Sei J. Lee

Prognostic Indices for Older Adults: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT To better target services to those who may benefit, many guidelines recommend incorporating life expectancy into clinical decisions. OBJECTIVE To assess the quality and limitations of prognostic indices for mortality in older adults through systematic review. DATA SOURCES We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Google Scholar from their inception through November 2011. STUDY SELECTION We included indices if they were validated and predicted absolute risk of mortality in patients whose average age was 60 years or older. We excluded indices that estimated intensive care unit, disease-specific, or in-hospital mortality. DATA EXTRACTION For each prognostic index, we extracted data on clinical setting, potential for bias, generalizability, and accuracy. RESULTS We reviewed 21,593 titles to identify 16 indices that predict risk of mortality from 6 months to 5 years for older adults in a variety of clinical settings: the community (6 indices), nursing home (2 indices), and hospital (8 indices). At least 1 measure of transportability (the index is accurate in more than 1 population) was tested for all but 3 indices. By our measures, no study was free from potential bias. Although 13 indices had C statistics of 0.70 or greater, none of the indices had C statistics of 0.90 or greater. Only 2 indices were independently validated by investigators who were not involved in the indexs development. CONCLUSION We identified several indices for predicting overall mortality in different patient groups; future studies need to independently test their accuracy in heterogeneous populations and their ability to improve clinical outcomes before their widespread use can be recommended.

Potential Overtreatment of Diabetes Mellitus in Older Adults With Tight Glycemic Control

IMPORTANCE In older adults with multiple serious comorbidities and functional limitations, the harms of intensive glycemic control likely exceed the benefits. OBJECTIVES To examine glycemic control levels among older adults with diabetes mellitus by health status and to estimate the prevalence of potential overtreatment of diabetes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Cross-sectional analysis of the data on 1288 older adults (≥65 years) with diabetes from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from 2001 through 2010 who had a hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) measurement. All analyses incorporated complex survey design to produce nationally representative estimates. EXPOSURES Health status categories: very complex/poor, based on difficulty with 2 or more activities of daily living or dialysis dependence; complex/intermediate, based on difficulty with 2 or more instrumental activities of daily living or presence of 3 or more chronic conditions; and relatively healthy if none of these were present. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Tight glycemic control (HbA1c level, <7%) and use of diabetes medications likely to result in hypoglycemia (insulin or sulfonylureas). RESULTS Of 1288 older adults with diabetes, 50.7% (95% CI, 46.6%-54.8%), representing 3.1 million (95% CI, 2.7-3.5), were relatively healthy, 28.1% (95% CI, 24.8%-31.5%), representing 1.7 million (95% CI, 1.4-2.0), had complex/intermediate health, and 21.2% (95% CI, 18.3%-24.4%), representing 1.3 million (95% CI, 1.1-1.5), had very complex/poor health. Overall, 61.5% (95% CI, 57.5%-65.3%), representing 3.8 million (95% CI, 3.4-4.2), had an HbA1c level of less than 7%; this proportion did not differ across health status categories (62.8% [95% CI, 56.9%-68.3%]) were relatively healthy, 63.0% (95% CI, 57.0%-68.6%) had complex/intermediate health, and 56.4% (95% CI, 49.7%-62.9%) had very complex/poor health (P = .26). Of the older adults with an HbA1c level of less than 7%, 54.9% (95% CI, 50.4%-59.3%) were treated with either insulin or sulfonylureas; this proportion was similar across health status categories (50.8% [95% CI, 45.1%-56.5%] were relatively healthy, 58.7% [95% CI, 49.4%-67.5%] had complex/intermediate health, and 60.0% [95% CI, 51.4%-68.1%] had very complex/poor health; P = .14). During the 10 study years, there were no significant changes in the proportion of older adults with an HbA1c level of less than 7% (P = .34), the proportion with an HbA1c level of less than 7% who had complex/intermediate or very complex/poor health (P = .27), or the proportion with an HbA1c level of less than 7% who were treated with insulin or sulfonylureas despite having complex/intermediate or very complex/poor health (P = .65). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Although the harms of intensive treatment likely exceed the benefits for older patients with complex/intermediate or very complex/poor health status, most of these adults reached tight glycemic targets between 2001 and 2010. Most of them were treated with insulin or sulfonylureas, which may lead to severe hypoglycemia. Our findings suggest that a substantial proportion of older adults with diabetes were potentially overtreated.

