated with a higher probability for elevated WC. Dietary intake in quantity and quality was not associated with BMI or WC in either model.
Conclusions: Further research is needed to clarify if the huge prevalence discrepancy between BMI and WC also reflects a difference in obesity-related morbidity and mortality. Yet, age-specific thresholds for the BMI are needed likewise. Encouraging and promoting physical activity in older adults might a starting point for weight reduction efforts.
