Role of Experience With Preventive Medication and Personal Risk Attitude in Non-Attendance at Triple Vascular Screening

The association between diabetes and abdominal aortic aneurysms in men: results of two Danish screening studies, a systematic review, and a meta-analysis of population-based screening studies

BACKGROUND

A paradoxical protective effect of diabetes on the development and progression of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) has been known for years. This study aimed to investigate whether the protective role of diabetes on AAAs has evolved over the years.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study, a systematic review and meta-analysis. This study was based on two large, population-based, randomised screening trials of men aged 65-74; VIVA (2008-2011) and DANCAVAS (2014-2018), including measurement of the abdominal aorta by ultrasound or CT, respectively. Analyses were performed using multiple logistic regressions to estimate the odds ratios (ORs) for AAAs in men with diabetes compared to those not having diabetes. Moreover, a systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based screening studies of AAAs to visualise a potential change of the association between diabetes and AAAs. Studies reporting only on women or Asian populations were excluded.

RESULTS

In VIVA, the prevalence of AAA was 3.3%, crude OR for AAA in men with diabetes 1.04 (95% confidence interval, CI, 0.80-1.34), and adjusted OR 0.64 (CI 0.48-0.84). In DANCAVAS, the prevalence of AAA was 4.2%, crude OR 1.44 (CI 1.11-1.87), and adjusted OR 0.78 (CI 0.59-1.04). Twenty-three studies were identified for the meta-analysis (N = 224 766). The overall crude OR was 0.90 (CI 0.77-1.05) before 2000 and 1.16 (CI 1.03-1.30) after 1999. The overall adjusted OR was 0.63 (CI 0.59-0.69) before 2000 and 0.69 (CI 0.57-0.84) after 1999.

CONCLUSION

Both the crude and adjusted OR showed a statistically non-significant trend towards an increased risk of AAA by the presence of diabetes. If this represents an actual trend, it could be due to a change in the diabetes population.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

DANCAVAS: Current Controlled Trials: ISRCTN12157806. VIVA: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00662480.

Prevalence and extent of coronary artery calcification in the middle-aged and elderly population

AIMS

Coronary artery calcification (CAC) measured on cardiac computed tomography (CT) is an important risk marker for cardiovascular disease (CVD) and has been included in the prevention guidelines. The aim of this study was to describe CAC score reference values in the middle-aged and elderly population and to develop a freely available CAC calculator.

METHODS AND RESULTS

All participants from two population-based cardiac CT screening cohorts (DanRisk and DANCAVAS) were included. The CAC score was measured as a part of a screening session. Positive CAC scores were log-transformed and non-parametrically regressed on age for each gender, and percentile curves were transposed according to proportions of zero CAC scores. Men had higher CAC scores than women, and the prevalence and extend of CAC increased steadily with age. An online CAC calculator was developed, http://flscripts.dk/cacscore. After entering sex, age, and CAC score, the CAC score percentile and the coronary age are depicted including a figure with the specific CAC score and 25%, 50%, 75%, and 90% percentiles. The specific CAC score can be compared to the entire background population or only those without prior CVD.

CONCLUSION

This study provides modern population-based reference values of CAC scores in men and woman and a freely accessible online CAC calculator. Physicians and patients are very familiar with blood pressure and lipids, but unfamiliar with CAC scores. Using the calculator makes it easy to see if a CAC value is low, moderate, or high, when a physician in the future communicate and discusses a CAC score with a patient.

Role of risk attitude and time preference in preventive aspirin use adherence

BACKGROUND

Poor adherence to medication that is taken chronically for the prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) continues to occur. Poor adherence is a primary barrier to treatment success and affects not only the patient but also the health care system.

OBJECTIVE

We aim to explore the impacts of risk attitudes and time preferences on the decisions of patients to begin and comply with aspirin therapy for CVD prevention.

METHODS

Three hundred fifty-seven patients who used low-dose aspirin for CVD prevention under the guidance of their doctors completed the survey. The risk attitudes and time preferences of the patients were elicited using a multiple price list experiment. Logistic regression models were used to examine the predictors of adherence to aspirin use.

RESULTS

Risk-seeking behaviours were significantly associated with both nonparticipation (P < .01) and lower compliance (P < .05) in patients. The coefficient for time preference was only significant at the 0.05 level for the decision to initiate aspirin use, which indicated that more impatient patients were less likely to begin with the use of aspirin. Forgetfulness in using aspirin on time and a lack of knowledge (as well as a lack of belief in the use of aspirin) could largely explain the poor adherence to aspirin therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The identification of risk seekers and of those individuals who discount the future to a lesser degree may help providers to formulate tailored strategies to their patients, thus effectively enhancing their adherence to treatment.

