Search

INTRODUCTION: The high prevalence of multiple chronic conditions (MCC), multimorbidity, and frailty may affect treatment and outcomes for older adults with cancer. The goal of this study was to use three conceptually distinct measures of morbidity to examine the association between these measures and mortality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using Medicare claims data linked with the 2012-2016 Ohio Cancer Incidence Surveillance System we identified older adults with incident primary cancer sites of breast, colorectal, lung, or prostate (n = 29,140). We used claims data to identify their Elixhauser comorbidities, Multimorbidity-Weighted Index (MWI), and Claims Frailty Index (CFI) as measures of MCC, multimorbidity, and frailty, respectively. We used Cox proportional hazard models to examine the association between these measures and survival time since diagnosis. RESULTS: Lung cancer patients had the highest levels of MCC, multimorbidity, and frailty. There was a positive association between all three measures and a greater hazard of death after adjusting for age, sex (colorectal and lung only), and stage. Breast cancer patients with 5+ comorbidities had an adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of 1.63 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.38, 1.93), and those with mild frailty had an aHR of 3.38 (95% CI; 2.12, 5.41). The C statistics for breast cancer were 0.79, 0.78, and 0.79 for the MCC, MWI, and CFI respectively. Similarly, lung cancer patients who were moderately or severely frail had an aHR of 1.82 (95% CI: 1.53, 2.18) while prostate cancer patients had an aHR of 3.39 (95% CI: 2.12, 5.41) and colorectal cancer patients had an aHR of 4.51 (95% CI: 3.23, 6.29). Model performance was nearly identical across the MCC, multimorbidity, and frailty models within cancer type. The models performed best for prostate and breast cancer, and notably worse for lung cancer. The frailty models showed the greatest separation in unadjusted survival curves. DISCUSSION: The MCC, multimorbidity, and frailty indices performed similarly well in predicting mortality among a large cohort of older cancer patients. However, there were notable differences by cancer type. This work highlights that although model performance is similar, frailty may serve as a clearer indicator in risk stratification of geriatric oncology patients than simple MCCs or multimorbidity.

