Rationale, design, and methods for the risk evaluation and communication health outcomes and utilization trial (REACH OUT)

Using clinical prediction models to personalise lifestyle interventions for cardiovascular disease prevention: A systematic literature review

This study aimed to systematically review the use of clinical prediction models (CPMs) in personalised lifestyle interventions for the prevention of cardiovascular disease. We searched PubMed and PsycInfo for articles describing relevant studies published up to August 1, 2021. These were supplemented with items retrieved via screening references of citations and cited by references. In total, 32 studies were included. Nineteen different CPMs were used to guide the intervention. Most frequently, a version of the Framingham risk score was used. The CPM was used to inform the intensity of the intervention in five studies (16 %), and the intervention's type in 31 studies (97 %). The CPM was supplemented with relative risk estimates for additional risk factors in three studies (9 %), and relative risk estimates for intervention effects in four (13 %). In addition to the estimated risk, the personalisation was determined using criteria based on univariable risk factors in 18 studies (56 %), a lifestyle score in three (9 %), and a physical examination index in one (3 %). We noted insufficient detail in reporting regarding the CPM's use in 20 studies (63 %). In 15 studies (47 %), the primary outcome was a CPM estimate. A statistically significant effect favouring the intervention to the comparator arm was reported in four out of eight analyses (50 %), and a statistically significant improvement compared to baseline in five out of seven analyses (71 %). Due to the design of the included studies, the effect of the use of CPMs is still unclear. Therefore, we see a need for future research.

Risk scoring for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease

BACKGROUND

The current paradigm for cardiovascular disease (CVD) emphasises absolute risk assessment to guide treatment decisions in primary prevention. Although the derivation and validation of multivariable risk assessment tools, or CVD risk scores, have attracted considerable attention, their effect on clinical outcomes is uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of evaluating and providing CVD risk scores in adults without prevalent CVD on cardiovascular outcomes, risk factor levels, preventive medication prescribing, and health behaviours.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library (2016, Issue 2), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to March week 1 2016), Embase (embase.com) (1974 to 15 March 2016), and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S) (1990 to 15 March 2016). We imposed no language restrictions. We searched clinical trial registers in March 2016 and handsearched reference lists of primary studies to identify additional reports.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing the systematic provision of CVD risk scores by a clinician, healthcare professional, or healthcare system compared with usual care (i.e. no systematic provision of CVD risk scores) in adults without CVD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently selected studies, extracted data, and evaluated study quality. We used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool to assess study limitations. The primary outcomes were: CVD events, change in CVD risk factor levels (total cholesterol, systolic blood pressure, and multivariable CVD risk), and adverse events. Secondary outcomes included: lipid-lowering and antihypertensive medication prescribing in higher-risk people. We calculated risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) for continuous data using 95% confidence intervals. We used a fixed-effects model when heterogeneity (I²) was at least 50% and a random-effects model for substantial heterogeneity (I² > 50%). We evaluated the quality of evidence using the GRADE framework.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 41 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving 194,035 participants from 6422 reports. We assessed studies as having high or unclear risk of bias across multiple domains. Low-quality evidence evidence suggests that providing CVD risk scores may have little or no effect on CVD events compared with usual care (5.4% versus 5.3%; RR 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 1.08; I² = 25%; 3 trials, N = 99,070). Providing CVD risk scores may reduce CVD risk factor levels by a small amount compared with usual care. Providing CVD risk scores reduced total cholesterol (MD -0.10 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.00; I² = 94%; 12 trials, N = 20,437, low-quality evidence), systolic blood pressure (MD -2.77 mmHg, 95% CI -4.16 to -1.38; I² = 93%; 16 trials, N = 32,954, low-quality evidence), and multivariable CVD risk (SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.02; I² = 94%; 9 trials, N = 9549, low-quality evidence). Providing CVD risk scores may reduce adverse events compared with usual care, but results were imprecise (1.9% versus 2.7%; RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.04; I² = 0%; 4 trials, N = 4630, low-quality evidence). Compared with usual care, providing CVD risk scores may increase new or intensified lipid-lowering medications (15.7% versus 10.7%; RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.87; I² = 40%; 11 trials, N = 14,175, low-quality evidence) and increase new or increased antihypertensive medications (17.2% versus 11.4%; RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.11; I² = 53%; 8 trials, N = 13,255, low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is uncertainty whether current strategies for providing CVD risk scores affect CVD events. Providing CVD risk scores may slightly reduce CVD risk factor levels and may increase preventive medication prescribing in higher-risk people without evidence of harm. There were multiple study limitations in the identified studies and substantial heterogeneity in the interventions, outcomes, and analyses, so readers should interpret results with caution. New models for implementing and evaluating CVD risk scores in adequately powered studies are needed to define the role of applying CVD risk scores in primary CVD prevention.

