Comparison between PROFUND and PALIAR indexes in polypathological patients with advanced non-oncologic chronic diseases

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

To compare the discrimination power of PROFUND and PALIAR indexes for predicting mortality in polypathological patients with advanced non-oncologic chronic disease.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Prospective multicentre cohort study. We included polypathological patients with advanced non-oncologic chronic disease, who were admitted to internal medicine departments between July 1st and December 31th, 2014. Data was collected from each patient on age, sex, categories of polypathology, advanced disease, comorbidity, functional and cognitive assessment, terminal illness symptoms, need for caregiver, hospitalisation in the past three and 12 months and number of drugs. We calculated the PROFUND and PALIAR indexes and conducted a 12-month follow-up. We assessed mortality with the Kaplan-Meier survival curves and the discrimination of indexes with the ROC curves.

RESULTS

We included 213 patients with a mean (standard deviation) age of 83.0 (7.0) years, 106 (49.8%) of whom were female. Mortality at six months was 40.4% and at 12 months 50.2%. Deceased patients scored higher scores on the PROFUND [11.2(4.2) vs 8.5(3.9); P<.001] and PALIAR [6.7 (4.6) vs 3.6(3.1); p<0,001] indexes. The discrimination of PALIAR index at six months (under the curve area 0.734 95%CI 0.665-0.803) was higher than of PROFUND, and there was no difference at 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

In polypathological patients with advanced non-oncologic chronic disease, the PALIAR index had better discrimination power than PROFUND index at 66 months and there were no differences at 12 months.

[Reliability of the PROFUND index to predict 4-year mortality in polypathological patients]

OBJECTIVE

To determine the usefullness of the PROFUND index to assess the risk of global death after 4 years in polypathological patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Multicenter prospective cohort (Internal Medicine and Geriatrics) study. Polypathological patients admitted between March 1st and June 30th 2011 were included. For each patient, data concerning age, sex, living at home or in a nursing residence, polypathology categories, Charlson, Barthel and Lawton-Brody indexes, Pfeiffer questionnaire, socio-familial Gijon scale, delirium, number of drugs, hemoglobin and creatinine values were gathered, and the PROFUND index was calculated. The follow-up lasted 4 years.

RESULTS

We included 441 patients, 324 from Internal Medicine and 117 from Geriatrics, with a mean age of 80.9 (8.7) years. Of them, 245 (55.6%) were women. Heart (62.7%), neurological (41.4%) and respiratory (37.3%) diseases were the most frequent. Geriatrics inpatients were older and more dependants and presented greater cognitive deterioration. After 4 years, 335 (76%) patients died. Mortality was associated with age, dyspnoea, Barthel index<60, delirium, advanced neoplasia and≥4 admissions in the last year. The area under the curve of the PROFUND index was 0.748, 95% CI 0.689-0.806, P<.001 in Internal Medicine and 0.517, 95% CI 0.369-0.666, P=.818 in Geriatrics patients, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The PROFUND index is a reliable tool for predicting long-term global mortality in polypathological patients from Internal Medicine but not from Geriatrics departments.

External validation of the PROFUND index in polypathological patients from internal medicine and acute geriatrics departments in Aragón

The objective of the study was to validate externally and prospectively the PROFUND index to predict survival of polypathological patients after a year. An observational, prospective and multicenter study was performed. Polypathological patients admitted to an internal medicine or geriatrics department and attended by investigators consecutively between March 1 and June 30, 2011 were included. Data concerning age, gender, comorbidity, Barthel and Lawton-Brody indexes, Pfeiffer questionnaire, socio-familial Gijon scale, delirium, number of drugs and number of admissions during the previous year were gathered for each patient. The PROFUND index was calculated. The follow-up lasted 1 year. A Cox proportional regression model was calculated, and was used to analyze the association of the variables to mortality and C-statistic. 465 polypathological patients, 333 from internal medicine and 132 from geriatrics, were included. One-year mortality is associated with age [hazard ratio (HR) 1.52 95 % CI 1.04-2.12; p = 0.01], presence of neoplasia [HR 2.68 95 % CI 1.71-4.18; p = 0.0001] and dependence for basic activities of daily living [HR 2.34 95 % CI 1.61-3.40; p = 0.0009]. In predicting mortality, the PROFUND index shows good discrimination in patients from internal medicine (C-statistics 0.725 95 % CI 0.670-0.781), but a poor one in those from geriatrics (0.546 95 % CI 0.448-0.644). The PROFUND index is a reliable tool for predicting mortality in internal medicine PP patients.

