Routinely collected data from health insurance claims and electronic health records in vascular research - a success story and way to go

Community prevalence and dyad disease pattern of multimorbidity in China and India: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Driven by the increasing life expectancy, China and India, the two most populous countries in the world are experiencing a rising burden of multimorbidity. This study aims to explore community prevalence and dyad patterns of multimorbidity in China and India.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of five English and Chinese electronic databases. Studies involving adults 18 years or older at a community level, which reported multimorbidity prevalence and/or patterns were included. A modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used for quality assessment. Despite large heterogeneity among reported studies, a systematic synthesis of the results was conducted to report the findings.

RESULTS

From 13 996 studies retrieved, 59 studies met the inclusion criteria (46 in China, 9 in India and 4 in both). The median prevalence of multimorbidity was 30.7% (IQR 17.1, 49.4), ranging from 1.5% to 90.5%. There was a large difference in multimorbidity prevalence between China and India, with median prevalence being 36.1% (IQR 19.6, 48.8) and 28.3% (IQR 8.9, 56.8), respectively. Among 27 studies that reported age-specific prevalence, 19 studies found multimorbidity prevalence increased with age, while 8 studies observed a paradoxical reduction in the oldest age group. Of the 34 studies that reported sex-specific prevalence, 86% (n=32) observed a higher prevalence in females. The most common multimorbidity patterns from 14 studies included hypertensive diseases combined with diabetes mellitus, arthropathies, heart diseases and metabolic disorders. All included studies were rated as fair or poor quality.

CONCLUSION

Multimorbidity is highly prevalent in China and India with hypertensive diseases and other comorbidities being the most observed patterns. The overall quality of the studies was low and there was a lack of representative samples in most studies. Large epidemiology studies, using a common definition of multimorbidity and national representative samples, with sex disaggregation are needed in both countries.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020176774.

A Divide between the Western European and the Central and Eastern European Countries in the Peripheral Vascular Field: A Narrative Review of the Literature

Thirty years after the transition period, starting from 1989, Central and Eastern European countries (CEECs), representing one-fifth of the entire European population, share many historical, societal, political, economic, and cultural characteristics. Although accumulating data on coronary heart diseases and cerebrovascular diseases support these observations, in the case of peripheral arterial disease, data are scarce. The present review attempts to summarise the shreds of data that may highlight a divide in this field between CEECs and Western European countries. Disparities in risk factors and peripheral vascular care across Europe seem to be tangible and can be seen as a signal of existing differences. Improvements in research and development and the collection and cross-border share of scientific data are essential to initiate and facilitate convergence in this field.

Quality of care in surgical/interventional vascular medicine: what can routinely collected data from the insurance companies achieve?

The complexity and diversity of surgical/interventional vascular medicine necessitate innovative and pragmatic solutions for the valid measurement of the quality of care in the long term. The secondary utilization of routinely collected data from social insurance institutions has increasingly become the focus of interdisciplinary medicine over the years. Owing to their longitudinal linkage and pan-sector generation, routinely collected data make it possible to answer important questions and can complement quality development projects with primary registry data. Various guidelines exist for their usage, linkage, and reporting. Studies have shown good validity, especially for endpoints with major clinical relevance. The numerous advantages of routinely collected data face several challenges that require thorough plausibility and validity procedures and distinctive methodological expertise. This review presents a discussion of these advantages and challenges and provides recommendations for starting to use this increasingly important source of data.