Search

ObjectivePatients with multimorbidity may carry a large symptom burden. Symptoms are often what drive patients to seek healthcare and they also assist doctors with diagnosis. We examined whether symptom burden is additive in people with multimorbidity compared with people with a single morbidity.DesignThis is a longitudinal cohort study drawing on questionnaire and Danish national registry data. Multimorbidity was defined as having diagnoses from at least two out of ten morbidity groups. Associations between morbidity groups and symptom burden were estimated with multivariable models.ParticipantsIn 2012, 47 452 participants from the Danish Symptom Cohort answered a questionnaire about symptoms (36 symptoms in total), including whether symptoms were affecting their daily activities (impairment score) and their worries about present symptoms (worry score) (the highest score among the 36 symptoms on a 0–4 scale).Main outcome measureThe primary outcome was symptom burden.ResultsParticipants without morbidity reported 4.77 symptoms (out of 36 possible). Participants with one, two or three morbidities reported more symptoms than patients without morbidity (0.95 (CI 0.86 to 1.03), 1.87 (CI 1.73 to 2.01) and 2.89 (CI 2.66 to 3.12), respectively). Furthermore, they reported a higher impairment score (0.36 (0.32 to 0.39), 0.65 (0.60 to 0.70) and 1.06 (0.98 to 1.14)) and a higher worry score (0.34 (0.31 to 0.37), 0.62 (0.57 to 0.66) and 1.02 (0.94 to 1.10)) than participants without morbidity. In 45 possible combinations of multimorbidity (participants with two morbidities), interaction effects were additive in 37, 41 and 36 combinations for the number of symptoms, impairment score and worry score, respectively.ConclusionParticipants without morbidity reported a substantial number of symptoms. Having a single morbidity or multimorbidity resulted in approximately one extra symptom for each extra morbidity. In most combinations of multimorbidity, symptom burden was additive.

Initiation of statin treatment is suggested to increase the international normalised ratio (INR) among warfarin users. However, available data is limited and conflicting. We conducted a register-based cohort study to evaluate the drug-drug interaction between warfarin and statins. By linking data on INR measurements and filled prescriptions, we identified warfarin users 2000-2015 initiating simvastatin (n = 1363), atorvastatin (n = 165) or rosuvastatin (n = 23). Simvastatin initiation led to an increase in mean INR from 2.40 to 2.71, with INRs peaking after 4 weeks, corresponding to a mean change of 0.32 (95%CI 0.25-0.38). High-dose and low-dose simvastatin led to comparable changes (mean change 0.33 vs 0.29). Initiation of atorvastatin and rosuvastatin lead to INR increases of 0.27 (95%CI 0.12-0.42) and 0.30 (95%CI -0.09-0.69). In conclusion, initiation of simvastatin, atorvastatin or rosuvastatin among warfarin users led to a minor increase in INR. The magnitude of this change is for most patients likely of limited clinical relevance.

Objective: This article explores experiences of people with multimorbidity, and attempts to advance understandings of the complexity of living with multimorbidity outside the medical encounter in a social identity theoretical framework. Method: This is a qualitative study using individual semi-structured interviews among nine persons living with multimorbidity. The interviews are analysed inductively according to thematic content analysis. Results: The emerging themes are: 1) Impact on daily life, 2) Professional life and 3) Capacity for handling multimorbidity. People with multimorbidity experience physical limitations and psychological distress, which limits their ability to maintain social relations and affiliation to the labour market. Accordingly, they are challenged in their ability to retain a sense of normal everyday life, which is mediated by their capacity for handling multimorbidity. Discussion: Multimorbidity may compromise various social identities. The complexity of living with multimorbidity is increased by an aspiration to maintain valued social identities in order to preserve a coherent sense of self and a normal everyday life. This study suggests an increased focus on individual priorities and values outside the medical encounter, and argues in favour of recognizing the conflicts that people experience as they try to balance multimorbidity with other important aspects of their daily lives.

Antallet af mennesker, der lever med multisygdom, er gennem de seneste år steget markant, både som et resultat af en aldrende befolkning, men også på grund af en forbedret medicinsk behandling af, og tertiær forebyggelse hos, mennesker med kroniske sygdomme. Interessen i forskning om multisygdom har også været støt stigende de seneste år, men, trods denne interesse, er der fortsat ingen konsensus om, hvordan multisygdom skal defineres, og varia- tionen i, hvordan multisygdom bliver defineret og brugt i den videnskabelige litteratur, er stor. Med denne artikel vil vi diskutere konsekvenserne af heterogeniteten i definitionen af multisygdom. Vi tager udgangspunkt i en systematisk gennemgang af definitionen af mul- tisygdom, og diskuterer, om begrebet multisygdom giver mening og for hvem, og om vi med de eksisterende definitioner kan risikere at fokusere på andre patienter end dem, der har det største behov. Dette leder derefter over i en diskussion om, hvorvidt definitionsproblematikkerne skaber risiko for, at multisygdom i sig selv som begreb kan føre til overdiagnostik og dermed være til mere skade end gavn for patienterne.

