The Impact of CAROtid plaque Screening on Smoking (CAROSS) cessation and control of other cardiovascular risk factors: Rationale and design of a randomized controlled trial

Biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

A possible strategy for increasing smoking cessation rates could be to provide smokers with feedback on the current or potential future biomedical effects of smoking using, for example, measurement of exhaled carbon monoxide (CO), lung function, or genetic susceptibility to lung cancer or other diseases.

OBJECTIVES

The main objective was to determine the efficacy of providing smokers with feedback on their exhaled CO measurement, spirometry results, atherosclerotic plaque imaging, and genetic susceptibility to smoking-related diseases in helping them to quit smoking.

SEARCH METHODS

For the most recent update, we searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register in March 2018 and ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP in September 2018 for studies added since the last update in 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Inclusion criteria for the review were: a randomised controlled trial design; participants being current smokers; interventions based on a biomedical test to increase smoking cessation rates; control groups receiving all other components of intervention; and an outcome of smoking cessation rate at least six months after the start of the intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We expressed results as a risk ratio (RR) for smoking cessation with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where appropriate, we pooled studies using a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects method.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 20 trials using a variety of biomedical tests interventions; one trial included two interventions, for a total of 21 interventions. We included a total of 9262 participants, all of whom were adult smokers. All studies included both men and women adult smokers at different stages of change and motivation for smoking cessation. We judged all but three studies to be at high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain. We pooled trials in three categories according to the type of biofeedback provided: feedback on risk exposure (five studies); feedback on smoking-related disease risk (five studies); and feedback on smoking-related harm (11 studies). There was no evidence of increased cessation rates from feedback on risk exposure, consisting mainly of feedback on CO measurement, in five pooled trials (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.21; I2 = 0%; n = 2368). Feedback on smoking-related disease risk, including four studies testing feedback on genetic markers for cancer risk and one study with feedback on genetic markers for risk of Crohn's disease, did not show a benefit in smoking cessation (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.01; I2 = 0%; n = 2064). Feedback on smoking-related harm, including nine studies testing spirometry with or without feedback on lung age and two studies on feedback on carotid ultrasound, also did not show a benefit (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.61; I2 = 34%; n = 3314). Only one study directly compared multiple forms of measurement with a single form of measurement, and did not detect a significant difference in effect between measurement of CO plus genetic susceptibility to lung cancer and measurement of CO only (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.56; n = 189).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is little evidence about the effects of biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation. The most promising results relate to spirometry and carotid ultrasound, where moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision and risk of bias, did not detect a statistically significant benefit, but confidence intervals very narrowly missed one, and the point estimate favoured the intervention. A sensitivity analysis removing those studies at high risk of bias did detect a benefit. Moderate-certainty evidence limited by risk of bias did not detect an effect of feedback on smoking exposure by CO monitoring. Low-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias and imprecision, did not detect a benefit from feedback on smoking-related risk by genetic marker testing. There is insufficient evidence with which to evaluate the hypothesis that multiple types of assessment are more effective than single forms of assessment.

Associations Between Cardiovascular Risk Factors, Inflammation, and Progression of Carotid Atherosclerosis Among Smokers

INTRODUCTION

The high risk of cardiovascular events in smokers requires adequate control of other cardiovascular risk factors (CVRFs) to curtail atherosclerosis progression. However, it is unclear which CVRFs have the most influence on atherosclerosis progression in smokers.

METHODS

In 260 smokers aged 40-70 included in a smoking cessation trial, we analyzed the association between traditional CVRFs, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), smoking cessation and 3-year progression of carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT, assessed by repeated ultrasound measurements) in a longitudinal multivariate model.

RESULTS

Participants (mean age 52 years, 47% women) had a mean smoking duration of 32 years with a median daily consumption of 20 cigarettes. Baseline CIMT was 1185 μm (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1082-1287) and increased by 93 μm (95% CI: 25-161) and 108 μm (95% CI: 33-183) after 1 and 3 years, respectively. Age, male sex, daily cigarette consumption, systolic blood pressure (SBP), but neither low-density lipoprotein cholesterol nor hs-CRP, were independently associated with baseline CIMT (all P ≤ .05). Baseline SBP, but neither low-density lipoprotein cholesterol nor hs-CRP, was associated with 3-year atherosclerosis progression (P = .01 at 3 years). The higher the SBP at baseline, the steeper was the CIMT increase over 3-year follow-up. We found an increase of 26 μm per each 10-mmHg raise in SBP at 1 year and an increase of 39 μm per each 10 mmHg raise in SBP at 3 years. Due to insufficient statistical power, we could not exclude an effect of smoking abstinence on CIMT progression.