Risk assessment in the prevention of cardiovascular disease in low-resource settings

INTRODUCTION

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevalence is increasing in low- and middle-income countries. Total risk assessment is key to prevention.

METHODS

Studies and guidelines published between 1990 and 2013 were sought using Medline database, PubMed, and World Health Organization report sheets. Search terms included 'risk assessment' and 'cardiovascular disease prevention'. Observational studies and randomized controlled trials were reviewed.

RESULTS

The ideal risk prediction tool is one that is derived from the population in which it is to be applied. Without national population-based cohort studies in sub-Saharan African countries like Nigeria, there is no tool that is used consistently. Regardless of which one is adopted by national guidelines, routine consistent use is advocated by various CVD prevention guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

In low-resource settings, the consistent use of simple tools like the WHO charts is recommended, as the benefit of a standard approach to screening outweighs the risk of missing an opportunity to prevent CVD.

Tailored interventions to address determinants of practice

BACKGROUND

Tailored intervention strategies are frequently recommended among approaches to the implementation of improvement in health professional performance. Attempts to change the behaviour of health professionals may be impeded by a variety of different barriers, obstacles, or factors (which we collectively refer to as determinants of practice). Change may be more likely if implementation strategies are specifically chosen to address these determinants.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether tailored intervention strategies are effective in improving professional practice and healthcare outcomes. We compared interventions tailored to address the identified determinants of practice with either no intervention or interventions not tailored to the determinants.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted searches of The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, CINAHL, and the British Nursing Index to May 2014. We conducted a final search in December 2014 (in MEDLINE only) for more recently published trials. We conducted searches of the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) in March 2013. We also handsearched two journals.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Cluster-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions tailored to address prospectively identified determinants of practice, which reported objectively measured professional practice or healthcare outcomes, and where at least one group received an intervention designed to address prospectively identified determinants of practice.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed quality and extracted data. We undertook qualitative and quantitative analyses, the quantitative analysis including two elements: we carried out 1) meta-regression analyses to compare interventions tailored to address identified determinants with either no interventions or an intervention(s) not tailored to the determinants, and 2) heterogeneity analyses to investigate sources of differences in the effectiveness of interventions. These included the effects of: risk of bias, use of a theory when developing the intervention, whether adjustment was made for local factors, and number of domains addressed with the determinants identified.

MAIN RESULTS

We added nine studies to this review to bring the total number of included studies to 32 comparing an intervention tailored to address identified determinants of practice to no intervention or an intervention(s) not tailored to the determinants. The outcome was implementation of recommended practice, e.g. clinical practice guideline recommendations. Fifteen studies provided enough data to be included in the quantitative analysis. The pooled odds ratio was 1.56 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27 to 1.93, P value < 0.001). The 17 studies not included in the meta-analysis had findings showing variable effectiveness consistent with the findings of the meta-regression.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite the increase in the number of new studies identified, our overall finding is similar to that of the previous review. Tailored implementation can be effective, but the effect is variable and tends to be small to moderate. The number of studies remains small and more research is needed, including trials comparing tailored interventions to no or other interventions, but also studies to develop and investigate the components of tailoring (identification of the most important determinants, selecting interventions to address the determinants). Currently available studies have used different methods to identify determinants of practice and different approaches to selecting interventions to address the determinants. It is not yet clear how best to tailor interventions and therefore not clear what the effect of an optimally tailored intervention would be.

The Expanding Spectrum of Health Risks: Public Health or Harm?

Drawing on hydration as an illustrative case in point, this review discusses evidence-based perspectives on the continually expanding spectrum of promulgated health risks, including potential benefits and harms to public health. Future directions for inquiry and practice also are addressed.

