Most people with a chronic disease actually have more than one, a condition known as multimorbidity. Despite this, the evidence base to prevent adverse disease outcomes has taken a disease-specific approach. Drawing on a conference, Improving Guidelines for Multimorbid Patients, the goal of this paper is to identify challenges to the generation of evidence to support the care of people with multimorbidity and to make recommendations for improvement. We identified three broad categories of challenges: 1) challenges to defining and measuring multimorbidity; 2) challenges related to the effects of multimorbidity on study design, implementation and analysis; and 3) challenges inherent in studying heterogeneity of treatment effects in patients with differing comorbid conditions. We propose a set of recommendations for consideration by investigators and others (reviewers, editors, funding agencies, policymaking organizations) involved in the creation of evidence for this common type of person that address each of these challenges. The recommendations reflect a general approach that emphasizes broader inclusion (recruitment and retention) of patients with multimorbidity, coupled with more rigorous efforts to measure comorbidity and comorbidity burden and the influence of multimorbidity on outcomes and the effects of therapy. More rigorous examination of heterogeneity of treatment effects requires careful attention to prioritizing the most important comorbid-related questions, and also requires studies that provide greater statistical power than conventional trials have provided. Relatively modest changes in the orientation of current research along these lines can be helpful in pointing to and partially addressing selected knowledge gaps. However, producing a robust evidence base to support patient-centered decision making in complex individuals with multimorbidity, exposed to many different combinations of potentially interacting factors that can modify the risks and benefits of therapies, is likely to require a clinical research enterprise fundamentally restructured to be more fully integrated with routine clinical practice.
evidence-based medicine chronic disease guidelines comorbidity clinical trials
Weiss CO, Boyd CM, Yu Q, Wolff JL, Leff B. Patterns of prevalent major chronic disease among older adults in the United States. JAMA. 2007;298:1160–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang R, Lagakos SW, Ware JH, Hunter DJ, Drazen JM. Statistics in medicine—reporting of subgroup analyses in clinical trials. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:2189–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd CM, Darer J, Boult C, Fried LP, Boult L, Wu AW. Clinical practice guidelines and quality of care for older patients with multiple comorbid diseases: implications for pay for performance. JAMA. 2005;294:716–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trikalinos TA, Segal JB, Boyd CM. Addressing Multimorbidity in evidence integration and synthesis. J Gen Intern Med. 2013, doi: 10.1007/s11606-013-2661-4.
Uhlig K, Leff B, Kent DM, Dy S, Brunnhuber K, Burgers JS, Greenfield S, Guyatt G, High K, Leipzig R, Mulrow C, Schmader K, Schunemann H, Walter LC, Woodcock J, Boyd CM. A framework for crafting clinical practice guidelines that are relevant to the care and management of people with multimorbidity. J Gen Intern Med. 2013, doi:10.1007/s11606-013-2659-y.
Werner RM, Greenfield S, Fung C, Turner BJ. Measuring quality of care in patients with multiple clinical conditions: summary of a conference conducted by the Society of General Internal Medicine. J Gen Intern Med. 2007;22:1206–11.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lash TL, Mor V, Wieland D, Ferrucci L, Satariano W, Silliman RA. Methodology, design, and analytic techniques to address measurement of comorbid disease. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2007;62:281–5.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd CM, Weiss CO, Halter J, Han KC, Ershler WB, Fried LP. Framework for evaluating disease severity measures in older adults with comorbidity. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2007;62:286–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yancik R, Ershler W, Satariano W, Hazzard W, Cohen HJ, Ferrucci L. Report of the national institute on aging task force on comorbidity. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2007;62:275–80.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karlamangla A, Tinetti M, Guralnik J, Studenski S, Wetle T, Reuben D. Comorbidity in older adults: nosology of impairment, diseases, and conditions. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2007;62:296–300.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guralnik JM, LaCroix AZ, Everett DF, Kovar MG. Aging in the Eighties: The Prevalence of Comorbidity and its Association With Disability. Hyattsville: National Center for Health. Statistics. 1989;1989:170.Google Scholar
Crews JE, Campbell VA. Vision impairment and hearing loss among community-dwelling older Americans: implications for health and functioning. Am J Public Health. 2004;94:823–9.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guralnik JM. The impact of vision and hearing impairments on health in old age. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1999;47:1029–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Hayward RA, Kent DM, Vijan S, Hofer TP. Multivariable risk prediction can greatly enhance the statistical power of clinical trial subgroup analysis. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6:18.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green SB, Byar DP. Using observational data from registries to compare treatments: the fallacy of omnimetrics. Stat Med. 1984;3:361–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Spall HG, Toren A, Kiss A, Fowler RA. Eligibility criteria of randomized controlled trials published in high-impact general medical journals: a systematic sampling review. JAMA. 2007;297:1233–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fortin M, Dionne J, Pinho G, Gignac J, Almirall J, Lapointe L. Randomized controlled trials: do they have external validity for patients with multiple comorbidities? Ann Fam Med. 2006;4:104–8.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tunis SR, Stryer DB, Clancy CM. Practical clinical trials: increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. JAMA. 2003;290:1624–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kent DM, Hayward RA. Limitations of applying summary results of clinical trials to individual patients: the need for risk stratification. JAMA. 2007;298:1209–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach PB, Gould MK. When the Average Applies to No One: Personalized Decision Making About Potential Benefits of Lung Cancer Screening. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157:571–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furberg CD, Byington RP. What do subgroup analyses reveal about differential response to beta-blocker therapy? The Beta-Blocker Heart Attack Trial experience. Circulation. 1983;67:I98–101.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Brookes ST, Whitley E, Peters TJ, Mulheran PA, Egger M, Davey SG. Subgroup analyses in randomised controlled trials: quantifying the risks of false-positives and false-negatives. Health Technol Assess. 2001;5:1–56.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Tannock IF. False-positive results in clinical trials: multiple significance tests and the problem of unreported comparisons. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1996;88:206–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kent DM, Rothwell PM, Ioannidis JP, Altman DG, Hayward RA. Assessing and reporting heterogeneity in treatment effects in clinical trials: a proposal. Trials. 2010;11:85.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiss CO, Segal JB, Boyd CM, Wu A, Varadhan R. A Framework to Identify and Address Heterogeneity of Treatment Effect in Comparative Effectiveness Research. Rockville: MD; 2010.Google Scholar
Varadhan R, Segal JB, Boyd CM, Wu AW, Weiss CO. A framework for the analysis of heterogeneity of treatment effect in patient-centered outcomes research. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2013. (In Press).Google Scholar
Varadhan R, Stuart EA, Louis TA, Segal JB, Weiss CO. Review of Guidance Documents for Selected Methods in Patient Centered Outcomes Research: Standards in Addressing Heterogeneity of Treatment Effectiveness in Observational and Experimental Patient Centered Outcomes Research. A Report to the PCORI Methodology Committee Research Methods Working Group. 2012. March 29, 2012.Google Scholar
Califf RM, Filerman GL, Murray RK, Rosenblatt M, Merck, Co I. The Clinical Trials Enterprise in the United States: A Call for Disruptive Innovation. Washington: Institute of Medicine; 2012. Discussion Paper.Google Scholar
Sabin JE, Mazor K, Meterko V, Goff SL, Platt R. Comparing drug effectiveness at health plans: the ethics of cluster randomized trials. Hastings Cent Rep. 2008;38:39–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Institute of Diabetes and Dignestive and Kidney Diseases. National Institute of Diabetes and Dignestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) Central Data Repository (CDR). Available at: https://www.niddkrepository.org. Accessed August 13, 2013.