Impact of Age and Comorbidity on Colorectal Cancer Screening Among Older Veterans

Context Guidelines increasingly state that screening for cancer should be targeted to people who will live long enough to benefit from it. Content The investigators studied receipt of colorectal cancer screening in 27068 screen-eligible VA patients 70 years or older. Only 47% of patients with no comorbidity (5-year mortality rate, 19%) were screened, whereas 41% with severe comorbidity (5-year mortality rate, 55%) were screened. Rates were somewhat lower for older men but varied only slightly by life expectancy. Caution Some tests may have been done for diagnosis rather than screening. Implication In this population of elderly men, screening did not target healthier patients. The Editors Colorectal cancer screening guidelines recommend screening older adults who have substantial life expectancies according to age and comorbid conditions (1). For example, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends routine screening until age 75 years, whereas the Veterans Health Administration, the American Cancer Society, and the American Geriatrics Society (25) recommend colorectal cancer screening for older adults unless they are unlikely to live 5 years or have significant comorbid conditions that would preclude treatment. Targeting screening to healthy persons who are likely to live at least 5 years is recommended because randomized trials of fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) suggest that a difference in colorectal cancer mortality between screened and unscreened persons does not become noticeable until at least 5 years after screening (68). Therefore, persons with a life expectancy of 5 years or less are not likely to benefit from screening but remain at risk for harms that may occur immediately, such as complications from procedures and the treatment of clinically unimportant disease (9, 10). However, it remains unclear whether screening is being targeted to healthy older persons with substantial life expectancies and avoided in older persons with significant comorbidity, for whom the risks of screening outweigh the benefits. Previous studies of associations among age, comorbidity, and receipt of cancer screening have found that age is a stronger determinant of screening than comorbidity. For example, whereas advancing age is consistently associated with lower screening rates, worsening comorbidity has had little effect on the use of screening mammography, Papanicolaou smears, or prostate-specific antigen screening (1113). Previous studies of the relationship between colorectal cancer screening and comorbidity have been limited by small sample size, short follow-up times, and focus on FOBT rather than all types of colorectal cancer screening tests (14, 15). In addition, previous Veterans Affairs (VA) studies have not measured colorectal cancer screening performed outside the VA health care system by means of Medicare (1517). Having a better understanding of how comorbidity and age affect overall screening use is particularly important for colorectal cancer screening because the tests and follow-up procedures are often more invasive than those for other types of cancer and may result in substantial harms, such as major bleeding events, colon perforation, or strokeespecially in elderly persons with limited life expectancies (9, 18, 19). To characterize the use of colorectal cancer screening across a prognostic spectrum of advancing age and comorbidity, we examined VA data and Medicare claims for patients 70 years of age or older who were seen at 4 geographically diverse VA facilities. Specifically, we determined 2-year screening incidence and 5-year mortality rate for subgroups of older patients without significant comorbidity for whom guidelines recommend screening, as well as for subgroups of older patients with severe comorbidity for whom most guidelines agree that the risks of screening outweigh the benefits. Methods Data Sources and Patients We identified a cohort of screen-eligible patients on 1 January 2001 and followed them for 2 years for the performance of colorectal cancer screening. We obtained data for this cohort study from National VA Data Systems, clinical data extracted from the electronic record system (Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architectures) of 4 VA medical centers (Minneapolis, Minnesota; Durham, North Carolina; Portland, Oregon; and West Los Angeles, California), and Medicare claims. National VA data included the National Patient Care Database (which captures all inpatient and outpatient claims within the VA), Fee Basis Files (which capture claims for non-VA services paid for by the VA), and the Vital Status File (which captures mortality data for veterans) (20). Clinical data extracted from the 4 VA centers included text entered by clinicians in response to computerized clinical reminders about colorectal cancer screening (21). We used linked Medicare claims from the VA Information Resource Center to capture services provided to our cohort