Background: Because of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, fellowship interviews for pulmonary disease and critical care medicine (PCCM) switched from an in-person to virtual interview format. Objective: This study aimed to examine the changes that resulted from this switch (appointment year 2021 and beyond) for both the individual applicants and the match process as a whole. Methods: This cross-sectional study used longitudinal data from the Electronic Residency Application Service and the National Resident Matching Program from appointment years 2017 to 2022. Data from the Electronic Residency Application Service included the number of programs applicants applied to, and National Resident Matching Program data included the number of fellowship positions available, number entering the match, match rate, and the number of applicants who matched within the same region/program as their core residency training program. Descriptive and summary statistics and unadjusted linear models were used to identify if trends appeared in post-COVID-19 appointment years (2021 and beyond). Results: The number of PCCM positions increased by 33 (95% confidence interval, 26.2, 39.8) yearly between 2017 and 2022, with almost twice as many applicants (62.6; 95% CI confidence interval, 37.8, 87.4) entering the PCCM fellowship match during that same period. There was a decrease in the percentage of applicants matched each year, a trend unchanged before and after COVID-19, by an average of −2.15%. Comparing before and after COVID-19 appointment years, there was no significant change in same-region or same-program matches. Conclusion: Our analysis shows steadily rising interest in application rates for PCCM fellowships through the onset of the pandemic. However, a lack of proportionate increase in fellowship positions led to a decrease in overall match rates for applicants. To mitigate this, an increase in PCCM fellowship positions should be considered, and surveillance of these trends should continue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The purpose of this study is to identify whether there is an opportunity for improvement to provide palliative care services after a serious fall. We hypothesized that (1) palliative care services would be utilized in less than 10% of patients over the age of 65 who fall and (2) more than 20% of patients would receive aggressive life-sustaining treatments (LSTs) prior to death.Methods: Using the 2017 Nationwide Inpatient Sample, we identified patients who were admitted to the hospital with a fall (ICD-10 W00-W19) and were hospitalized at least two days with valid discharge data. Palliative care services (Z51.5) or LSTs (cardiopulmonary resuscitation, ventilation, reintubation, tracheostomy, feeding tube placement, vasopressors, transfusion, total parenteral nutrition, and hemodialysis) were identified with ICD-10 codes. We examined the use of palliative care or LSTs by discharge destination (home, facility, and death). Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with palliative care.Results: In total, 155,241 patients were identified (median 82 years old, interquartile range 74-88); 2.5% died in hospital, and 69.4% were transferred to a facility. Palliative care occurred in 4.5% of patients, and LST occurred in 15.1%. Patients who died were significantly more likely to have had palliative care (50.1% vs. 3.4% of home or facility discharges) and were more likely to have an LST [53.0% vs. 9.8% (home) vs. 15.9% (facility)]. Palliative care was associated with both death [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 19.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 18.39-21.41, p < 0.001] and LST (AOR 1.36, 95% CI 1.27-1.46, p < 0.001).Significance Of Results: Palliative care is associated with both death and LST, suggesting that physicians use palliative care as a last resort after aggressive measures have been exhausted. Patients who fall would likely benefit from the early use of palliative care to align future goals of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective Data Sources and Study Setting Study Design Data Collection/Extraction Methods Principal Findings Conclusion To compare morbidity burden captured from multimorbidity indices and aggregated measures of clinically meaningful categories captured in primary care community‐based health center (CBHC) patients.Electronic health records of patients seen in 2019 in OCHIN's national network of CBHCs serving patients in rural and underserved communities.Age‐stratified analyses comparing the most common conditions captured by the Charlson, Elixhauser, and Multimorbidity Weighted (MWI) indices, and Classification Software Refined (CCSR) and Chronic Condition Indicator (CCI) algorithms.Active ICD‐10 conditions on patients' problem list in 2019.Approximately 35%–56% of patients with at least one condition are not captured by the Charlson, Elixhauser, and MWI indices. When stratified by age, this range broadens to 9%–90% with higher percentages in younger patients. The CCSR and CCI reflect a broader range of acute and chronic conditions prevalent among CBHC patients.Three commonly used indices to capture morbidity burden reflect conditions most prevalent among older adults, but do not capture those on problem lists for younger CBHC patients. An index with an expanded range of care conditions is needed to understand the complex care provided to primary care populations across the lifespan. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objectives: Epilepsy is common among older adults, but previous incident studies have had limited ability to make comparisons across key subgroups. We aimed to provide updated epilepsy incidence estimates among older adults, comparing across age, sex, and race/ethnicity., Methods: Using a random sample of 4,999,999 US Medicare beneficiaries older than 65 years, we conducted a retrospective cohort study of epilepsy incidence using administrative claims for 2016-2019. Sampled beneficiaries were enrolled in the Fee-for-Service (FFS) program in each of 2016-2018 and had no epilepsy claims in those years. Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic beneficiaries were oversampled to ensure adequate cases for detailed comparisons. Incidence in 2019 was identified in the Master Beneficiary Summary File as ≥1 inpatient claim or ≥2 outpatient nondrug claims occurring at least 1 day apart ( ICD-10 G40.x). Incidence models were estimated by age, sex, race/ethnicity, and combinations thereof, with adjustment for the racial/ethnic oversampling., Results: We identified 20,545 incident epilepsy cases. The overall epilepsy incidence rate (IR) was 393 per 100,000 (99% CI 385-400). Incidence peaked at ages 85-89 (504 [481-529]) and was higher for men (396 [385-407]) than women (376 [366-385]). The sex difference in IRs was constant with age. Incidence was higher for non-Hispanic Black (678 [653-702]) and Hispanic (405 [384-426]), and lower for non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander (272 [239-305]) beneficiaries, compared with non-Hispanic White beneficiaries (354 [299-408]). The age-specific IRs significantly differed by race/ethnicity and sex, but only among non-Hispanic Black beneficiaries-where men had higher rates at younger ages and women at older ages., Discussion: We found higher epilepsy IRs among those enrolled in the Medicare FFS system 2016-2019 than previous studies using Medicare claims data from at least a decade ago. The risk of epilepsy onset is higher for those in their late 80s, men, and non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic older adults. There is also evidence that these age-graded risks operate differently for Black men and Black women. Efforts to provide care and services that improve quality of life for older adults living with epilepsy should consider differences by multiple social characteristics simultaneously: age, sex, and race/ethnicity.

Background: The decision to undertake a surgical intervention for an emergency general surgery (EGS) condition (appendicitis, diverticulitis, cholecystitis, hernia, peptic ulcer, bowel obstruction, ischemic bowel) involves a complex consideration of factors, particularly in older adults. We hypothesized that identifying variability in the application of operative management could highlight a potential pathway to improve patient survival and outcomes., Methods: We included adults aged 65+ years with an EGS condition from the 2016-2017 National Inpatient Sample. Operative management was determined from procedure codes. Each patient was assigned a propensity score (PS) for the likelihood of undergoing an operation, modeled from patient and hospital factors: EGS diagnosis, age, gender, race, presence of shock, comorbidities, and hospital EGS volumes. Low and high probability for surgery was defined using a PS cut-off of 0.5. We identified two model-concordant groups (no surgery-low probability, surgery-high probability) and two model-discordant groups (no surgery-high probability, surgery-low probability). Logistic regression estimated the adjusted OR (AOR) of in-hospital mortality for each group., Results: Of 375 546 admissions, 21.2% underwent surgery. Model-discordant care occurred in 14.6%; 5.9% had no surgery despite a high PS and 8.7% received surgery with low PS. In the adjusted regression, model-discordant care was associated with significantly increased mortality: no surgery-high probability AOR 2.06 (1.86 to 2.27), surgery-low probability AOR 1.57 (1.49 to 1.65). Model-concordant care showed a protective effect against mortality (AOR 0.83, 0.74 to 0.92)., Conclusions: Nearly one in seven EGS patients received model-discordant care, which was associated with higher mortality. Our study suggests that streamlined treatment protocols can be applied in EGS patients as a means to save lives., Level of Evidence: III., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)