Original Article
A combined comorbidity score predicted mortality in elderly patients better than existing scores

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.10.004Get rights and content

Abstract

Objective

To develop and validate a single numerical comorbidity score for predicting short- and long-term mortality, by combining conditions in the Charlson and Elixhauser measures.

Study Design and Setting

In a cohort of 120,679 Pennsylvania Medicare enrollees with drug coverage through a pharmacy assistance program, we developed a single numerical comorbidity score for predicting 1-year mortality, by combining the conditions in the Charlson and Elixhauser measures. We externally validated the combined score in a cohort of New Jersey Medicare enrollees, by comparing its performance to that of both component scores in predicting 1-year mortality, as well as 180-, 90-, and 30-day mortality.

Results

C-statistics from logistic regression models including the combined score were higher than corresponding c-statistics from models including either the Romano implementation of the Charlson Index or the single numerical version of the Elixhauser system; c-statistics were 0.860 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.854, 0.866), 0.839 (95% CI: 0.836, 0.849), and 0.836 (95% CI: 0.834, 0.847), respectively, for the 30-day mortality outcome. The combined comorbidity score also yielded positive values for two recently proposed measures of reclassification.

Conclusion

In similar populations and data settings, the combined score may offer improvements in comorbidity summarization over existing scores.

Introduction

What is new?

  • A comorbidity score combining conditions from the Charlson and Elixhauser measures predicts mortality better than either of the constituent scores.

  • Greater comorbidity summarization with the combined score can lead to better confounding control with no added investigator burden.

  • Comorbidity scores predict outcomes occurring in the near term better than outcomes occurring over the long term.

By summarizing various medical conditions into single numerical indices, comorbidity scores can provide a standardized summary of the burden of comorbidity in a study group, increase analytic efficiency [1], [2], and allow for adjustment of more potentially confounding baseline conditions than otherwise possible [3]. Although more complete confounding adjustment may be achieved with other variable reduction methods, such as exposure propensity score and disease risk score methods [4], [5], [6], [7], predefined comorbidity scores may be particularly useful in settings that preclude use of the high-dimensional approaches, such as when the number of potential confounders is large relative to both the number of exposures and outcomes [8]. Indeed, use of comorbidity scores appears to be increasing, as suggested by the exponential increase in the number of articles that have cited the seminal comorbidity score articles since their publication (Fig. 1).

The Charlson Index [9] and its implementations for claims databases [10], [11], [12], [13] and the Elixhauser comorbidity classification system [14] are the most commonly used comorbidity measures [1], [2]. The Charlson Index was developed as a prognostic index to predict 1-year mortality among patients admitted to the medical service of an acute care hospital and assigns empirically derived weights to 19 investigator-defined clinically important conditions [9]. Among the various implementations of the Charlson Index for administrative data, the Romano approach, which defines each of the comorbidities by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, (ICD-9) diagnosis codes with slight modifications to some conditions (e.g., leukemia and lymphoma get grouped with any tumor), consistently performs best in predicting mortality in older populations [2], [15], [16].

The Elixhauser system [14] was intended to predict hospital charges, length of stay, and in-hospital mortality and was developed by identifying comorbidities relevant to hospitalization other than the primary reason for hospitalization and the severity of that condition. As such, the Elixhauser system explicitly excludes important causes of substantial comorbidity; chiefly, some of the most common causes of hospitalization and burden of comorbidity in elderly patients, including myocardial infarction and stroke. Nevertheless, using a new implementation of a single weighted numerical summary of the Elixhauser system, van Walraven et al. [17] showed that it outperformed the Romano/Charlson measure with Medicare weights derived by Schneeweiss et al. [18] in discriminating in-hospital death.

A natural next step in the improvement of comorbidity scores is to combine the conditions included in the Charlson Index and the Elixhauser classification system, thereby taking advantage of the degree of comorbidity quantified by each measure in a single comprehensive measure. The objectives of this study were to combine the Romano implementation of the Charlson Index (Romano/Charlson) with van Walraven's adaptation of the Elixhauser system (van Walraven/Elixhauser) into a single numerical score and empirically compare its performance in predicting short- (i.e., 30-, 90-, and 180-day) and long-term (i.e., 1-year) mortality to each of the separate component measures. SAS code for the combined score can be downloaded at www.drugepi.org/downloads.

Section snippets

Study populations

Similar to the approach described by Schneeweiss et al. [18], this study used two cohorts—a development cohort from Pennsylvania and a validation cohort from New Jersey. We defined the development cohort from Pennsylvania as Medicare enrollees aged 65 years or older who had complete drug coverage through the Pharmacy Assistance Contract for the Elderly (PACE). Similarly, we defined the validation cohort from New Jersey as Medicare enrollees aged 65 years or older who had complete drug coverage

Results

The composition of the two cohorts was similar in terms of demographic characteristics and most baseline measures of healthcare utilization (Table 1). Members of the development cohort had more diagnoses as compared with members of the validation cohort (median [interquartile range]: 10.0 [16.0] vs. 12.0 [13.0] diagnoses in baseline year) and slightly fewer physician visits (median [interquartile range]: 7.0 [7.0] vs. 9.0 [9.0] physician visits in baseline year). A total of 10,769 (8.9%) deaths

Discussion

In an independent external validation study, a single numerical comorbidity score that considers conditions in both the Romano implementation of the Charlson Index and the Elixhauser comorbidity classification system performed numerically better in predicting both short- and long-term mortality than either the Romano/Charlson score with Medicare weights or the van Walraven single numerical modification of the Elixhauser measure. Although differences in c-statistics among the three comorbidity

References (29)

  • B.B. Hansen

    The prognostic analogue of the propensity score

    Biometrika

    (2008)
  • P.G. Arbogast et al.

    Use of disease risk scores in pharmacoepidemiologic studies

    Stat Methods Med Res

    (2009)
  • W. D'Hoore et al.

    Risk adjustment in outcome assessment: the Charlson comorbidity index

    Methods Inf Med

    (1993)
  • A. Elixhauser et al.

    Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data

    Med Care

    (1998)
  • Cited by (705)

    View all citing articles on Scopus

    This research was supported by a research grant from the National Institute on Aging to Dr Glynn (RO1-AG018833) and a grant from the National Library of Medicine to Dr Schneeweiss (R01-LM10213). Dr Gagne was supported by a training grant from the National Institute on Aging (T32-AG000158).

    View full text