Differential characteristics in polypathological inpatients in internal medicine departments and acute geriatric units: the PLUPAR study

AIM

To determine whether there are any differences between polypathological patients attended in Internal Medicine departments and acute Geriatric units.

METHODS

A cross-sectional multicenter study was performed. Polypathological patients admitted to an internal medicine or geriatrics department and attended by investigators consecutively between March 1 and June 30, 2011 were included. Data of age, sex, living in a nursing residence or at home, diagnostic category, use of chronic medication, Charlson, Barthel and Lawton-Brody indexes, Pfeiffer questionnaire, delirium during last admission, need of a caregiver, and having a caregiver were gathered. The need of a caregiver was defined when the Barthel index was<60 or Pfeiffer questionnaire ≥ 3 errors.

RESULTS

471 polypathological patients, 337 from internal medicine and 144 from geriatrics units were included. Geriatrics inpatients were older and more frequently female. Cardiac (62.1% vs 49.6%; p=.01), digestive (8.3% vs 3.0%; p=.04) and oncohematological diseases (30.2% vs 18.8%; p=.01) were more frequent in patients of internal medicine units and neurological (66.2% vs 40.2%; p<.001) and locomotive ones (39.1% vs 20.4%; p<.001) in geriatrics inpatients. Charlson index was higher for internal medicine inpatients [4.0(2.1) vs 3.5(2.1); p=.04). Patients attended in geriatrics scored higher in Pfeiffer questionnaire [5.5(3.7) vs 3.8(3.3); p<.001], and lower in Barthel [38.8(32.5) vs 61.2(34.3); p=.001] and Lawton-Brody indexes [0.9(1.6) vs 3.0(2.9); p<.001], and more frequently needed a caregiver (87.8% vs 53.6%; p<.001) and had it.

CONCLUSIONS

There are differences in disease profile and functional and cognitive situation between polypathological patients of internal medicine and geriatrics departments.

[Pharmacological treatment conciliation methodology in patients with multiple conditions]

Objetivo

Realizar una revisión bibliográfica para identificar las diferentes metodologías empleadas en el proceso de conciliación de los tratamientos farmacológicos que sean aplicables a pacientes pluripatológicos.

Diseño

Revisión sistemática.

Fuentes de datos

Se realizó una revisión bibliográfica (febrero de 2012) en las bases de datos Pubmed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO e Índice Médico Español de métodos de conciliación del tratamiento en pacientes pluripatológicos, o en su defecto, ancianos o polimedicados.

Selección de estudios

Se recuperaron 273 artículos, de los que se seleccionaron 25.

Extracción de datos

Se extrajo información relativa a la metodología empleada: nivel asistencial en el que se realiza, fuentes de información, uso de formulario, tiempo establecido, profesional responsable, información recogida y variables registradas como errores de conciliación.

Resultados

La mayoría de estudios fueron al ingreso y al alta hospitalarios Como principales fuentes de información destacan la entrevista y la historia clínica. En la mayoría de trabajos no se especifica un tiempo preestablecido, ni se usa formulario, y el principal responsable es el farmacéutico clínico. Además de la medicación domiciliaria, los hábitos de automedicación y la fitoterapia también son registrados. Se recogen como errores de conciliación desde omisiones de fármacos hasta interacciones medicamentosas.

Conclusiones

Existe gran heterogeneidad en la metodología empleada para la actividad de la conciliación. No existe ningún trabajo realizado específicamente en el paciente pluripatológico, que por su complejidad y susceptibilidad a errores de conciliación requiere una metodología estandarizada.