Proof-of-concept of a data-driven approach to estimate the associations of comorbid mental and physical disorders with global health-related disability

Objective: The standard method of generating disorder-specific disability scores has lay raters make rankings between pairs of disorders based on brief disorder vignettes. This method introduces bias due to differential rater knowledge of disorders and inability to disentangle the disability due to disorders from the disability due to comorbidities. Methods: We propose an alternative, data-driven, method of generating disorder-specific disability scores that assesses disorders in a sample of individuals either from population medical registry data or population survey self-reports and uses Generalized Random Forests(GRF) to predict global (rather than disorder-specific) disability assessed by clinician ratings or by survey respondent self-reports. This method also provides a principled basis for studying patterns and predictors of heterogeneity in disorder-specific disability. We illustrate this method by analyzing data for 16 disorders assessed in the World Mental Health Surveys(n=53,645).Results: Adjustments for comorbidity decreased estimates of disorder-specific disability substantially. Estimates were generally somewhat higher with GRF than conventional multivariable regression models. Heterogeneity was nonsignificant. Conclusions: The results show clearly that the proposed approach is practical, and that adjustment is needed for comorbidities to obtain accurate estimates of disorder-specific disability. Expansion to a wider range of disorders would likely find more evidence for heterogeneity

Variation in Structure and Process of Care in Traumatic Brain Injury: Provider Profiles of European Neurotrauma Centers Participating in the CENTER-TBI Study.

INTRODUCTION: The strength of evidence underpinning care and treatment recommendations in traumatic brain injury (TBI) is low. Comparative effectiveness research (CER) has been proposed as a framework to provide evidence for optimal care for TBI patients. The first step in CER is to map the existing variation. The aim of current study is to quantify variation in general structural and process characteristics among centers participating in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study. METHODS: We designed a set of 11 provider profiling questionnaires with 321 questions about various aspects of TBI care, chosen based on literature and expert opinion. After pilot testing, questionnaires were disseminated to 71 centers from 20 countries participating in the CENTER-TBI study. Reliability of questionnaires was estimated by calculating a concordance rate among 5% duplicate questions. RESULTS: All 71 centers completed the questionnaires. Median concordance rate among duplicate questions was 0.85. The majority of centers were academic hospitals (n = 65, 92%), designated as a level I trauma center (n = 48, 68%) and situated in an urban location (n = 70, 99%). The availability of facilities for neuro-trauma care varied across centers; e.g. 40 (57%) had a dedicated neuro-intensive care unit (ICU), 36 (51%) had an in-hospital rehabilitation unit and the organization of the ICU was closed in 64% (n = 45) of the centers. In addition, we found wide variation in processes of care, such as the ICU admission policy and intracranial pressure monitoring policy among centers. CONCLUSION: Even among high-volume, specialized neurotrauma centers there is substantial variation in structures and processes of TBI care. This variation provides an opportunity to study effectiveness of specific aspects of TBI care and to identify best practices with CER approaches

Variation in neurosurgical management of traumatic brain injury

Background: Neurosurgical management of traumatic brain injury (TBI) is challenging, with only low-quality evidence. We aimed to explore differences in neurosurgical strategies for TBI across Europe. Methods: A survey was sent to 68 centers participating in the Collaborative European Neurotrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study. The questionnaire contained 21 questions, including the decision when to operate (or not) on traumatic acute subdural hematoma (ASDH) and intracerebral hematoma (ICH), and when to perform a decompressive craniectomy (DC) in raised intracranial pressure (ICP). Results: The survey was completed by 68 centers (100%). On average, 10 neurosurgeons work in each trauma center. In all centers, a neurosurgeon was available within 30 min. Forty percent of responders reported a thickness or volume threshold for evacuation of an ASDH. Most responders (78%) decide on a primary DC in evacuating an ASDH during the operation, when swelling is present. For ICH, 3% would perform an evacuation directly to prevent secondary deterioration and 66% only in case of clinical deterioration. Most respondents (91%) reported to consider a DC for refractory high ICP. The reported cut-off ICP for DC in refractory high ICP, however, differed: 60% uses 25 mmHg, 18% 30 mmHg, and 17% 20 mmHg. Treatment strategies varied substantially between regions, specifically for the threshold for ASDH surgery and DC for refractory raised ICP. Also within center variation was present: 31% reported variation within the hospital for inserting an ICP monitor and 43% for evacuating mass lesions. Conclusion: Despite a homogeneous organization, considerable practice variation exists of neurosurgical strategies for TBI in Europe. These results provide an incentive for comparative effectiveness research to determine elements of effective neurosurgical care

Variation in general supportive and preventive intensive care management of traumatic brain injury: a survey in 66 neurotrauma centers participating in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study

