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

The 30-year cardiovascular risk trajectories and their independently associated factors in participants of a Brazilian cohort (CUME Study)

We aimed to analyze the different trajectories of 30-year cardiovascular risk (CVR) and its independently associated factors in participants of the CUME Study, a prospective study with alumni from federal universities of Minas Gerais State, Brazil. In this study, 1,286 participants who answered the baseline (2016) and follow-up (2018 and 2020) questionnaires were included. Trajectories of CVR, according to the Framingham score, were identified with the latent class growth modelling technique with the use of the censored normal model. Analysis of the factors independently associated with each of the trajectories was conducted with multinomial logistic regression technique. Three CVR trajectories were identified: Low-Low (68.3%), Medium-Medium (26.2%), and High-High (5.5%). Male sex, living in a stable union, and having moderate and high intakes of ultra-processed foods were positively associated with the Medium-Medium and High-High CVR trajectories. Having non-healthcare professional training and working were positively associated with the Medium-Medium CVR trajectory, whereas being physically active was negatively associated with the High-High CVR trajectory. In conclusion, more than one-third of participants had CVR trajectories in the Medium-Medium and High-High categories. Food consumption and physical activity are modifiable factors that were associated with these trajectories; thus, implementing health promotion measures could help prevent the persistence or worsen of CVR. On the other hand, sociodemographic and labor characteristics are non-modifiable factors that were associated with Medium-Medium and High-High trajectories, which could help identify people who should be monitored with more caution by health services.

From guidelines to decision aids and adherence supports: Insights from the process of evidence translation

OBJECTIVE

To explore the evidence-translator's experience of the expert-recommended process of translating guidelines into tools for decision making, action, and adherence with the goal of improvement.

METHODS

A single reviewer dual reviewed the content, quality, certainty, and applicability of primary atherosclerotic cardiovascular prevention guidelines from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force at the time of this work and used targeted searches of Medline to define the ideal structure and outcomes of tools; fill in gaps in guidelines; identify end-user needs; and choose and optimize existing tools in preparation for testing.

RESULTS

Guidelines addressed screening, treatments, and/or supports, but never the combination of all three. None provided all of the information needed for evidence translation. Searches in Medline filled in some evidence gaps and provided key insights into end-user needs and effective tools. However, evidence translators are left with complicated decisions about how to use and align evidence.

CONCLUSION

Guidelines provide some, but not all, of the evidence needed for evidence translation, requiring additional intensive work. Evidence gaps result in complicated decisions about how to use and align evidence and balance feasibility and rigor.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Guidelines, standards groups, and researchers should work to better support the process of evidence translation.

ATHEROSCLEROTIC CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE RISK ASSESSMENT: An American Society for Preventive Cardiology Clinical Practice Statement

Risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) shows considerable heterogeneity both in generally healthy persons and in those with known ASCVD. The foundation of preventive cardiology begins with assessing baseline ASCVD risk using global risk scores based on standard office-based measures. Persons at low risk are generally recommended for lifestyle management only and those at highest risk are recommended for both lifestyle and pharmacologic therapy. Additional “risk enhancing” factors, including both traditional risk factors and novel biomarkers and inflammatory factors can be used to further assess ASCVD risk, especially in those at borderline or intermediate risk. There are also female-specific risk enhancers, social determinants of health, and considerations for high-risk ethnic groups. Screening for subclinical atherosclerosis, especially with the use of coronary calcium screening, can further inform the treatment decision if uncertain based on the above strategies. Persons with pre-existing ASCVD also have variable risk, affected by the number of major ASCVD events, whether recurrent events have occurred recently, and the presence of other major risk factors or high-risk conditions. Current guidelines define high to very high risk ASCVD accordingly. Accurate ASCVD risk assessment is crucial for the appropriate targeting of preventive therapies to reduce ASCVD risk. Finally, the clinician-patient risk discussion focusing on lifestyle management and the risks and benefits of evidence-based pharmacologic therapies to best lower ASCVD risk is central to this process. This clinical practice statement provides the preventive cardiology specialist with guidance and tools for assessment of ASCVD risk with the goal of appropriately targeting treatment approaches for prevention of ASCVD events.

Interventions Using Heart Age for Cardiovascular Disease Risk Communication: Systematic Review of Psychological, Behavioral, and Clinical Effects

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk communication is a challenge for clinical practice, where physicians find it difficult to explain the absolute risk of a CVD event to patients with varying health literacy. Converting the probability to heart age is increasingly used to promote lifestyle change, but a rapid review of biological age interventions found no clear evidence that they motivate behavior change.

OBJECTIVE

In this review, we aim to identify the content and effects of heart age interventions.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of studies presenting heart age interventions to adults for CVD risk communication in April 2020 (later updated in March 2021). The Johanna Briggs risk of bias assessment tool was applied to randomized studies. Behavior change techniques described in the intervention methods were coded.

