Disparities in multiple chronic conditions within populations

Disadvantaged populations are disproportionately affected by multiple chronic conditions (MCCs), yet few studies examine the prevalence, outcomes, or effectiveness of MCC interventions in minority and socioeconomically deprived individuals and populations. An important first step in understanding MCCs, not only in such diverse population groups, but also in the general population as a whole, is to broaden the definition and scope of MCC measurement, to encompass more than the simple additive effect of clinical conditions, and to include a wide range of health and health-related aspects that interact and make up the full spectrum of multimorbidity. Only with the use of a comprehensive MCC measurement can some of the differences between the disadvantaged populations be adequately detected. Better understanding of the disparities in access to high quality health and healthcare for persons with MCCs can help guide policy and practice aimed at the prevention and amelioration of the effects of MCCs among disadvantaged groups. Indeed, disparity in MCC populations has been identified as a key goal of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Strategic Framework on MCCs. The aim of the present paper is to describe current knowledge on disparities in the population of persons with MCCs and to guide efforts for the prevention and management of MCCs in disadvantaged populations.Journal of Comorbidity 2013;3(2):45–5

Increasing clinical, community, and patient-centered health research

The report “Multiple Chronic Conditions: A Strategic Framework,” which was developed by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HSS), has identified as one of the key goals for improving health and the provision of healthcare for people with multiple chronic conditions “to increase clinical, community and patient-centered research.” In their linked commentary of this special journal issue, Parekh and Goodman identify and consider the potential impact of a number of related research initiatives supported by the National Institutes of Health and the Agency for Health Research and Quality, particularly focusing on two very specific areas: behavioral medicine and secondary analyses of available datasets. In this paper, I comment on both documents and discuss the opportunities offered by the current approaches and highlight related research needs; in particular, the need for an improved and expanded conceptual model of healthcare for people with multimorbidity, and the need for further exploration of the use of multimorbidity-relevant outcomes as part of usual clinical practice.Journal of Comorbidity 2013;3(2):41–44

Epidemiology of multiple chronic conditions: an international perspective

The epidemiology of multimorbidity, or multiple chronic conditions (MCCs), is one of the research priority areas of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) by its Strategic Framework on MCCs. A conceptual model addressing methodological issues leading to a valid measurement of the prevalence rates of MCCs has been developed and applied in descriptive epidemiological studies. Comparing these results with those from prevalence studies performed earlier and in other countries is hampered by methodological limitations. Therefore, this paper aims to put the size and patterns of MCCs in the USA, as established within the HHS Strategic Framework on MCCs, in perspective of the findings on the prevalence of MCCs in other countries. General common trends can be observed: increasing prevalence rates with increasing age, and multimorbidity being the rule rather than the exception at old age. Most frequent combinations of chronic diseases include the most frequently occurring single chronic diseases. New descriptive epidemiological studies will probably not provide new results; therefore, future descriptive studies should focus on the prevalence rates of MCCs in subpopulations, statistical clustering of chronic conditions, and the development of the prevalence rates of MCCs over time. The finding of common trends also indicates the necessary transition to a next phase of MCC research, addressing the quality of care of patients with MCCs from an organizational perspective and with respect to the content of care.Journal of Comorbidity 2013;3(2)36–4

Inverse comorbidity: the power of paradox in the advancement of science

Research on comorbidity and multimorbidity is finally receiving the attention it deserves, particularly considering the magnitude and impact they have on health and the delivery of healthcare [1,2]. Numerous studies have demonstrated that individuals with Down’s syndrome, Parkinson’s disease, schizophrenia, diabetes, anorexia nervosa, Alzheimer’s disease, allergy related diseases, multiple sclerosis or Huntington’s disease (among other health problems) are protected against many forms of cancer, including solid tumors, smoking-related tumors and prostate cancer. This apparent anti-cancer effect, which we have termed inverse cancer comorbidity, has been observed in many serious CNS and immune disorders, and is the subject of active research [3–5].Journal of Comorbidity 2013;3(1):1–3

A scoping review and thematic classification of patient complexity: offering a unifying framework

The path to improving healthcare quality for individuals with complex health conditions is complicated by a lack of common understanding of complexity. Modern medicine, together with social and environmental factors, has extended life, leading to a growing population of patients with chronic conditions. In many cases, there are social and psychological factors that impact treatment, health outcomes, and quality of life. This is the face of complexity. Care challenges, burden, and cost have positioned complexity as an important health issue. Complex chronic conditions are now being discussed by clinicians, researchers, and policy-makers around such issues as quantification, payment schemes, transitions, management models, clinical practice, and improved patient experience. We conducted a scoping review of the literature for definitions and descriptions of complexity. We provide an overview of complex chronic conditions, and what is known about complexity, and describe variations in how it is understood. We developed a Complexity Framework from these findings to guide our approach to understanding patient complexity. It is critical to use common vernacular and conceptualization of complexity to improve service and outcomes for patients with complex chronic conditions. Many questions still persist about how to develop this work with a health and social care lens; our framework offers a foundation to structure thinking about complex patients. Further insight into patient complexity can inform treatment models and goals of care, and identify required services and barriers to the management of complexity.Journal of Comorbidity 2012;2(1):1–9

The acute oncologist’s role in managing patients with cancer and other comorbidities