outside the VA by Medicare (22). On the basis of these data sources, we identified a cohort of 60933 patients 70 years of age or older who had at least 1 outpatient visit within the VA health care system or Medicare between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2000 (the period during which we measured comorbidity) and at least 1 outpatient visit at 1 of the 4 VA centers between 1 January 2001 and 31 December 2002 (the period during which we measured the performance of colorectal cancer screening) (Figure 1). We selected the 4 VA centers for geographic diversity. We excluded 11817 (19%) patients who were enrolled in Medicare managed care at any point from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2002, because they lacked Medicare claims. In addition, patients had to be eligible for screening to be included in our cohort. Therefore, we used VA and Medicare inpatient and outpatient claims from the 8-year period before the start of 2001 (dating back to 1 October 1992 for VA claims and 1 January 1999 for Medicare claims) to exclude 11200 (18%) patients with a history of colorectal cancer, colitis, colorectal polyps, colectomy, or colostomy and 8153 (13%) patients who had any history of a colonoscopy or had had a sigmoidoscopy or barium enema within 5 years and were therefore not due for screening at the start of 2001. We also used claims from the 6 months before their index test to exclude 2695 (4%) of patients who had signs or symptoms that would justify the performance of a test for nonscreening purposes (Figure 1). This left a final screen-eligible cohort of 27068 patients on 1 January 2001. Figure 1. Study flow diagram. Eligibility criteria included having been seen in an outpatient clinic at 1 of 4 Veterans Affairs (VA) centers between 1 January 2001 and 31 December 2002, which indicated that the VA was at least partially responsible for medical care, but data on colorectal cancer screening were gathered during the entire 2-year screening interval from both national VA and Medicare claims. Additional eligibility criteria included having at least 1 outpatient visit between 1 January and 31 December 2000 to define comorbidity as of 1 January 2001. *Defined by searching VA and Medicare inpatient and outpatient claims before 1 January 2001, dating as far back as 1 October 1992 for VA claims and 1 January 1999 for Medicare claims. Data Collection and Measurement Outcome Variables We assessed receipt of colorectal cancer screening between 1 January 2001 and 31 December 2002 for our cohort across the VA health care system and Medicare, because many elderly veterans use more than 1 VA center and most are enrolled in Medicare (23). We identified colorectal cancer screening in National VA Data Systems and linked Medicare payment data (hospital outpatient and physician/supplier files) by using International Classification of Disease, Ninth Revision (ICD-9), codes; Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes; and Level II Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) codes for FOBT (CPT codes 82270, 82273, and 82274 and HCPCS code G0107), colonoscopy (ICD-9 codes 45.22, 45.23, 45.25, 45.41, 45.42, and 45.43; CPT codes 44388 to 44394, 45355, and 45378 to 45385; and HCPCS codes G0105, G0121), sigmoidoscopy (ICD-9 codes 45.24, 48.22 to 48.24, 48.26, 48.35, and 48.36; CPT codes 45300, 45303, 45305, 45308, 45309, 45315, 45320, 45330 to 45334, and 45337 to 45339; and HCPCS code G0104), or barium enema (ICD-9 code 87.64; CPT codes 74270 and 74280; and HCPCS codes G0106, G0120, and G0122) (2427). We assigned patients to 1 of the 4 screening procedures on the basis of their first test during 2001 through 2002. We chose a 2-year screening period to allow sufficient time for screening tests to be scheduled and performed; this is also the screening interval used in randomized trials of FOBT (6, 7). We obtained vital status through 31 December 2005 from the VA Vital Status File to determine 5-year mortality rates. The VA Vital Status File is similar to the National Death Index in terms of accuracy and completeness (28). We used 5-year mortality rates descriptively to identify conditions associated with having a life expectancy less than 5 years (5-year mortality rate >50%). Predictor Variables We assigned patients to 1 of 3 categories on the basis of their age on 1 January 2001: 70 to 74 years, 75 to 79 years, or 80 years or older. We defined the burden of comorbidity by using the Deyo adaptation of the Charlson Comorbidity Index (2931), a summary measure of 19 chronic disease diagnoses from administrative data that are selected and weighted according to their association with mortality. We calculated CharlsonDeyo scores from VA and Medicare inpatient and outpatient claims during the 12 months before the start of 2001 (3234). We categorized patients as having no significant comorbidity if they had a CharlsonDeyo score of 0, average comorbidity if they had a CharlsonDeyo score of 1 to 3, and severe comorbidity if they had a CharlsonDeyo score of 4 or greater. We chose th