RESULTS

From a total of 7926 results, 16 eligible studies were identified; these included 5 randomized web-based experiments, 5 randomized clinical trials, 2 mixed methods studies with quantitative outcomes, and 4 studies with qualitative analysis. Direct comparisons between heart age and absolute risk in the 5 web-based experiments, comprising 5514 consumers, found that heart age increased positive or negative emotional responses (4/5 studies), increased risk perception (4/5 studies; but not necessarily more accurate) and recall (4/4 studies), reduced credibility (2/3 studies), and generally had no effect on lifestyle intentions (4/5 studies). One study compared heart age and absolute risk to fitness age and found reduced lifestyle intentions for fitness age. Heart age combined with additional strategies (eg, in-person or phone counseling) in applied settings for 9582 patients improved risk control (eg, reduced cholesterol levels and absolute risk) compared with usual care in most trials (4/5 studies) up to 1 year. However, clinical outcomes were no different when directly compared with absolute risk (1/1 study). Mixed methods studies identified consultation time and content as important outcomes in actual consultations using heart age tools. There were differences between people receiving an older heart age result and those receiving a younger or equal to current heart age result. The heart age interventions included a wide range of behavior change techniques, and conclusions were sometimes biased in favor of heart age with insufficient supporting evidence. The risk of bias assessment indicated issues with all randomized clinical trials.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this review provide little evidence that heart age motivates lifestyle behavior change more than absolute risk, but either format can improve clinical outcomes when combined with other behavior change strategies. The label for the heart age concept can affect outcomes and should be pretested with the intended audience. Future research should consider consultation time and differentiate between results of older and younger heart age.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

NPRR2-10.1101/2020.05.03.20089938.

Interventions Using Heart Age for Cardiovascular Disease Risk Communication: Systematic Review of Psychological, Behavioral, and Clinical Effects

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk communication is a challenge for clinical practice, where physicians find it difficult to explain the absolute risk of a CVD event to patients with varying health literacy. Converting the probability to heart age is increasingly used to promote lifestyle change, but a rapid review of biological age interventions found no clear evidence that they motivate behavior change.

OBJECTIVE

In this review, we aim to identify the content and effects of heart age interventions.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of studies presenting heart age interventions to adults for CVD risk communication in April 2020 (later updated in March 2021). The Johanna Briggs risk of bias assessment tool was applied to randomized studies. Behavior change techniques described in the intervention methods were coded.

RESULTS

From a total of 7926 results, 16 eligible studies were identified; these included 5 randomized web-based experiments, 5 randomized clinical trials, 2 mixed methods studies with quantitative outcomes, and 4 studies with qualitative analysis. Direct comparisons between heart age and absolute risk in the 5 web-based experiments, comprising 5514 consumers, found that heart age increased positive or negative emotional responses (4/5 studies), increased risk perception (4/5 studies; but not necessarily more accurate) and recall (4/4 studies), reduced credibility (2/3 studies), and generally had no effect on lifestyle intentions (4/5 studies). One study compared heart age and absolute risk to fitness age and found reduced lifestyle intentions for fitness age. Heart age combined with additional strategies (eg, in-person or phone counseling) in applied settings for 9582 patients improved risk control (eg, reduced cholesterol levels and absolute risk) compared with usual care in most trials (4/5 studies) up to 1 year. However, clinical outcomes were no different when directly compared with absolute risk (1/1 study). Mixed methods studies identified consultation time and content as important outcomes in actual consultations using heart age tools. There were differences between people receiving an older heart age result and those receiving a younger or equal to current heart age result. The heart age interventions included a wide range of behavior change techniques, and conclusions were sometimes biased in favor of heart age with insufficient supporting evidence. The risk of bias assessment indicated issues with all randomized clinical trials.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this review provide little evidence that heart age motivates lifestyle behavior change more than absolute risk, but either format can improve clinical outcomes when combined with other behavior change strategies. The label for the heart age concept can affect outcomes and should be pretested with the intended audience. Future research should consider consultation time and differentiate between results of older and younger heart age.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

NPRR2-10.1101/2020.05.03.20089938.

Trajectories of cardiovascular disease risk and their association with the incidence of cardiovascular events over 18 years of follow-up: The Tehran Lipid and Glucose study

BACKGROUND

Understanding long-term patterns (trajectories) of cardiovascular diseases (CVD) risk and identifying different sub-groups with the same underlying risk patterns could help facilitate targeted cardiovascular prevention programs.

METHODS

A total of 3699 participants of the Tehran Lipid and Glucose Study (TLGS) (43% men, mean age = 53.2 years), free of CVD at baseline in 1999-2001 and attending at least one re-examination cycle between the second (2002-2005) and fourth cycles (2009-2011) were included. We examined trajectories of CVD risk, based on the ACC/AHA pooled cohort equation, over ten years and subsequent risks of incident CVD during eight years later. We estimated trajectories of CVD risk using group-based trajectory modeling. The prospective association of identified trajectories with CVD was examined using Cox proportional hazard model.

