Dataset Information

Comparisons of disease cluster patterns, prevalence and health factors in the USA, Canada, England and Ireland.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Identification of those who are most at risk of developing specific patterns of disease across different populations is required for directing public health policy. Here, we contrast prevalence and patterns of cross-national disease incidence, co-occurrence and related risk factors across population samples from the U.S., Canada, England and Ireland.

Methods

Participants (n = 62,111) were drawn from the US Health and Retirement Study (n = 10,858); the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Ageing (n = 36,647); the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (n = 7938) and The Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing (n = 6668). Self-reported lifetime prevalence of 10 medical conditions, predominant clusters of multimorbidity and their specific risk factors were compared across countries using latent class analysis.

Results

The U.S. had significantly higher prevalence of multimorbid disease patterns and nearly all diseases when compared to the three other countries, even after adjusting for age, sex, BMI, income, employment status, education, alcohol consumption and smoking history. For the U.S. the most at-risk group were younger on average compared to Canada, England and Ireland. Socioeconomic gradients for specific disease combinations were more pronounced for the U.S., Canada and England than they were for Ireland. The rates of obesity trends over the last 50 years align with the prevalence of eight of the 10 diseases examined. While patterns of disease clusters and the risk factors related to each of the disease clusters were similar, the probabilities of the diseases within each cluster differed across countries.

Conclusions

This information can be used to better understand the complex nature of multimorbidity and identify appropriate prevention and management strategies for treating multimorbidity across countries.

SUBMITTER: Hernandez B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8442402 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesImproving detection of depression in people with diabetes is recommended. However, little is known about how different health systems compare in depression detection. We estimated and compared the (1) prevalence of depression detection in people with and without diabetes, and (2) association between diabetes and undiagnosed depression across three health systems.DesignCross-sectional analysis of three nationally representative studies: The Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing, the English Longitudinal Study on Ageing and the Health and Retirement Study.SettingCommunity-dwelling adults in Ireland, England and the USA.ParticipantsAdults aged ≥50 years.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary outcome was depression diagnosis. The secondary outcome was any depression. Any depression was defined by the presence of self-reported doctor-diagnosed depression or current depression symptoms on the Centre for Epidemiological Studies-Depression scale. Depression diagnosis was categorised as: undiagnosed, symptomatic and diagnosed, and asymptomatic and diagnosed. We estimated age-standardised prevalence of depression diagnosis by country and diabetes status. Anyone who self-reported having ever received a doctor diagnosis of diabetes was classified as having diabetes. Among respondents with depression, we estimated the association between diabetes and undiagnosed depression by country using multivariable logistic regression.ResultsThe prevalence of depression (diagnosed and undiagnosed) was higher in people with diabetes in each country with absolute rates varying by country; undiagnosed prevalence (Ireland: diabetes 10.1% (95% CI 7.5% to 12.8%) vs no diabetes 7.5% (95% CI 6.8% to 8.2%), England: diabetes 19.3% (95% CI 16.5% to 22.2%) vs no diabetes 11.8% (95% CI 11.0% to 12.6%), USA: diabetes 7.4% (95% CI 6.4% to 8.4%) vs no diabetes 6.1% (95% CI 5.7% to 6.6%)). In the fully adjusted model, there was no clear pattern of association between diabetes status and undiagnosed depression; Ireland: OR=0.82 (95% CI 0.5 to 1.3), England: OR=1.47 (95% CI 1.0 to 2.1), USA: OR=0.80 (95% CI 0.7 to 1.0).ConclusionsAlthough undiagnosed depression was more prevalent among people with diabetes, the relationship between diabetes and undiagnosed depression differed by country. Targeted efforts are needed to improve depression detection among community-dwelling older adults, particularly those with diabetes.

Project description:BackgroundHerpes zoster (commonly called shingles) is caused by the reactivation of varicella zoster virus, and results in substantial morbidity. While the risk of zoster increases significantly with age and immunosuppression, relatively little is known about other risk factors for zoster. Moreover, much evidence to date stems from electronic healthcare or administrative data. Hence, the aim of this study was to explore potential risk factors for herpes zoster using survey data from a nationally-representative sample of the general community-dwelling population in England.MethodsData were extracted from the 2015 Health Survey for England, an annual cross-sectional representative survey of households in England. The lifetime prevalence of self-reported herpes zoster was described by age, gender and other socio-demographic factors, health behaviours (physical activity levels, body mass index, smoking status and alcohol consumption) and clinical conditions, including; diabetes, respiratory, digestive and genito-urinary system and mental health disorders. Logistic regression models were then used to identify possible factors associated with shingles, and results were presented as odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals.ResultsThe lifetime prevalence of shingles among the sample was 11.5% (12.6% among women, 10.3% among men), which increased with age. After adjusting for a range of covariates, increased age, female gender (odds ratio: 1.21; 95%CI: 1.03, 1.43), White ethnic backgrounds (odds ratio: 2.00; 95%CI: 1.40, 2.88), moderate physical activity 7 days per week (odds ratio: 1.29; 95%CI: 1.01, 1.66) and digestive disorders (odds ratio: 1.51; 95%CI: 1.13, 1.51) were each associated with increased odds of having had herpes zoster.ConclusionsAge, gender, ethnicity and digestive disorders may be risk factors for herpes zoster among a nationally representative sample of adults in England. These potential risk factors and possible mechanisms should be further explored using longitudinal studies.

Project description:PurposeOncology drugs are often approved for multiple indications, for which their clinical benefit varies. Aligning a single price to this differing value remains a challenge. This study examines the clinical and economic value, price, and reimbursement of multi-indication cancer drugs across seven countries, representing different approaches to value assessment, pricing, and coverage decisions: the USA, Germany, France, England, Canada, Australia, and Scotland.MethodsTwenty-five multi-indication cancer drugs across 100 indications were identified with US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval between 2009 and 2019. For each indication data on Health Technology Assessment (HTA) recommendations, disease prevalence, and drug prices were obtained. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, disease prevalence, list prices, and HTA outcomes were then compared across indications and regions.ResultsFirst approved indications provide a higher clinical benefit whilst targeting a smaller patient group than indication extensions. Quality-adjusted life year gains were higher for first (0.99, 95% CI 0.05-3.25) compared to second (0.51, 95% CI 0.02-1.63, p < 0.001) and third (0.58, 95% CI 0.05-2.07, p < 0.01) approved indications. Disease prevalence per 100,000 inhabitants was 20.7 (95% CI 0.2-63.3) for first compared to 27.1 (95% CI 1.5-109.6, p = 0.907) for second and 128.3 (95% CI 3.1-720.1, p < 0.001) for third approved indications. With each approved indication drug prices declined in Germany and France, remained constant in the UK, Canada, and Australia, whilst they increased in the USA. Negative HTA outcomes, clinical restrictions, and managed entry agreements (MEAs) were more frequently observed for indication extensions.ConclusionsResults suggest that indication development is prioritised according to clinical value and disease prevalence. Countries employ different mechanisms to account for each indication's differential benefit, e.g., weighted-average prices (Germany, France, Australia), differential discounts (England, Scotland), clinical restrictions, and MEAs (England, Scotland, Australia, Canada). Value-based indication-specific pricing can help to align the benefit and price for multi-indication cancer drugs.