CONCLUSION

Control of blood pressure may be an important factor to limit atherosclerosis progression in smokers, besides support for smoking cessation.

IMPLICATIONS

Among 260 smokers aged 40-70 years with a mean smoking duration of 32 years, baseline SBP was associated with atherosclerosis progression over 3 years, as measured by CIMT (P = .01 at 3 years), independently of smoking variables and other CVRFs. The higher the SBP at baseline, the steeper was the CIMT increase over 3-year follow-up. Our findings emphasize the importance of focusing not only on smoking cessation among smokers, but to simultaneously control other CVRFs, particularly blood pressure, in order to prevent future cardiovascular disease.

Waiting list randomized controlled trial within a case-finding design: methodological considerations

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are widely used in health care research to provide high-quality evidence of effectiveness of an intervention. However, sometimes a study does not require an RCT in order to answer its primary objective; a case-finding design may be more appropriate. The aim of this paper was to introduce a new study design that nests a waiting list RCT within a case-finding study.

METHODS

An example of the new study design is the DOC Study, which primarily aims to determine the diagnostic accuracy of lung function tests for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. It also investigates the impact of lung function tests on smoking behaviour through use of a waiting list design. The first step of the study design is to obtain participants' consent. Individuals are then randomized to one of two groups; either the 'intervention now' group or the 'intervention later' group, that is, participants are placed on a waiting list. All participants receive the same intervention; the only difference between the groups is the timing of the intervention.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

The design addresses patient preference issues and recruitment issues that can arise in other trial designs. Potential limitations include differential attrition between study groups and potential demoralization for the 'intervention later' group. The 'waiting list case-finding trial' design is a valuable method that could be applied to case-finding studies; the design enables the case-finding component of a study to be maintained while simultaneously exploring additional hypotheses through conducting a trial.

Biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

A possible strategy for increasing smoking cessation rates could be to provide smokers who have contact with healthcare systems with feedback on the biomedical or potential future effects of smoking, e.g. measurement of exhaled carbon monoxide (CO), lung function, or genetic susceptibility to lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of biomedical risk assessment provided in addition to various levels of counselling, as a contributing aid to smoking cessation.

SEARCH METHODS

For the most recent update, we searched the Cochrane Collaboration Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register in July 2012 for studies added since the last update in 2009.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Inclusion criteria were: a randomized controlled trial design; subjects participating in smoking cessation interventions; interventions based on a biomedical test to increase motivation to quit; control groups receiving all other components of intervention; an outcome of smoking cessation rate at least six months after the start of the intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two assessors independently conducted data extraction on each paper, with disagreements resolved by consensus. Results were expressed as a relative risk (RR) for smoking cessation with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where appropriate, a pooled effect was estimated using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect method.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 trials using a variety of biomedical tests. Two pairs of trials had sufficiently similar recruitment, setting and interventions to calculate a pooled effect; there was no evidence that carbon monoxide (CO) measurement in primary care (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.32) or spirometry in primary care (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.81) increased cessation rates. We did not pool the other 11 trials due to the presence of substantial clinical heterogeneity. Of the remaining 11 trials, two trials detected statistically significant benefits: one trial in primary care detected a significant benefit of lung age feedback after spirometry (RR 2.12, 95% CI 1.24 to 3.62) and one trial that used ultrasonography of carotid and femoral arteries and photographs of plaques detected a benefit (RR 2.77, 95% CI 1.04 to 7.41) but enrolled a population of light smokers and was judged to be at unclear risk of bias in two domains. Nine further trials did not detect significant effects. One of these tested CO feedback alone and CO combined with genetic susceptibility as two different interventions; none of the three possible comparisons detected significant effects. One trial used CO measurement, one used ultrasonography of carotid arteries and two tested for genetic markers. The four remaining trials used a combination of CO and spirometry feedback in different settings.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is little evidence about the effects of most types of biomedical tests for risk assessment on smoking cessation. Of the fifteen included studies, only two detected a significant effect of the intervention. Spirometry combined with an interpretation of the results in terms of 'lung age' had a significant effect in a single good quality trial but the evidence is not optimal. A trial of carotid plaque screening using ultrasound also detected a significant effect, but a second larger study of a similar feedback mechanism did not detect evidence of an effect. Only two pairs of studies were similar enough in terms of recruitment, setting, and intervention to allow meta-analyses; neither of these found evidence of an effect. Mixed quality evidence does not support the hypothesis that other types of biomedical risk assessment increase smoking cessation in comparison to standard treatment. There is insufficient evidence with which to evaluate the hypothesis that multiple types of assessment are more effective than single forms of assessment.