The @RISK Study: Risk communication for patients with type 2 diabetes: design of a randomised controlled trial

Background

Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have an increased risk to develop severe diabetes related complications, especially cardiovascular disease (CVD). The risk to develop CVD can be estimated by means of risk formulas. However, patients have difficulties to understand the outcomes of these formulas. As a result, they may not recognize the importance of changing lifestyle and taking medication in time. Therefore, it is important to develop risk communication methods, that will improve the patients' understanding of risks associated with having diabetes, which enables them to make informed choices about their diabetes care.

The aim of this study is to investigate the effects of an intervention focussed on the communication of the absolute 10-year risk to develop CVD on risk perception, attitude and intention to change lifestyle behaviour in patients with T2DM. The conceptual framework of the intervention is based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour and the Self-regulation Theory.

Methods

A randomised controlled trial will be performed in the Diabetes Care System West-Friesland (DCS), a managed care system. Newly referred T2DM patients of the DCS, younger than 75 years will be eligible for the study. The intervention group will be exposed to risk communication on CVD, on top of standard managed care of the DCS. This intervention consists of a simple explanation on the causes and consequences of CVD, and possibilities for prevention. The probabilities of CVD in 10 year will be explained in natural frequencies and visualised by a population diagram. The control group will receive standard managed care. The primary outcome is appropriateness of risk perception. Secondary outcomes are attitude and intention to change lifestyle behaviour and illness perception. Differences between baseline and follow-up (2 and 12 weeks) between groups will be analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle. The study was powered on 120 patients in each group.

Discussion

This innovative risk communication method based on two behavioural theories might improve patient's appropriateness of risk perception and attitude concerning lifestyle change. With a better understanding of their CVD risk, patients will be able to make informed choices concerning diabetes care.

Trail registration

The trial is registered as NTR1556 in the Dutch Trial Register.

Randomised controlled trial of additional lifestyle support for the reduction of cardiovascular disease risk through primary care in Stoke-on-Trent, UK

The purpose of this trial is to evaluate the effectiveness of providing additional support in modifying lifestyles and in reducing population cardiovascular disease risk compared with usual primary prevention care. A prospective, individually randomised controlled trial design is used, within which groups of patients are clustered by general practice. Multi-level modelling is proposed to account for clustering effects by practice and a two-stage least squares regression approach to account for expected contamination at the analysis stage. The research is set in Stoke-on-Trent, a mid-sized urban city in central England with a generally poor health profile. Patients included will be those aged between 35 and 74 years who have been identified as being at increased risk of developing cardiovascular disease. Approximately 920 patients will be recruited in each arm of the trial (20 control, 20 treatment in each of 46 practices). Usual primary prevention care (control) will be compared with usual primary prevention care plus bespoke lifestyle support (treatment). The primary outcome measure is the Framingham 10-year cardiovascular disease risk at one year. Intermediate outcomes: weight, physical activity and health-related quality of life, will be determined at six months to monitor progress with treatment. Change in individual risk factors: blood pressure, lipid profile, weight, body mass index, waist circumference, smoking, diabetes and cardiovascular disease status and medications will also be measured at one year to help understand the specific mechanisms by which the primary endpoint was achieved.

Tailored interventions to overcome identified barriers to change: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes

BACKGROUND

In the previous version of this review, the effectiveness of interventions tailored to barriers to change was found to be uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions tailored to address identified barriers to change on professional practice or patient outcomes.

SEARCH STRATEGY

For this update, in addition to the EPOC Register and pending files, we searched the following databases without language restrictions, from inception until August 2007: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, BNI and HMIC. We searched the National Research Register to November 2007. We undertook further searches to October 2009 to identify potentially eligible published or ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions tailored to address prospectively identified barriers to change that reported objectively measured professional practice or healthcare outcomes in which at least one group received an intervention designed to address prospectively identified barriers to change.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed quality and extracted data. We undertook quantitative and qualitative analyses. The quantitative analyses had two elements.1. We carried out a meta-regression to compare interventions tailored to address identified barriers to change with either no interventions or an intervention(s) not tailored to the barriers.2. We carried out heterogeneity analyses to investigate sources of differences in the effectiveness of interventions. These included the effects of: risk of bias, concealment of allocation, rigour of barrier analysis, use of theory, complexity of interventions, and the reported presence of administrative constraints.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 26 studies comparing an intervention tailored to address identified barriers to change to no intervention or an intervention(s) not tailored to the barriers. The effect sizes of these studies varied both across and within studies.Twelve studies provided enough data to be included in the quantitative analysis. A meta-regression model was fitted adjusting for baseline odds by fitting it as a covariate, to obtain the pooled odds ratio of 1.54 (95% CI, 1.16 to 2.01) from Bayesian analysis and 1.52 (95% CI, 1.27 to 1.82, P < 0.001) from classical analysis. The heterogeneity analyses found that no study attributes investigated were significantly associated with effectiveness of the interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Interventions tailored to prospectively identified barriers are more likely to improve professional practice than no intervention or dissemination of guidelines. However, the methods used to identify barriers and tailor interventions to address them need further development. Research is required to determine the effectiveness of tailored interventions in comparison with other interventions.