The number of people living with multimorbidity has increased dramatically during the last decades, which is associated with harms and costs for individuals as well as societies. This increase is explained by population longevity, but also by better medical treatment and tertiary prevention among patients with chronic diseases. However, the increased prevalence of multimorbidity may owe to the inconsistency of the definition of multimorbidity, which leaves room for both under- and overdiagnosis. The consequences of this overdiagnosis will plausibly have influence on the handling and daily clinical practice regarding the growing number of patients categorized as multimorbid. The theoretical background and hypotheses for the risks of overdiagnosis within multimorbidity concerns a lot of different aspects. Some of the aspects comprise different possibilities for overdiagnosis of diseases. Moreover, some of these diseases have different prognoses and have different meanings, values and treatment preferences for patients. Therefore, it could be relevant in a patient-centred approach for clinicians to conduct a diagnostic review and in dialogue with the patients find out which diagnoses are of importance and which could de-diagnosed. In this workshop we will invite participants to attend the discussion about drivers of overdiagnosis in relation to multimorbidity, and how we can study these problems scientifically. Furthermore, the aim of the workshop is to discuss whether a too broad definition of multimorbidity may result in more harm than benefit for the patients. Finally, we will discuss if diagnostic review in a primary health care setting is a relevant and appropriate approach among patients with multimorbidity who have been overdiagnosed with one or more diseases.

Objective is to explore how multimorbidity is defined in the scientific literature, with a focus on the roles of diseases, risk factors, and symptoms in the definitions.DESIGN: Systematic review.METHODS: MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, and The Cochrane Library were searched for relevant publications up until October 2013. One author extracted the information. Ambiguities were resolved, and consensus reached with one co-author. Outcome measures were: cut-off point for the number of conditions included in the definitions of multimorbidity; setting; data sources; number, kind, duration, and severity of diagnoses, risk factors, and symptoms. We reviewed 163 articles. In 61 articles (37%), the cut-off point for multimorbidity was two or more conditions (diseases, risk factors, or symptoms). The most frequently used setting was the general population (68 articles, 42%), and primary care (41 articles, 25%). Sources of data were primarily self-reports (56 articles, 42%). Out of the 163 articles selected, 115 had individually constructed multimorbidity definitions, and in these articles diseases occurred in all definitions, with diabetes as the most frequent. Risk factors occurred in 98 (85%) and symptoms in 71 (62%) of the definitions. The severity of conditions was used in 26 (23%) of the definitions, but in different ways. The definition of multimorbidity is heterogeneous and risk factors are more often included than symptoms. The severity of conditions is seldom included. Since the number of people living with multimorbidity is increasing there is a need to develop a concept of multimorbidity that is more useful in daily clinical work. Key points The increasing number of multimorbidity patients challenges the healthcare system. The concept of multimorbidity needs further discussion in order to be implemented in daily clinical practice. Many definitions of multimorbidity exist and most often a cut-off point of two or more is applied to a range of 4-147 different conditions. Diseases are included in all definitions of multimorbidity. Risk factors are often included in existing definitions, whereas symptoms and the severity of the conditions are less frequently included.

Objective: The aims of this study were to (1) quantify the development and composition of multimorbidity (MM) during 16 years following the diagnosis of type 2 diabetes and (2) evaluate whether the effectiveness of structured personal diabetes care differed between patients with and without MM. Research design and methods: One thousand three hundred eighty-one patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes were randomized to receive either structured personal diabetes care or routine diabetes care. Patients were followed up for 19 years in Danish nationwide registries for the occurrence of outcomes. We analyzed the prevalence and degree of MM based on 10 well-defined disease groups. The effect of structured personal care in diabetes patients with and without MM was analyzed with Cox regression models. Results: The proportion of patients with MM increased from 31.6% at diabetes diagnosis to 80.4% after 16 years. The proportion of cardiovascular and gastrointestinal diseases in surviving patients decreased, while, for example, musculoskeletal, eye, and neurological diseases increased. The effect of the intervention was not different between type 2 diabetes patients with or without coexisting chronic disease. Conclusions: In general, the proportion of patients with MM increased after diabetes diagnosis, but the composition of chronic disease changed during the 16 years. We found cardiovascular and musculoskeletal disease to be the most prevalent disease groups during all 16 years of follow-up. The post hoc analysis of the intervention showed that its effectiveness was not different among patients who developed MM compared to those who continued to have diabetes alone.