General health checks in adults for reducing morbidity and mortality from disease

BACKGROUND

General health checks are common elements of health care in some countries. These aim to detect disease and risk factors for disease with the purpose of reducing morbidity and mortality. Most of the commonly used screening tests offered in general health checks have been incompletely studied. Also, screening leads to increased use of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions, which can be harmful as well as beneficial. It is, therefore, important to assess whether general health checks do more good than harm.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to quantify the benefits and harms of general health checks with an emphasis on patient-relevant outcomes such as morbidity and mortality rather than on surrogate outcomes such as blood pressure and serum cholesterol levels.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched The Cochrane Library, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Healthstar, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) to July 2012. Two authors screened titles and abstracts, assessed papers for eligibility and read reference lists. One author used citation tracking (Web of Knowledge) and asked trialists about additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials comparing health checks with no health checks in adults unselected for disease or risk factors. We did not include geriatric trials. We defined health checks as screening general populations for more than one disease or risk factor in more than one organ system.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in the trials. We contacted authors for additional outcomes or trial details when necessary. For mortality outcomes we analysed the results with random-effects model meta-analysis, and for other outcomes we did a qualitative synthesis as meta-analysis was not feasible.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 16 trials, 14 of which had available outcome data (182,880 participants). Nine trials provided data on total mortality (155,899 participants, 11,940 deaths), median follow-up time nine years, giving a risk ratio of 0.99 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 1.03). Eight trials provided data on cardiovascular mortality (152,435 participants, 4567 deaths), risk ratio 1.03 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.17) and eight trials on cancer mortality (139,290 participants, 3663 deaths), risk ratio 1.01 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.12). Subgroup and sensitivity analyses did not alter these findings.We did not find an effect on clinical events or other measures of morbidity but one trial found an increased occurrence of hypertension and hypercholesterolaemia with screening and one trial found an increased occurence of self-reported chronic disease. One trial found a 20% increase in the total number of new diagnoses per participant over six years compared to the control group. No trials compared the total number of prescriptions, but two out of four trials found an increased number of people using antihypertensive drugs. Two out of four trials found small beneficial effects on self-reported health, but this could be due to reporting bias as the trials were not blinded. We did not find an effect on admission to hospital, disability, worry, additional visits to the physician, or absence from work, but most of these outcomes were poorly studied. We did not find useful results on the number of referrals to specialists, the number of follow-up tests after positive screening results, or the amount of surgery.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

General health checks did not reduce morbidity or mortality, neither overall nor for cardiovascular or cancer causes, although the number of new diagnoses was increased. Important harmful outcomes, such as the number of follow-up diagnostic procedures or short term psychological effects, were often not studied or reported and many trials had methodological problems. With the large number of participants and deaths included, the long follow-up periods used, and considering that cardiovascular and cancer mortality were not reduced, general health checks are unlikely to be beneficial.

Atherosclerosis screening by noninvasive imaging for cardiovascular prevention: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Noninvasive imaging of atherosclerosis is being increasingly used in clinical practice, with some experts recommending to screen all healthy adults for atherosclerosis and some jurisdictions mandating insurance coverage for atherosclerosis screening. Data on the impact of such screening have not been systematically synthesized.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to assess whether atherosclerosis screening improves cardiovascular risk factors (CVRF) and clinical outcomes.

DESIGN

This study is a systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

We searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Clinical Trial Register without language restrictions.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included studies examining the impact of atherosclerosis screening with noninvasive imaging (e.g., carotid ultrasound, coronary calcification) on CVRF, cardiovascular events, or mortality in adults without cardiovascular disease.

