Relative contribution of various chronic diseases and multi-morbidity to potential disability among Dutch elderly

BACKGROUND: The amount of time spent living with disease greatly influences elderly people’s wellbeing, disability and healthcare costs, but differs by disease, age and sex. METHODS: We assessed how various single and combined diseases differentially affect life years spent living with disease in Dutch elderly men and women (65+) over their remaining life course. Multistate life table calculations were applied to age and sex-specific disease prevalence, incidence and death rates for the Netherlands in 2007. We distinguished congestive heart failure, coronary heart disease (CHD), breast and prostate cancer, colon cancer, lung cancer, diabetes, COPD, stroke, dementia and osteoarthritis. RESULTS: Across ages 65, 70, 75, 80 and 85, CHD caused the most time spent living with disease for Dutch men (from 7.6 years at age 65 to 3.7 years at age 85) and osteoarthritis for Dutch women (from 11.7 years at age 65 to 4. 8 years at age 85). Of the various co-occurrences of disease, the combination of diabetes and osteoarthritis led to the most time spent living with disease, for both men (from 11.2 years at age 65 to 4.9 -years at age 85) and women (from 14.2 years at age 65 to 6.0 years at age 85). CONCLUSIONS: Specific single and multi-morbid diseases affect men and women differently at different phases in the life course in terms of the time spent living with disease, and consequently, their potential disability. Timely sex and age-specific interventions targeting prevention of the single and combined diseases identified could reduce healthcare costs and increase wellbeing in elderly people

Net Reclassification Improvement: Computation, Interpretation, and Controversies

The net reclassification improvement (NRI) is an increasingly popular measure for evaluating improvements in risk predictions. This article details a review of 67 publications in high-impact general clinical journals that considered the NRI. Incomplete reporting of NRI methods, incorrect calculation, and common misinterpretations were found. To aid improved applications of the NRI, the article elaborates on several aspects of the computation and interpretation in various settings. Limitations and controversies are discussed, including the effect of miscalibration of prediction models, the use of the continuous NRI and "clinical NRI," and the relation with decision analytic measures. A systematic approach toward presenting NRI analysis is proposed: Detail and motivate the methods used for computation of the NRI, use clinically meaningful risk cutoffs for the category-based NRI, report both NRI components, address issues of calibration, and do not interpret the overall NRI as a percentage of the study population reclassified. Promising NRI findings need to be followed with decision analytic or formal cost-effectiveness evaluations