4.2 Article

Longitudinal Assessment of Multimorbidity Medication Patterns among Smokers in the COPDGene Cohort

期刊

MEDICINA-LITHUANIA
卷 59, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/medicina59050976

关键词

chronic diseases; medication patterns; latent class analysis; smoker

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to assess the medication patterns for multiple chronic diseases in COPD patients and explore if the patterns are similar between phase 1 and phase 2. The study found four medication patterns at both phases, and the medication patterns were similar between the two phases.
Background and objectives: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is usually comorbid with other chronic diseases. We aimed to assess the multimorbidity medication patterns and explore if the patterns are similar for phase 1 (P1) and 5-year follow-up phase 2 (P2) in the COPDGene cohort. Materials and Methods: A total of 5564 out of 10,198 smokers from the COPDGene cohort who completed 2 visits, P1 and P2 visits, with complete medication use history were included in the study. We conducted latent class analysis (LCA) among the 27 categories of chronic disease medications, excluding COPD treatments and cancer medications at P1 and P2 separately. The best number of LCA classes was determined through both statistical fit and interpretation of the patterns. Results: We found four classes of medication patterns at both phases. LCA showed that both phases shared similar characteristics in their medication patterns: LC0: low medication; LC1: hypertension (HTN) or cardiovascular disease (CVD)+high cholesterol (Hychol) medication predominant; LC2: HTN/CVD+type 2 diabetes (T2D) +Hychol medication predominant; LC3: Hychol medication predominant. Conclusions: We found similar multimorbidity medication patterns among smokers at P1 and P2 in the COPDGene cohort, which provides an understanding of how multimorbidity medication clustered and how different chronic diseases combine in smokers.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据