RESULTS

We identified four randomized controlled trials (RCT, n=709) and eight non-randomized studies comparing participants with evidence of atherosclerosis on screening to those without (n=2,994). In RCTs, atherosclerosis screening did not improve CVRF, but smoking cessation rates increased (18% vs. 6%, p=0.03) in one RCT. Non-randomized studies found improvements in several intermediate outcomes, such as increased motivation to change lifestyle and increased perception of cardiovascular risk. However, such data were conflicting and limited by the lack of a randomized control group. No studies examined the impact of screening on cardiovascular events or mortality. Heterogeneity in screening methods and studied outcomes did not permit pooling of results.

CONCLUSION

Available evidence about atherosclerosis screening is limited, with mixed results on CVRF control, increased smoking cessation in one RCT, and no data on cardiovascular events. Such screening should be validated by large clinical trials before widespread use.

Visual feedback of individuals' medical imaging results for changing health behaviour

BACKGROUND

Feedback of medical imaging results can reveal visual evidence of actual bodily harm attributable to a given behaviour. This may offer a particularly promising approach to motivating changes in health behaviour to decrease risk. Applicable behaviours include smoking cessation, skin self-examination, sun protection behaviour, dietary intake, physical activity and medication usage. The current review assembles and evaluates the evidence concerning the behavioural impact of showing and explaining images, in order to determine whether their communication is an effective intervention approach.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the extent to which feedback to individuals of images of their own bodies created during medical imaging procedures increases or decreases a range of health behaviours.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 3 2009), MEDLINE (1950 to 14 September 2009), EMBASE (1980 to 14 September 2009), CINAHL (1982 to 9 October 2009), PsycINFO (1806 to 14 September 2009) and reference lists of articles. We also contacted authors of selected papers, and searched the ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database on 1 October 2009 for grey literature.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials involving adult (18 years and over) non-pregnant individuals undergoing medical imaging procedures assessing risk of disease or of an existing condition, for which personal risk may be reduced by modification of behaviour. The sole or principal component of included interventions is visual feedback of individuals' medical imaging results, defined as individuals being shown, and having explained, source images (still or moving images) of their bodies generated by the procedure.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors searched for studies and independently extracted data from included studies, with disagreements resolved by consensus and a third author acting as arbiter. The risk of bias of included studies was assessed and reported in accordance with the guidelines in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We conducted a narrative synthesis of the included studies, dividing them into clinical and non-clinical population groups and presenting major characteristics and results. Where the studies were sufficiently similar in terms of population, inclusion criteria, interventions and/or outcomes, we pooled the data statistically.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine trials involving 1371 participants. Overall, results were mixed. Regarding five trials in clinical populations, three assessed smoking cessation behaviours, all featuring arterial scanning procedures to assess cardiovascular risk, and reported a statistically significant effect favouring the intervention, producing a pooled odds ratio (OR) of 2.81 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.23 to 6.41, P = 0.01). One of these trials also measured physical activity and reported no statistically significant difference between the groups. A further trial measured skin examination behaviour following a skin photography procedure for assessing moles, and reported a statistically significant increase in favour of the intervention, with an OR of 4.86 (95% CI 1.95 to 12.10, P = 0.0007). The final clinical population trial measured a range of dietary intake and medication usage behaviours and featured an arterial scanning procedure assessing cardiovascular risk, and reported no statistically significant effects.Among the four trials in non-clinical populations, all featuring ultraviolet (UV) photography to highlight UV-related skin damage, a statistically significant result favouring the intervention was found in one trial for reducing tanning booth use, producing a mean difference (MD) of -1.10 (95% CI -1.90 to -0.30, P = .007) and one trial reported an outcome on which the control condition was favoured, with an MD of 0.45 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.86, P = 0.03) on intentional hours spent in the sun. In two further trials, no statistically significant behavioral effects were reported regarding time spent in the sun or sun protection behaviours.There was no evidence of significant adverse effects in the included trials, although this was not well reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Due to the limited nature of the available evidence and the mixed results that were found, no strong statements can be made about the effectiveness of communicating medical imaging results to change health behaviour. Only three trials in clinical populations were similar enough in term of setting, intervention and outcome to allow meta-analysis. We suggest, however, that targeted interventions using medical imaging technologies may be effective in certain contexts, or as applied to certain behaviours, but that this should be considered on an intervention by intervention basis, and not assumed as a general principle.