Pharmacological Preventive Potential Among Attenders at Vascular Screening: Findings from the VIVA Trial

OBJECTIVE

Findings from the Viborg Vascular (VIVA) trial show a mortality benefit of multi-faceted vascular screening which was mainly ascribed to the initiation of prophylactic medication. However, the pharmacological preventive potential, which exists when individuals have a positive screening test result and do not already use statins and anti-platelet agents, has not been analysed. The aim of this study was to investigate factors associated with a pharmacological preventive potential of statins and anti-platelet agents among attenders vascular screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) and peripheral arterial disease (PAD).

METHODS

This cross-sectional study used data from the VIVA trial screening arm including 25 074 men aged 64-75 years recruited between October 2008 and January 2011. Explanatory variables comprised socio-demographic- and socio-economic characteristics, comorbidities, medication use, and travel distance derived from nationwide registries. Outcomes included a positive screening test result, a pharmacological preventive potential, and attendance. Associations between the explanatory variables and the outcomes were investigated using the chi-square test and multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

The factors most likely to be associated with a pharmacological preventive potential for positive AAA screening comprised age >70 years (odds ratio (OR) 1.23, 95% confidence interval 1.00-1.51), existing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (OR 2.22, 95% CI 1.38-3.57), and use of anti-hypertensives (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.09-1.71). For positive PAD screening age >70 years (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.25-1.60), living alone (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.14-1.56), low income, COPD (OR 2.13, 95% CI 159-283), use of anti-hypertensives (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.00-1.29) or anti-diabetics (OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.01-1.28), and short travel distance were associated with a pharmacological preventive potential. For combined vascular screening, age >70 years, living alone, low income, COPD, and use of anti-hypertensives were associated with a pharmacological preventive potential. Among these subgroups, lower attendance was associated with age >70 years, living alone, low income, COPD, and use of anti-diabetics.

CONCLUSION

Future vascular screening programmes might benefit from tailoring information to subgroups who are more likely to benefit from screening but less likely to accept an offer.

Factors influencing harmonized health data collection, sharing and linkage in Denmark and Switzerland: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

The digitalization of medicine has led to a considerable growth of heterogeneous health datasets, which could improve healthcare research if integrated into the clinical life cycle. This process requires, amongst other things, the harmonization of these datasets, which is a prerequisite to improve their quality, re-usability and interoperability. However, there is a wide range of factors that either hinder or favor the harmonized collection, sharing and linkage of health data.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aims to identify barriers and facilitators to health data harmonization-including data sharing and linkage-by a comparative analysis of studies from Denmark and Switzerland.

METHODS

Publications from PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE and CINAHL involving cross-institutional or cross-border collection, sharing or linkage of health data from Denmark or Switzerland were searched to identify the reported barriers and facilitators to data harmonization.

RESULTS

Of the 345 projects included, 240 were single-country and 105 were multinational studies. Regarding national projects, a Swiss study reported on average more barriers and facilitators than a Danish study. Barriers and facilitators of a technical nature were most frequently reported.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review gathered evidence from Denmark and Switzerland on barriers and facilitators concerning data harmonization, sharing and linkage. Barriers and facilitators were strictly interrelated with the national context where projects were carried out. Structural changes, such as legislation implemented at the national level, were mirrored in the projects. This underlines the impact of national strategies in the field of health data. Our findings also suggest that more openness and clarity in the reporting of both barriers and facilitators to data harmonization constitute a key element to promote the successful management of new projects using health data and the implementation of proper policies in this field. Our study findings are thus meaningful beyond these two countries.

Do Non-participants at Screening have a Different Threshold for an Acceptable Benefit-Harm Ratio than Participants? Results of a Discrete Choice Experiment

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study was to investigate non-participants' preferences for cardiovascular disease screening programme characteristics and whether non-participation can be rationally explained by differences in preferences, decision-making styles and informational needs between non-participants and participants.

METHODS

We conducted a discrete choice experiment at three screening sites between June and December 2017 among 371 male non-participants and 830 male participants who were asked to trade different levels of five key programme characteristics (chance of health benefit, risk of overtreatment, risk of later regret, screening duration and screening location). Data were analysed using a multinomial mixed-logit model. Health benefit was used as a payment vehicle for estimation of marginal substitution rates.

RESULTS

Non-participants were willing to accept that 0.127 (95% confidence interval 0.103-0.154) fewer lives would be saved to avoid overtreatment of one individual, whilst participants were willing to accept 0.085 (95% confidence interval 0.077-0.094) fewer lives saved. This translates into non-participants valuing health benefits 7.9 times higher than overtreatment. The corresponding value of participants is 11.8. Similarly, non-participants had higher requirements than participants for advanced technology and a quicker screening duration. With regard to their participation decision, 64% of the non-participants felt certain about their choice compared with 89% among participants.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that non-participants have different preferences than participants at screening as they express relatively more concern about overtreatment and have higher requirements for a high-tech screening programme. Non-participants also report to be more uncertain about their participation decision and more often seek additional information to the standard information provided in the invitation letter. Further studies on informational needs and effective communication strategies are warranted to ensure that non-participation is a fully informed choice.