The definition of multimorbidity has been discussed for several years, and research in this field is challenged by various definitions of multimorbidity. Inclusion of risk factors in the definition alongside more severe diseases is widely used, however, questioning the meaning of the concept of multimorbidity. Even though, both symptoms and severity are sometimes included in the broad definitions, the inclusion of risk factors could lead to overdiagnosis. Multimorbidity is rising, and there is a need to address the help to those most in need, but many of the current definitions increase the risk of targeting the wrong patients. Furthermore, diagnoses, including the diagnosis of multimorbidity, can have both positive and negative implications for a single patient. Some patients find identity in a diagnosis whereas others suffer from psychosocial side-effects of diagnoses. In this seminar, we will introduce you to different definitions of multimorbidity and risk of overdiagnosis in this field, and furthermore we will debate the positive and negative implications of diagnoses. Finally, we will invite you to a discussion about consequences of overdiagnosis working with multimorbidity in relation to patients, society, and future research. Objectives To debate the risk of overdiagnosis when working with the concept of multimorbidity clinically and in research. Method Seminar. Based on a systematic review of the definition of multimorbidity and qualitative work among patients with multimorbidity.

Aims To explore the effect of structured personal care on diabetes symptoms and self-rated health over 14 years after diabetes diagnosis while patients are gradually diagnosed with other chronic conditions (multimorbidity). Methods Post hoc analysis of the Danish randomized controlled trial Diabetes Care in General Practice including 1381 patients newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. The effect of structured personal care compared with routine care on diabetes symptoms and self-rated health was analysed 6 and 14 years after diagnosis with a generalized multilevel Rasch model. Results Structured personal care reduced the overall likelihood of reporting diabetes symptoms at the end of the intervention (OR 0.79; 95% CI: 0.64–0.97), but this effect was not explained by glycaemic control or multimorbidity. There was no effect of the intervention on diabetes symptoms after 14 years or on self-rated health after 6 years or 14 years. Conclusions Structured personal care had a beneficial effect on diabetes symptoms 6 years after diagnosis, but not on self-rated health at either follow up point. To optimally manage patients over time it is important to supplement clinical information by information provided by the patients.

Objective. To explore views and attitudes among general practitioners (GPs) and researchers in the field of general practice towards problems and challenges related to treatment of patients with multimorbidity. Setting. A workshop entitled Patients with multimorbidity in general practice held during the Nordic Congress of General Practice in Tampere, Finland, 2013. Subjects. A total of 180 GPs and researchers. Design. Data for this summary report originate from audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim plenary discussions as well as 76 short questionnaires answered by attendees during the workshop. The data were analysed using framework analysis. Results. (i) Complex care pathways and clinical guidelines developed for single diseases were identified as very challenging when handling patients with multimorbidity; (ii) insufficient cooperation between the professionals involved in the care of multimorbid patients underlined the GPs’ impression of a fragmented health care system; (iii) GPs found it challenging to establish a good dialogue and prioritize problems with patients within the timeframe of a normal consultation; (iv) the future role of the GP was discussed in relation to diminishing health inequality, and current payment systems were criticized for not matching the treatment patterns of patients with multimorbidity. Conclusion. The participants supported the development of a future research strategy to improve the treatment of patients with multimorbidity. Four main areas were identified, which need to be investigated further to improve care for this steadily growing patient group. OBJECTIVE: To explore views and attitudes among general practitioners (GPs) and researchers in the field of general practice towards problems and challenges related to treatment of patients with multimorbidity.SETTING: A workshop entitled Patients with multimorbidity in general practice held during the Nordic Congress of General Practice in Tampere, Finland, 2013.SUBJECTS: A total of 180 GPs and researchers.DESIGN: Data for this summary report originate from audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim plenary discussions as well as 76 short questionnaires answered by attendees during the workshop. The data were analysed using framework analysis.RESULTS: (i) Complex care pathways and clinical guidelines developed for single diseases were identified as very challenging when handling patients with multimorbidity; (ii) insufficient cooperation between the professionals involved in the care of multimorbid patients underlined the GPs' impression of a fragmented health care system; (iii) GPs found it challenging to establish a good dialogue and prioritize problems with patients within the timeframe of a normal consultation; (iv) the future role of the GP was discussed in relation to diminishing health inequality, and current payment systems were criticized for not matching the treatment patterns of patients with multimorbidity.CONCLUSION: The participants supported the development of a future research strategy to improve the treatment of patients with multimorbidity. Four main areas were identified, which need to be investigated further to improve care for this steadily growing patient group.

