Co-morbidity burden in Parkinson's disease: Comparison with controls and its influence on prognosis

被引:19
作者
Macleod, Angus D. [1 ]
Goddard, Hannah [2 ]
Counsell, Carl E. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Aberdeen, Inst Appl Hlth Sci, Foresterhill, Aberdeen AB25 2ZD, Scotland
[2] Univ Aberdeen, Sch Med Med Sci & Nutr, Foresterhill, Aberdeen AB25 2ZD, Scotland
关键词
Parkinson's disease; Co-morbidity; Charlson; Mortality; Dependency; ILLNESS RATING-SCALE; MULTIMORBIDITY; MORTALITY; COMORBIDITY; POPULATION; VALIDATION; DISABILITY; SURVIVAL; COHORT; IMPACT;
D O I
10.1016/j.parkreldis.2016.05.013
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Many aspects of co-morbidity burden in Parkinson's disease (PD) are unclear, but it may be an important predictor of prognosis or confounder of associations in epidemiological studies. Objectives: To determine how best to assess co-morbidity burden in PD, to compare with matched controls, and investigate its association with prognostic outcomes. Methods: Data from an incident, community-based cohort with prospective follow-up (the PINE study) were used (198 patients with PD and 151 controls). The reliability of three co-morbidity scales (the Charlson co-morbidity index (CCI), the Cumulative Illness Rating scale and a simple disease count) were evaluated. The association with mortality and development of dependency was assessed with Cox regression. The co-morbidity burden in PD and controls was compared at baseline and over 5 years of follow-up using linear mixed modelling. Results: The CCI was more reliable and was an independent predictor of mortality with a time dependent effect (hazard ratio = 1.27 [1.08-1.49] in first four years of follow-up; no significant association after four years). Associations between the other scales and mortality and between each scale and development of dependency were non-significant once adjusted for confounders. Co-morbidity burden was similar between cases and controls at baseline and there was no evidence of differential accrual of co-morbidity between patients and controls (p = 0.94). Conclusions: The CCI is probably the better scale for measuring co-morbidity burden in PD. There were no differences between PD and controls. Co-morbidity burden at diagnosis was associated with mortality in the early part of the disease course, but not later. (C) 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
引用
收藏
页码:124 / 129
页数:6
相关论文
共 27 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2013, APPL LONGITUDINAL DA
[2]  
[Anonymous], 1987, RECENT DEV PARKINSON
[3]   Parkinson's disease and cancer risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis [J].
Bajaj, Archna ;
Driver, Jane A. ;
Schernhammer, Eva S. .
CANCER CAUSES & CONTROL, 2010, 21 (05) :697-707
[4]   Age-, gender-, and socioeconomic status-specific incidence of Parkinson's disease and parkinsonism in North East Scotland: The PINE study [J].
Caslake, Robert ;
Taylor, Kate ;
Scott, Neil ;
Gordon, Joanna ;
Harris, Clare ;
Wilde, Katie ;
Murray, Alison ;
Counsell, Carl .
PARKINSONISM & RELATED DISORDERS, 2013, 19 (05) :515-521
[5]   A NEW METHOD OF CLASSIFYING PROGNOSTIC CO-MORBIDITY IN LONGITUDINAL-STUDIES - DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION [J].
CHARLSON, ME ;
POMPEI, P ;
ALES, KL ;
MACKENZIE, CR .
JOURNAL OF CHRONIC DISEASES, 1987, 40 (05) :373-383
[6]   How to measure comorbidity: a critical review of available methods [J].
de Groot, V ;
Beckerman, H ;
Lankhorst, GJ ;
Bouter, LM .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2003, 56 (03) :221-229
[7]   Parkinson disease and risk of mortality - A prospective comorbidity-matched cohort study [J].
Driver, J. A. ;
Kurth, T. ;
Buring, J. E. ;
Gaziano, J. M. ;
Logroscino, G. .
NEUROLOGY, 2008, 70 (16) :1423-1430
[8]  
GRAMBSCH PM, 1994, BIOMETRIKA, V81, P515
[9]   COMPARISON OF SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDICATORS IN AN INTENSIVE-CARE UNIT [J].
GROSS, PA ;
STEIN, MR ;
VANANTWERPEN, C ;
DEMAURO, PJ ;
BOSCAMP, JR ;
HESS, W ;
WALLENSTEIN, S .
ARCHIVES OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 1991, 151 (11) :2201-2205
[10]   Abbreviated guidelines for scoring the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (CIRS) in family practice [J].
Hudon, C. ;
Fortin, M. ;
Soubhi, H. .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2007, 60 (02) :212-212