Advancing the Prevention and Control of Hypertension

Hypertension is on a worrisome public health trajectory. This review discusses some key contributing dynamics as well as considerations for progress toward the prevention and control of hypertension and its comorbidities.

A novel programme to evaluate and communicate 10-year risk of CHD reduces predicted risk and improves patients' modifiable risk factor profile

AIMS

We assessed whether a novel programme to evaluate/communicate predicted coronary heart disease (CHD) risk could lower patients' predicted Framingham CHD risk vs. usual care.

METHODS

The Risk Evaluation and Communication Health Outcomes and Utilization Trial was a prospective, controlled, cluster-randomised trial in nine European countries, among patients at moderate cardiovascular risk. Following baseline assessments, physicians in the intervention group calculated patients' predicted CHD risk and were instructed to advise patients according to a risk evaluation/communication programme. Usual care physicians did not calculate patients' risk and provided usual care only. The primary end-point was Framingham 10-year CHD risk at 6 months with intervention vs. usual care.

RESULTS

Of 1103 patients across 100 sites, 524 patients receiving intervention, and 461 receiving usual care, were analysed for efficacy. After 6 months, mean predicted risks were 12.5% with intervention, and 13.7% with usual care [odds ratio = 0.896; p = 0.001, adjusted for risk at baseline (17.2% intervention; 16.9% usual care) and other covariates]. The proportion of patients achieving both blood pressure and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol targets was significantly higher with intervention (25.4%) than usual care (14.1%; p < 0.001), and 29.3% of smokers in the intervention group quit smoking vs. 21.4% of those receiving usual care (p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

A physician-implemented CHD risk evaluation/communication programme improved patients' modifiable risk factor profile, and lowered predicted CHD risk compared with usual care. By combining this strategy with more intensive treatment to reduce residual modifiable risk, we believe that substantial improvements in cardiovascular disease prevention could be achieved in clinical practice.

Does the routine use of global coronary heart disease risk scores translate into clinical benefits or harms? A systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Guidelines now recommend routine assessment of global coronary heart disease (CHD) risk scores. We performed a systematic review to assess whether global CHD risk scores result in clinical benefits or harms.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE (1966 through June 13, 2007) for articles relevant to our review. Using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, we included studies of any design that provided physicians with global risk scores or allowed them to calculate scores themselves, and then measured clinical benefits and/or harms. Two reviewers reviewed potentially relevant studies for inclusion and resolved disagreement by consensus. Data from each article was then abstracted into an evidence table by one reviewer and the quality of evidence was assessed independently by two reviewers.

RESULTS

11 studies met criteria for inclusion in our review. Six studies addressed clinical benefits and 5 addressed clinical harms. Six studies were rated as "fair" quality and the others were deemed "methodologically limited". Two fair quality studies showed that physician knowledge of global CHD risk is associated with increased prescription of cardiovascular drugs in high risk (but not all) patients. Two additional fair quality studies showed no effect on their primary outcomes, but one was underpowered and the other focused on prescribing of lifestyle changes, rather than drugs whose prescribing might be expected to be targeted by risk level. One of these aforementioned studies showed improved blood pressure in high-risk patients, but no improvement in the proportion of patients at high risk, perhaps due to the high proportion of participants with baseline risks significantly exceeding the risk threshold. Two fair quality studies found no evidence of harm from patient knowledge of global risk scores when they were accompanied by counseling, and optional or scheduled follow-up. Other studies were too methodologically limited to draw conclusions.

CONCLUSION

Our review provides preliminary evidence that physicians' knowledge of global CHD risk scores may translate into modestly increased prescribing of cardiovascular drugs and modest short-term reductions in CHD risk factors without clinical harm. Whether these results are replicable, and translate across other practice settings or into improved long-term CHD outcomes remains to be seen.