Abstract Background General supportive and preventive measures in the intensive care management of traumatic brain injury (TBI) aim to prevent or limit secondary brain injury and optimize recovery. The aim of this survey was to assess and quantify variation in perceptions on intensive care unit (ICU) management of patients with TBI in European neurotrauma centers. Methods We performed a survey as part of the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study. We analyzed 23 questions focused on: 1) circulatory and respiratory management; 2) fever control; 3) use of corticosteroids; 4) nutrition and glucose management; and 5) seizure prophylaxis and treatment. Results The survey was completed predominantly by intensivists (n = 33, 50%) and neurosurgeons (n = 23, 35%) from 66 centers (97% response rate). The most common cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) target was > 60 mmHg (n = 39, 60%) and/or an individualized target (n = 25, 38%). To support CPP, crystalloid fluid loading (n = 60, 91%) was generally preferred over albumin (n = 15, 23%), and vasopressors (n = 63, 96%) over inotropes (n = 29, 44%). The most commonly reported target of partial pressure of carbon dioxide in arterial blood (PaCO2) was 36–40 mmHg (4.8–5.3 kPa) in case of controlled intracranial pressure (ICP) < 20 mmHg (n = 45, 69%) and PaCO2 target of 30–35 mmHg (4–4.7 kPa) in case of raised ICP (n = 40, 62%). Almost all respondents indicated to generally treat fever (n = 65, 98%) with paracetamol (n = 61, 92%) and/or external cooling (n = 49, 74%). Conventional glucose management (n = 43, 66%) was preferred over tight glycemic control (n = 18, 28%). More than half of the respondents indicated to aim for full caloric replacement within 7 days (n = 43, 66%) using enteral nutrition (n = 60, 92%). Indications for and duration of seizure prophylaxis varied, and levetiracetam was mostly reported as the agent of choice for both seizure prophylaxis (n = 32, 49%) and treatment (n = 40, 61%). Conclusions Practice preferences vary substantially regarding general supportive and preventive measures in TBI patients at ICUs of European neurotrauma centers. These results provide an opportunity for future comparative effectiveness research, since a more evidence-based uniformity in good practices in general ICU management could have a major impact on TBI outcome

Proof-of-concept of a data-driven approach to estimate the associations of comorbid mental and physical disorders with global health-related disability

Objective: The standard method of generating disorder-specific disability scores has lay raters make rankings between pairs of disorders based on brief disorder vignettes. This method introduces bias due to differential rater knowledge of disorders and inability to disentangle the disability due to disorders from the disability due to comorbidities. Methods: We propose an alternative, data-driven, method of generating disorder-specific disability scores that assesses disorders in a sample of individuals either from population medical registry data or population survey self-reports and uses Generalized Random Forests (GRF) to predict global (rather than disorder-specific) disability assessed by clinician ratings or by survey respondent self-reports. This method also provides a principled basis for studying patterns and predictors of heterogeneity in disorder-specific disability. We illustrate this method by analyzing data for 16 disorders assessed in the World Mental Health Surveys (n = 53,645). Results: Adjustments for comorbidity decreased estimates of disorder-specific disability substantially. Estimates were generally somewhat higher with GRF than conventional multivariable regression models. Heterogeneity was nonsignificant. Conclusions: The results show clearly that the proposed approach is practical, and that adjustment is needed for comorbidities to obtain accurate estimates of disorder-specific disability. Expansion to a wider range of disorders would likely find more evidence for heterogeneity.</p

Associations between DSM-IV mental disorders and diabetes mellitus:a role for impulse control disorders and depression (vol 57, pg 1269, 2014)

Endocrinology &amp; MetabolismSCI(E)[email protected]

Associations between DSM-IV mental disorders and diabetes mellitus: A role for impulse control disorders and depression

Aims/hypothesis: No studies have evaluated whether the frequently observed associations between depression and diabetes could reflect the presence of comorbid psychiatric conditions and their associations with diabetes. We therefore examined the associations between a wide range of pre-existing Diagnostic Statistical Manual, 4th edition (DSM-IV) mental disorders with self-reported diagnosis of diabetes. Methods: We performed a series of cross-sectional face-to-face household surveys of community-dwelling adults (n=52,095) in 19 countries. The World Health Organization Composite International Diagnostic Interview retrospectively assessed lifetime prevalence and age at onset of 16 DSM-IV mental disorders. Diabetes was indicated by self-report of physician's diagnosis together with its timing. We analysed the associations between all mental disorders and diabetes, without and with comorbidity adjustment. Results: We identified 2,580 cases of adult-onset diabetes mellitus (21 years +). Although all 16 DSM-IV disorders were associated with diabetes diagnosis in bivariate models, only depression (OR 1.3; 95% CI 1.1, 1.5), intermittent explosive disorder (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.1, 2.1), binge eating disorder (OR 2.6; 95% CI 1.7, 4.0) and bulimia nervosa (OR 2.1; 95% CI 1.3, 3.4) remained after comorbidity adjustment. Conclusions/interpretation: Depression and impulse control disorders (eating disorders in particular) were significantly associated with diabetes diagnosis after comorbidity adjustment. These findings support the focus on depression as having a role in diabetes onset, but suggest that this focus may be extended towards impulse control disorders. Acknowledging the comorbidity of mental disorders is important in determining the associations between mental disorders and subsequent diabetes