BACKGROUND: Many register studies make use of information about permanent nursing home residents. Statistics Denmark (StatD) identifies nursing home residents by two different indirect methods, one based on reports from the municipalities regarding home care in taken place in a nursing home, and the other based on an algorithm created by StatD. The aim of the present study was to validate StatD's nursing home register using dedicated administrative municipality records on individual nursing home residents as gold standard.METHODS: In total, ten Danish municipalities were selected. Within each Danish Region, we randomly selected one municipality reporting to Stat D (Method 1) and one not reporting where instead an algorithm created by StatD was used to discover nursing home residents (Method 2). Method 1 means that municipalities reported to Stat D whether home care has taken place in a nursing home or in a private home. Method 2 is based on an algorithm created by Stat D for the municipalities where Method 1 is not applicable. Our gold standard was the information from the local administrative system in all ten selected municipalities. Each municipality provided a list with all individuals > 65 years living in a nursing home on January 1st, 2013 as well as the central personal number. This was compared to the list of individuals >65 living in nursing home facilities in the same ten municipalities on January 1st, 2013 retrieved from StatD.RESULTS: According to the data received directly from the municipalities, which was used as our gold Standard 3821 individuals were identified as nursing home residents. The StatD register identified 6,141 individuals as residents. Additionally, 556 of the individuals identified by the municipalities were not identified in the StatD register. Overall sensitivity for the ten municipalities in the StatD nursing home register was 0.85 (95% CI 0.84-0.87) and the PPV was 0.53 (95% CI 0.52-0.54). The municipalities for which nursing home status was based on the StatD algorithm (method 2) had a sensitivity of 0.84 (95% CI 0.82-0.86) and PPV of 0.48 (95% CI 0.46-0.50). Both slightly lower than the reporting municipalities (method 1) where the sensitivity was 0.87(95% CI 0.85-0.88) and the PPV was 0.57 (95% CI 0.56-0.59). Additionally, the sensitivity and PPV of the Stat D register varied heavily among the ten municipalities from 0.51 (95% CI 0.43-0.59) to 0.96 (95% CI 0.95-0.98) and PPV correspondingly, from 0.14 (95% CI: 0.11-0.17) to 0.73 (95% CI 0.69-0.77).CONCLUSIONS: The overall PPV of StatD nursing home register was low and differences between municipalities existed. Even in countries with extensive nation-wide registers, validating studies should be conducted for outcomes based on these registers.

Background: Knowledge about prevalent and deadly combinations of multimorbidity is needed. Objective: To determine the nationwide prevalence of multimorbidity and estimate mortality for the most prevalent combinations of one to five diagnosis groups. Furthermore, to assess the excess mortality of the combination of two groups compared to the product of mortality associated with the single groups. Design: A prospective cohort study using Danish registries and including 3.986.209 people aged ≥18 years on 1 January, 2000. Multimorbidity was defined as having diagnoses from at least 2 of 10 diagnosis groups: lung, musculoskeletal, endocrine, mental, cancer, neurological, gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, kidney, and sensory organs. Logistic regression (odds ratios, ORs) and ratio of ORs (ROR) were used to study mortality and excess mortality. Results: Prevalence of multimorbidity was 7.1% in the Danish population. The most prevalent combination was the musculoskeletal–cardiovascular (0.4%), which had double the mortality (OR, 2.03) compared to persons not belonging to any of the diagnosis groups but showed no excess mortality (ROR, 0.97). The neurological–cancer combination had the highest mortality (OR, 6.35), was less prevalent (0.07%), and had no excess mortality (ROR, 0.94). Cardiovascular–lung was moderately prevalent (0.2%), had high mortality (OR, 5.75), and had excess mortality (ROR, 1.18). Endocrine–kidney had high excess mortality (ROR, 1.81) and cancer–mental had low excess mortality (ROR, 0.66). Mortality increased with the number of groups. Conclusions: All combinations had increased mortality risk with some of them having up to a six-fold increased risk. Mortality increased with the number of diagnosis groups. Most combinations did not increase mortality above that expected, that is, were additive rather than synergistic.