O. Abrahamovych, O. Fayura, U. Abrahamovych

Danylo Halytsky Lviv National Medical University

Introduction. The problem of classification of comorbid diseases is very actual now. Despite this fact, the search for the new variants of combinations of the diseases continues, as their combinations can simply be not yet classified syndromal diseases, or vice versa – to be completely incompatible for the appearance and coexistence in one body. This is the key to solve more and more problems for the diagnosis and treatment of the diseases in the field of the practical medicine. That is why a comprehensive study and detailed systematization of the knowledge with our attempt to create the unified classification of the comorbidities are important steps towards the understanding and solving this problem.

Aim. To analyze the literature sources dealing with the study of comorbid diseases and present the modern views of the scientists in relation to these problems in order to unify it.

Materials and methods. The work analyzes the literature sources, which deal with the study of comorbid diseases and quite thoroughly reflect the current views of the scientists on this issue, based on which was made a systematization of the received facts and was proposed our own classification.

Results. Comorbidity is one of the main problems in modern medicine. But, organizing theoretical and practical knowledge of comorbid diseases, and thus solving the problem as a whole, unfortunately, does not go beyond the scientific debate, about which there is still no coherent understanding of its essence and unification of the used terminology. For standardization of the scientific researches on comorbidity as a random combination of the diseases in one patient, which are different by their etiology and pathogenesis such as nosological syntropy, i.e. natural occurrence of the regular determined diseases combinations, were proposed 12 indices and one simple list of the diseases.

It is suggested that all the diseases that occur in the body are divided into monodisease (only one uncomplicated disease in one person) and comorbid disease (2 or more diseases in one person), which, in its turn, are divided into columns, depending on the amount of the diseases, their etiology, сlinical variant of the lesions, relationship between the diseases combined in one body, their origin, the presence of morphological changes, involvement of organs and systems into the process, the order of their appearance, symptomatical dominance,  the presence of the complications, prognosis and so on.

Conclusions. The given classification is important for the applied medicine, as it can help the doctor to organize and comprehensively assess the disease, to scale the level of injuring of the certain organs or organ systems by the pathological process, the mode of the diseases, the possibility or, conversely, illogicality of the causal connection between them, and then conduct all necessary diagnostic procedures according to their importance for the diagnosis, prescribe treatment without recourse to polypharmacy and get a positive result of this treatment.

References

17.Vortkin AL, Rumyantsev MA, Skotnikov AS, Laryushkina ED, Sokolova IV, Feldman MA et al. Comorbidity. Consilium Medicum. Diseases of the Heart and of the Vessels. 2011;2:37-41. (Russian).

57.Parkerson GR, Harrell FE, Hammond WE, Wang XQ. Characteristics of adult primary care patients as predictors of future health services charges. Med Care. 2001;39(11):1170-1181. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-200111000-00004

58.Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: Development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373-383. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8

59.Charlson ME, Sax FL. The therapeutic efficacy of critical care units from two perspectives: a traditional cohort approach vs a new case-control methodology. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(1):31-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9681(87)90094-4

64.Fortin M, Hudon C, Dubois MF, Almirall J, Lapointe L, Soubhi H. Comparative assessment of three different indices of multimorbidity for studies onhealth-related quality of life. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2005;3:74. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-3-74

69.DCCT Research Group Reliability and validity of a diabetes quality of life measure for the diabetes control and complications trial (DCCT). Diabetes Care. 1998;11:725-732.

72.Greenfield S, Sullivan L, Dukes KA, Silliman R, D’Agostino R, Kaplan SH. Development and testing of a new measure of case mix for use in office practice. Med Care. 1995;33(4 Suppl):47-55.

73.Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Ciol MA. Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45(6):613-619. https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(92)90133-8

78.Rozzini R, Frisoni GB, Ferrucci L, Barbisoni P, Sabatini T, Ranieri P et al. Geriatric Index of Comorbidity: validation and comparison with other measures of comorbidity. Age Ageing. 2002;31(4):277-285. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/31.4.277

79.Zekry D, Loures Valle BH, Lardi C, Graf C, Michel JP, Gold G et al. Geriatrics index of comorbidity was the most accurate predictor of death in geriatric hospital among six comorbidity scores. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(9):1036-1044. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.11.013

83.Greenfield S, Apolone G, McNeil BJ, Cleary PD. The importance of coexistent disease in the occurrence of postoperative complications and one-year recovery in patients undergoing total hip replacement: Comorbidity and outcomes after hip replacement. Med Care. 1993;31(2):141-154. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199302000-00005

85.Groll DL, To T, Bombardier C, Wright JG. The development of a comorbidity index with physical function as the outcome. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58(6):595-602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.10.018

92.Kaplan MH, Feinstein AR. The importance of classifying initial comorbidity in evaluating the outcome of diabetes mellitus. J Chronic Dis. 1974;27(7-8):387-404. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9681(74)90017-4

99.Linn BS, Linn MW, Gurel L. Cumulative illness rating scale. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1968;16(5 Issue):622-626.

100.Litwin MS, Greenfield S, Elkin EP, Lubeck DP, Broering JM, Kaplan SH. Assessment of prognosis with the total illness burden index for prostate cancer: aiding clinicians in treatment choice. Cancer. 2007;109(9):1777-1783. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.22615

105.Miller MD, Towers A. Manual of Guidelines for Scoring the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale for Geriatrics (CIRS-G). Pittsburg, Pa: University of Pittsburgh, 1991. 31 p.

106.Miller MD, Paradis CF, Houck PR, Mazumdar S, Stack JA, Rifai AH et al. Rating chronic medical illness burden in geropsychiatric practice and research: application of the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale. Psychiatry Res. 1992;41(3):237-248. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-1781(92)90005-N

116.Parkerson GR, Broadhead WE, Tse CK. The Duke Severity of Illness Checklist (DUSOI) for measurement of severity and comorbidity. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993;46(4):379-393. https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(93)90153-R

121.Fortin M, Bravo G, Hudon C, Vanasse A, Lapointe L. Prevalence of multimorbidity among adults seen in family practice. Ann Fam Med. 2005;3(3):223-228. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.272

126.Li B, Evans D, Faris P, Dean S, Quan H. Risk adjustment performance of Charlson and Elixhauser comorbidities in ICD-9 and ICD-10 administrative databases. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8:12. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-8-12