Concordance between the diagnostic guidelines for alcohol and cannabis use disorders in the draft ICD-11 and other classification systems: analysis of data from the WHO's World Mental Health Surveys

The World Health Organization's (WHO's) proposed International Classification of Diseases, 11th Edition (ICD-11) includes several major revisions to substance use disorder (SUD) diagnoses. It is essential to ensure the consistency of within-subject diagnostic findings across countries, languages and cultures. To date, agreement analyses between different SUD diagnostic systems have largely been based in high-income countries and clinical samples rather than general population samples. We aimed to evaluate the prevalence of, and concordance between diagnoses using the ICD-11, The WHO's ICD 10 Edition (ICD-10), and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4 and 5 editions (DSM-IV, DSM-5); prevalence of disaggregated ICD-10 and ICD-11 symptoms; and variation in clinical features across diagnostic groups.Face-to-face household surveys.Representative surveys of the general population in ten countries (Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Colombia, Iraq, Northern Ireland, Poland, Portugal, Romania and Spain) of the World Mental Health Survey Initiative.Questions about SUDs were asked of 12,182 regular alcohol users and 1,788 cannabis users.Each survey used the World Mental Health Survey Initiative version of the WHO Composite International Diagnostic Interview Version 3.0 (WMH-CIDI).Among regular alcohol users, prevalence (95% confidence interval) of lifetime ICD-11 alcohol harmful use and dependence were 21.6% (20.5%-22.6%) and 7.0% (6.4%-7.7%), respectively. Among cannabis users, 9.3% (7.4%-11.1%) met criteria for ICD-11 harmful use and 3.2% (2.3%-4.0%) for dependence. For both substances, all comparisons of ICD-11 with ICD-10 and DSM-IV showed excellent concordance (all κ≥0.90). Concordance between ICD-11 and DSM-5 ranged from good (for SUD, and comparisons of dependence and severe SUD) to poor (for comparisons of harmful use and mild SUD). Very low endorsement rates were observed for new ICD-11 feature for harmful use ('harm to others'). Minimal variation in clinical features was observed across diagnostic systems.The World Health Organization's proposed International Classification of Diseases, 11th Edition (ICD-11) classifications for substance use disorder diagnoses are highly consistent with the ICD 10 Edition and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4 Edition (DSM-IV). Concordance between ICD-11 and the DSM 5 Edition (DSM-5) varies, largely due to low levels of agreement for the ICD harmful use and DSM-5 mild use disorder. Diagnostic validity of self-reported "harm to others" is questionable

Concordance between the diagnostic guidelines for alcohol and cannabis use disorders in the draft ICD-11 and other classification systems: analysis of data from the WHO's World Mental Health Surveys.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The World Health Organization's (WHO's) proposed International Classification of Diseases, 11th edition (ICD-11) includes several major revisions to substance use disorder (SUD) diagnoses. It is essential to ensure the consistency of within-subject diagnostic findings throughout countries, languages and cultures. To date, agreement analyses between different SUD diagnostic systems have largely been based in high-income countries and clinical samples rather than general population samples. We aimed to evaluate the prevalence of, and concordance between diagnoses using the ICD-11, The WHO's ICD 10th edition (ICD-10) and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th and 5th editions (DSM-IV, DSM-5); the prevalence of disaggregated ICD-10 and ICD-11 symptoms; and variation in clinical features across diagnostic groups. DESIGN: Cross-sectional household surveys. SETTING: Representative surveys of the general population in 10 countries (Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Colombia, Iraq, Northern Ireland, Poland, Portugal, Romania and Spain) of the World Mental Health Survey Initiative. PARTICIPANTS: Questions about SUDs were asked of 12 182 regular alcohol users and 1788 cannabis users. MEASUREMENTS: Each survey used the World Mental Health Survey Initiative version of the WHO Composite International Diagnostic Interview version 3.0 (WMH-CIDI). FINDINGS: Among regular alcohol users, prevalence (95% confidence interval) of life-time ICD-11 alcohol harmful use and dependence were 21.6% (20.5-22.6%) and 7.0% (6.4-7.7%), respectively. Among cannabis users, 9.3% (7.4-11.1%) met criteria for ICD-11 harmful use and 3.2% (2.3-4.0%) for dependence. For both substances, all comparisons of ICD-11 with ICD-10 and DSM-IV showed excellent concordance (all κ ≥ 0.9). Concordance between ICD-11 and DSM-5 ranged from good (for SUD and comparisons of dependence and severe SUD) to poor (for comparisons of harmful use and mild SUD). Very low endorsement rates were observed for new ICD-11 feature for harmful use ('harm to others'). Minimal variation in clinical features was observed across diagnostic systems. CONCLUSIONS: The World Health Organization's proposed International Classification of Diseases, 11th edition (ICD-11) classifications for substance use disorder diagnoses are highly consistent with the ICD 10th edition and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition (DSM-IV). Concordance between ICD-11 and the DSM 5th edition (DSM-5) varies, due largely to low levels of agreement for the ICD harmful use and DSM-5 mild use disorder. Diagnostic validity of self-reported 'harm to others' is questionable