Background: An Acute Oncology Service (AOS) is paramount to providing timely and improved pathways of care for patients who are admitted to hospital with cancer-related problems or suspected cancer. Objective: To establish an AOS pilot study to decide how best to implement such a service locally. Methods: The AOS, which included collaboration between the oncology and palliative care teams at the Northern General Hospital in Sheffield, UK, ensured that the majority of oncology patients in the region received timely assessment by an oncologist if they became acutely unwell as a result of their cancer or its treatment. The AOS consisted of a thrice-weekly ward round, and daily telephone advice service. Results: We report on patient data during the first 12 months of the pilot study. Delivery of the AOS enhanced communication between the services and provided inter-professional education and support, resulting in earlier oncological team involvement in the management of patients with cancer admitted under other teams, as well as provision of advice to patients and their caregivers and families. Provision of the AOS shortened the mean length of hospital stay by 6 days. Two case studies are presented to illustrate the typical challenges faced when managing these patients. Conclusions: Establishment of the AOS enabled effective collaboration between the oncology and other clinical teams to provide a rapid and streamlined referral pathway of patients to the AOS. Locally, this process has been supported by the development of acute oncology protocols, which are now in use across the local cancer network. Journal of Comorbidity 2012;2(1):10–17

Multimorbidity research challenges: where to go from here?

The last decade has seen an increase in research focusing on patients with multiple chronic conditions. A recent review reported only two published studies on multimorbidity between 1990 and 2000, increasing to 39 between 2001 and 2010 [1]. This research has been largely driven by two factors: the increasing demographics of the older population worldwide [2], coupled with a growing awareness of the high prevalence of patients with multiple chronic conditions [1,3]. Through this research, there has been an increasing appreciation and understanding of the complexities associated with the management and care of these patients both from a health practitioner and a patient perspective [4,5]. However, there is still much work to be done if we are to improve health outcomes, quality of care, and develop the necessary healthcare systems required to provide integrated and coordinated care for this growing population. In order to move this research agenda forward, it is important to reflect on what we currently know, to facilitate the identification of potential gaps in our knowledge base.Journal of Comorbidity 2011;1(1):8–1

Diabetes alone should not be a reason for withholding adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer

Background: With increasing prevalence of diabetes mellitus and colon cancer, the number of patients suffering from both diseases is growing, and physicians are being faced with complicated treatment decisions. Objective: To investigate the association between diabetes and treatment/course of stage III colon cancer and the association between colon cancer and course of diabetes. Materials and Methods: Additional information was collected from the medical records of all patients with both stage III colon cancer and diabetes (n=201) and a random sample of stage III colon cancer patients without diabetes (n=206) in the area of the population-based Eindhoven Cancer Registry (1998–2007). Results: Colon cancer patients without diabetes were more likely to receive adjuvant chemotherapy compared with diabetic colon cancer patients (OR 1.8; 95% CI 1.2–2.7). After adjustment for age, this difference was borderline significant (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.0–2.6). Diabetic patients did not have: significantly more side-effects from surgery or adjuvant chemotherapy; more recurrence from colon cancer; significantly shorter time interval until recurrence; or a poorer disease-free survival or overall survival. Age and withholding of adjuvant chemotherapy were most predictive of all-cause mortality. After colon cancer diagnosis, the dose of antiglycaemic medications was increased in 22% of diabetic patients, resulting in significantly lower glycaemic indexes than before colon cancer diagnosis. Conclusions: Since diabetic patients did not have more side-effects of adjuvant chemotherapy, and adjuvant chemotherapy had a positive effect on survival for both patients with and without diabetes, diabetes alone should not be a reason for withholding adjuvant chemotherapy.Journal of Comorbidity 2011;1(1):19–2

Haemophilia and joint disease: pathophysiology, evaluation and management

In patients with haemophilia, regular replacement therapy with clotting factor concentrates (prophylaxis) is effective in preventing recurrent bleeding episodes into joints and muscles. However, despite this success, intra-articular and intramuscular bleeding is still a major clinical manifestation of the disease. Bleeding most commonly occurs in the knees, elbows, and ankles, and is often evident from early childhood. The pathogenesis of haemophilic arthropathy is multifactorial, with changes occurring in the synovium, bone, cartilage, and blood vessels. Recurrent joint bleeding causes synovial proliferation and inflammation (haemophilic synovitis) that contribute to end-stage degeneration (haemophilic arthropathy); with pain and limitation of motion severely affecting patients’ quality of life. If joint bleeding is not treated adequately, it tends to recur, resulting in a vicious cycle that must be broken to prevent the development of chronic synovitis and degenerative arthritis. Effective prevention and management of haemophilic arthropathy includes the use of early, aggressive prophylaxis with factor replacement therapies, as well as elective procedures, including restorative physical therapy, analgesia, aspiration, synovectomy, and orthopaedic surgery. Optimal treatment of patients with haemophilia requires a multidisciplinary team comprising a haematologist, physiotherapist, orthopaedic practitioner, rehabilitation physician, occupational therapist, psychologist, social workers, and nurses.Journal of Comorbidity 2011;1(1):51–59

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a complex comorbidity of lung cancer

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a major burden throughout the world. It is associated with a significantly increased incidence of lung cancer and may influence treatment options and outcome. Impaired lung function confirming COPD is an independent risk factor for lung cancer. Oxidative stress and inflammation may be a key link between COPD and lung cancer, with numerous molecular markers being analysed to attempt to understand the pathway of lung cancer development. COPD negatively influences the ability to deliver radical treatment options, so attempts must be made to look for alternative methods of treating lung cancer, while aiming to manage the underlying COPD. Detailed assessment and management plans utilizing the multidisciplinary team must be made for all lung cancer patients with COPD to provide the best care possible.Journal of Comorbidity 2011;1(1):45–5