Differences in the causes of death of HIV-positive patients in a cohort study by data sources and coding algorithms

OBJECTIVES:: To compare causes of death (CoDs) from two independent sources: National Basic Death File (NBDF) and deaths reported to the Spanish HIV Research cohort [Cohort de adultos con infección por VIH de la Red de Investigación en SIDA CoRIS)] and compare the two coding algorithms: International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision (ICD-10) and revised version of Coding Causes of Death in HIV (revised CoDe). METHODS:: Between 2004 and 2008, CoDs were obtained from the cohort records (free text, multiple causes) and also from NBDF (ICD-10). CoDs from CoRIS were coded according to ICD-10 and revised CoDe by a panel. Deaths were compared by 13 disease groups: HIV/AIDS, liver diseases, malignancies, infections, cardiovascular, blood disorders, pulmonary, central nervous system, drug use, external, suicide, other causes and ill defined. RESULTS:: There were 160 deaths. Concordance for the 13 groups was observed in 111 (69%) cases for the two sources and in 115 (72%) cases for the two coding algorithms. According to revised CoDe, the commonest CoDs were HIV/AIDS (53%), non-AIDS malignancies (11%) and liver related (9%), these percentages were similar, 57, 10 and 8%, respectively, for NBDF (coded as ICD-10). When using ICD-10 to code deaths in CoRIS, wherein HIV infection was known in everyone, the proportion of non-AIDS malignancies was 13%, liver-related accounted for 3%, while HIV/AIDS reached 70% due to liver-related, infections and ill-defined causes being coded as HIV/AIDS. CONCLUSION:: There is substantial variation in CoDs in HIV-infected persons according to sources and algorithms. ICD-10 in patients known to be HIV-positive overestimates HIV/AIDS-related deaths at the expense of underestimating liver-related diseases, infections and ill defined causes. CoDe seems as the best option for cohort studies.     

Chapter 12: Systematic Review of Prognostic Tests

A number of new biological markers are being studied as predictors of disease or adverse medical events among those who already have a disease. Systematic reviews of this growing literature can help determine whether the available evidence supports use of a new biomarker as a prognostic test that can more accurately place patients into different prognostic groups to improve treatment decisions and the accuracy of outcome predictions. Exemplary reviews of prognostic tests are not widely available, and the methods used to review diagnostic tests do not necessarily address the most important questions about prognostic tests that are used to predict the time-dependent likelihood of future patient outcomes. We provide suggestions for those interested in conducting systematic reviews of a prognostic test. The proposed use of the prognostic test should serve as the framework for a systematic review and to help define the key questions. The outcome probabilities or level of risk and other characteristics of prognostic groups are the most salient statistics for review and perhaps meta-analysis. Reclassification tables can help determine how a prognostic test affects the classification of patients into different prognostic groups, hence their treatment. Review of studies of the association between a potential prognostic test and patient outcomes would have little impact other than to determine whether further development as a prognostic test might be warranted.