Missed opportunities for osteoporosis treatment in patients hospitalized for hip fracture

OBJECTIVES: Although osteoporosis treatment can dramatically reduce fracture risk, rates of treatment after hip fracture remain low. In‐hospital initiation of recommended medications has improved outcomes in heart disease; hospitalization for hip fracture may represent a similar opportunity for improvement. The objective of this study was to examine rates of in‐hospital treatment with a combination of calcium and vitamin D (Cal+D) and antiresorptive or bone‐forming medications in patients hospitalized for hip fractures

Time lag to benefit after screening for breast and colorectal cancer: meta-analysis of survival data from the United States, Sweden, United Kingdom, and Denmark

Objectives To determine a pooled, quantitative estimate of the length of time needed after breast or colorectal cancer screening before a survival benefit is observed. Design Meta-analysis of survival data from population based, randomized controlled trials comparing populations screened and not screened for breast or colorectal cancer. Trials were identified as high quality by reviews from the Cochrane Collaboration and United States Preventive Services Task Force. Setting Trials undertaken in the United States, Denmark, United Kingdom, and Sweden. Population Screened patients older than 40 years. Primary outcome measures Time to death from breast or colorectal cancer in screened and control populations. Interventions Fecal occult blood testing for colorectal cancer screening, mammography for breast cancer screening. Results Our study included five and four eligible trials of breast and colorectal cancer screening, respectively. For breast cancer screening, 3.0 years (95% confidence interval 1.1 to 6.3) passed before one death from breast cancer was prevented for every 5000 women screened. On average across included studies, it took 10.7 years (4.4 to 21.6) before one death from breast cancer was prevented for 1000 women screened. For colorectal cancer screening, 4.8 years (2.0 to 9.7) passed before one death from colorectal cancer was prevented for 5000 patients screened. On average across included studies, it took 10.3 years (6.0 to 16.4) before one death from colorectal cancer was prevented for 1000 patients screened. Conclusions Our results suggest that screening for breast and colorectal cancer is most appropriate for patients with a life expectancy greater than 10 years. Incorporating time lag estimates into screening guidelines would encourage a more explicit consideration of the risks and benefits of screening for breast and colorectal cancer.

The Relationship Between Self‐Rated Health and Mortality in Older Black and White Americans

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether the association between self‐rated health (SRH) and 4‐year mortality differs between black and white Americans and whether education affects this relationship.

Incorporating lag time to benefit into prevention decisions for older adults.

Prevention holds the promise of maintaining good health by testing, diagnosing and treating conditions before they cause symptoms. However, prevention can harm as well as help when tests or treatments for asymptomatic conditions cause immediate complications. “Lagtime to benefit” (LtB) is defined as the time between the preventive intervention (when complications and harms are most likely) to the time when improved health outcomes are seen.(5) Just as different interventions have different magnitudes of benefit, different preventive interventions have different LtB, ranging from 6 months for statin therapy for secondary prevention to >10 years for prostate cancer screening.(6) Many standardized measures such as relative risk, odds ratio and absolute risk reduction quantify the magnitude of benefit (“How much will it help?”). However, the measures and methodologies to calculate a LtB (“When will it help?”) are underdeveloped and often not reported.

Chronic conditions and mortality among the oldest old.

OBJECTIVES We sought to determine whether chronic conditions and functional limitations are equally predictive of mortality among older adults. METHODS Participants in the 1998 wave of the Health and Retirement Study (N=19430) were divided into groups by decades of age, and their vital status in 2004 was determined. We used multivariate Cox regression to determine the ability of chronic conditions and functional limitations to predict mortality. RESULTS As age increased, the ability of chronic conditions to predict mortality declined rapidly, whereas the ability of functional limitations to predict mortality declined more slowly. In younger participants (aged 50-59 years), chronic conditions were stronger predictors of death than were functional limitations (Harrell C statistic 0.78 vs. 0.73; P=.001). In older participants (aged 90-99 years), functional limitations were stronger predictors of death than were chronic conditions (Harrell C statistic 0.67 vs. 0.61; P=.004). CONCLUSIONS The importance of chronic conditions as a predictor of death declined rapidly with increasing age. Therefore, risk-adjustment models that only consider comorbidities when comparing mortality rates across providers may be inadequate for adults older than 80 years.

Patterns of Multimorbidity in Elderly Veterans

To determine patterns of co‐occurring diseases in older adults and the extent to which these patterns vary between the young‐old and the old‐old.

Predicting 10-Year Mortality for Older Adults

TO THE EDITOR: Preventive interventions such as cancer screening exposes patients to immediate risks with delayed benefits, suggesting that risks outweigh the benefits in patients with limited life expectancy. Guidelines now recommend considering the likelihood of long-term survival when evaluating whether preventive interventions with long lagtimes-to-benefit (such as CRC screening and intensive glycemic control) are more likely to help or harm an individual patient.1, 2 However, most mortality indices have focused on short-term mortality risk (≤5 years).3, 4 To help clinicians identify patients who are at low risk for 10-year mortality and thus most likely to benefit from these preventive interventions, we examined whether our previously developed 4-year mortality index5 accurately predicted 10-year mortality.