Rising prevalence of vascular comorbidities in multiple sclerosis: validation of administrative definitions for diabetes,hypertension,and hyperlipidemia
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online September, 2012
Rising prevalence of vascular comorbidities in multiple sclerosis: validation of administrative definitions for diabetes,hypertension,and hyperlipidemia
Despite the importance of comorbidity in multiple sclerosis (MS), methods for comorbidity assessment in MS are poorly developed.
Objective:
We validated and applied administrative case definitions for diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia in MS.
Methods:
Using provincial administrative data we identified persons with MS and a matched general population cohort. Case definitions for diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia were derived using hospital, physician, and prescription claims, and validated in 430 persons with MS. We examined temporal trends in the age-adjusted prevalence of these conditions from 1984–2006.
Results:
Agreement between various case definitions and medical records ranged from kappa (κ) =0.51–0.69 for diabetes, κ =0.21–0.71 for hyperlipidemia, and κ =0.52–0.75 for hypertension. The 2005 age-adjusted prevalence of diabetes was similar in the MS (7.62%) and general populations (8.31%; prevalence ratio [PR] 0.91; 0.81–1.03). The age-adjusted prevalence did not differ for hypertension (MS: 20.8% versus general: 22.5% [PR 0.91; 0.78–1.06]), or hyperlipidemia (MS: 13.8% versus general: 15.2% [PR 0.90; 0.67–1.22]). The prevalence of all conditions rose in both populations over the study period.
Conclusion:
Administrative data are a valid means of tracking diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia in MS. The prevalence of these comorbidities is similar in the MS and general populations.
MarrieRAHorwitzRI. Emerging effects of comorbidities on multiple sclerosis. Lancet Neurol2010; 9: 820–828.
2.
MarrieRAHorwitzRICutterG. Comorbidity delays diagnosis and increases disability at diagnosis in MS. Neurology2009; 72: 117–124.
3.
MarrieRACutterGTyryT. Substantial adverse association of visual and vascular comorbidities on visual disability in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler J2011; 17: 1464–1471.
4.
TriccoACPhamBRawsonNSB. Manitoba and Saskatchewan administrative health care utilization databases are used differently to answer epidemiologic research questions. J Clin Epidemiol2008; 61: 192–197.
5.
KlabundeCNWarrenJLLeglerJM. Assessing comorbidity using claims data: an overview. Med Care2002; 40: IV-26–35.
6.
KlabundeCNWarrenJLLeglerJM. Assessing comorbidity using claims data: An overview. Med. Care2002; 40(8 Suppl): IV-26–35
7.
Canadian Institute for Health Information. Discharge Abstract Database (DAD)/CMG/Plx Data Quality: Re-abstraction Study. Ottawa, Ontario: Canadian Institute for Health Information, 2003.
8.
ElixhauserASteinerCHarrisDR. Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data. Med Care1998; 36: 8–27.
9.
Health Information Management Branch. Population report. Winnipeg, Manitoba: Manitoba Health and Healthy Living, 2008.
10.
MarrieRAYuNBlanchardJF. The rising prevalence and changing age distribution of multiple sclerosis in Manitoba. Neurology2010; 74: 465–471.
11.
HortonMRudickRAHara-CleaverC. Validation of a Self-Report Comorbidity Questionnaire for Multiple Sclerosis. Neuroepidemiology2010; 35: 83–90.
12.
PolmanCHReingoldSCEdanG. Diagnostic criteria for multiple sclerosis: 2005 revisions to the “McDonald Criteria”. Ann Neurol2005; 58: 840–846.
13.
MarrieRARudickRHorwitzR. Vascular comorbidity is associated with more rapid disability progression in multiple sclerosis. Neurology2010; 74: 1041–1047.
14.
SoLEvansDQuanH. ICD-10 coding algorithms for defining comorbidities of acute myocardial infarction. BMC Health Serv Res2006; 6: 161.
15.
QuanHSundararajanVHalfonP. Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data. Med Care2005; 43: 1130–1139.
16.
HuxJEIvisFFlintoftV. Diabetes in Ontario: Determination of prevalence and incidence using a validated administrative data algorithm. Diabetes Care2002; 25: 512–516.
17.
TuKCampbellNRCChenZ. Accuracy of administrative databases in identifying patients with hypertension. Open Med2007; 1.
18.
LixLYogendranMShawS. Population-based data sources for chronic disease surveillance. Chron Dis Canada2008; 29: 22–30.
19.
BlanchardJFLudwigSWajdaA. Incidence and prevalence of diabetes in Manitoba, 1986-1991. Diabetes Care1996; 19: 807–811.
20.
National Diabetes Surveillance System. Responding to the challenge of diabetes in Canada. 2003. Health Canada. Ottawa, Canada.
21.
GuttmannANakhlaMHendersonM. Validation of a health administrative data algorithm for assessing the epidemiology of diabetes in Canadian children. Pediat Diabetes2009; 11: 122–128.
22.
YoudenWJ. Index for rating diagnostic tests. Cancer1950: 32–35.
23.
LandisJRKochGG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics1977; 33: 159–174.
24.
RothmanKJGreenlandS. Modern epidemiology. 2nd ed.Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 1998, p.738.
25.
JacobsLDWendeKEBrownscheidleCM. A profile of multiple sclerosis: The New York State Multiple Sclerosis Consortium. Mult Scler1999; 5: 369–376.
26.
RectorTSWickstromSLShahM. Specificity and sensitivity of claims-based algorithms for identifying members of Medicare+Choice Health Plans that have chronic medical conditions. Health Serv Res2004; 39: 1839–1858.
27.
MarkDH. Race and the limits of administrative data. JAMA2001; 285: 337–338.
28.
VirnigBAMcBeanM. Administrative data for public health surveillance and planning. Ann Rev Public Health2001; 22: 213-230.
29.
BernsteinCNBlanchardJFRawsthorneP. Epidemiology of Crohn’s Disease and Ulcerative Colitis in a central Canadian Province: A population-based study. Amer J Epidemiol1999; 149: 916–924.
30.
JoffresMRKamathTVWilliamsGR. Impact of guidelines on health care use for the management of dyslipidemia in two Canadian provinces, Alberta and Nova Scotia, from 1990 to 2001. Can J Cardiol2004; 20: 767–772.
31.
BrownDWAndaRFFelittiVJ. Self-reported information and pharmacy claims were comparable for lipid-lowering medication exposure. J Clin Epidemiol2007; 60: 525–529.
32.
LIPID Study Group (Long-term Intervention with Pravastatin in Ischaemic Disease). Long-term effectiveness and safety of pravastatin in 9014 patients with coronary heart disease and average cholesterol concentrations: the LIPID trial follow-up. Lancet2002; 359: 1379–1387.
33.
MarrieRAHorwitzRCutterG. Comorbidity, socioeconomic status, and multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler2008; 14: 1091–1098.
34.
PoharSLJonesCAWarrenS. Health status and health care utilization of multiple sclerosis in Canada. Can J Neurolog Sci2007; 34: 167–174.
35.
KangJ-HChenY-HLinH-C. Comorbidities amongst patients with multiple sclerosis: a population-based controlled study. Eur J Neurol2010; 17: 1215–1219.
36.
RoseG. Sick individuals and sick populations. Int J Epidemiol1985; 14: 32–38.
De CosterCQuanHFinlaysonA. Identifying priorities in methodological research using ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data: report from an international consortium. BMC Health Serv Res2006; 6: 77.