RESULTS

Three distinct trajectories were identified (low-low, medium-medium, and high-high risk). The high-high and medium-medium CVD risk trajectories had an increasing trend of risk during the time; still, this rising trend was disappeared after removing the effect of increasing age. Upon a median 8.4 years follow-up, 146 CVD events occurred. After adjusting for age, the medium-medium and high-high trajectories had a 2.4-fold (95% CI 1.46-3.97) and 3.46-fold (95% CI 1.56-7.70) risk of CVD compared with the low-low group, respectively. In all trajectory groups, unfavorable increasing in fasting glucose, but favorable raising in HDL and decreasing smoking and total cholesterol happened over time.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the risk trajectories were stable during the time, different risk factors varied differently in each trajectory. These findings emphasize the importance of attention to each risk factor separately and implementing preventive strategies that optimize CVD risk factors besides the CVD risk.

Benefits and Harms of Hypertension and High-Normal Labels: A Randomized Experiment

BACKGROUND

Recent US guidelines lowered the threshold for diagnosing hypertension while other international guidelines use alternative/no labels for the same group (blood pressure [BP], <140/90 mm Hg). We investigated potential benefits and harms of hypertension and high-normal BP labels, compared with control, among people at lower risk of cardiovascular disease.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized experiment using a national sample of Australians (n=1318) 40 to 50 years of age recruited from an online panel. Participants were randomized to 1 of 3 hypothetical scenarios where a general practitioner told them they had a BP reading of 135/85 mm Hg, using either hypertension/high-normal BP/control (general BP description) labels. Participants were then randomized to receive an additional absolute risk description or nothing. Primary outcomes were willingness to change diet and worry. Secondary outcomes included exercise/medication intentions, risk perceptions, and other psychosocial outcomes.

RESULTS

There was no difference in willingness to change diet across label groups (P=0.22). The hypertension label (mean difference [MD], 0.74 [95% CI, 0.41-1.06]; P<0.001) and high-normal BP label (MD, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.12-0.78]; P=0.008) had increased worry about cardiovascular disease risk compared with control. There was no evidence that either label increased willingness to exercise (P=0.80). However, the hypertension (MD, 0.20 [95% CI, 0.04-0.36]; P=0.014), but not high-normal label (MD, 0.06 [95% CI, -0.10 to 0.21]; P=0.49), increased willingness to accept BP-lowering medication compared with control. Psychosocial differences including lower control, higher risk perceptions, and more negative affect were found for the hypertension and high-normal labels compared with control. Providing absolute risk information decreased willingness to change diet (MD, 0.25 [95% CI, 0.10-0.41]; P=0.001) and increase exercise (MD, 0.28 [95% CI, 0.11-0.45]; P=0.001) in the hypertension group.

CONCLUSIONS

Neither hypertension nor high-normal labels motivated participants to change their diet or exercise more than control, but both labels had adverse psychosocial outcomes. Labeling people with systolic BP of 130 to 140 mm Hg, who are otherwise at low risk of cardiovascular disease, may cause harms that outweigh benefit. Registration: URL: http://www.anzctr.org.au/; Unique identifier: ACTRN12618001700224.

Gambling With Cardiovascular Disease Risk Models: How to Choose and How to Use

Cardiovascular risk assessment has been shown to improve physicians' and patients' understanding of an individual's future risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). It has also been shown to improve the management of cardiovascular risk factors including hypertension and dyslipidemia. Given the challenges of engaging patients to adhere to healthy lifestyle habits or take medications for hypertension and dyslipidemia, the primary role of CVD risk assessment should be to open a discussion about the patient's risk for CVD and associated conditions like adult-onset diabetes. Calculating a patient's long-term risk and estimating the benefits of lifestyle changes or risk factor management may then be used to support long-term patient adherence. However, risk assessment is only a first step and must be followed by evidence-based health-promotion strategies and risk factor medications that have been proven to work.

Factors predicting statin prescribing for primary prevention: a historical cohort study

Background

Initiation of statins for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) should be based on CVD risk estimates, but their use is suboptimal.

Aim

To investigate the factors influencing statin prescribing when clinicians code and do not code estimated CVD risk (QRISK2).

Design and setting

A historical cohort of patients who had lipid tests in a database (IQVIA Medical Research Data) of UK primary care records.

Method

The cohort comprised 686 560 entries (lipid test results) between 2012 and 2016 from 383 416 statin-naive patients without previous CVD. Coded QRISK2 scores were extracted, with variables used in calculating QRISK2 and factors that might influence statin prescribing. If a QRISK2 score was not coded, it was calculated post hoc. The outcome was initiation of a statin within 60 days of the lipid test result.

Results

Of the entries, 146 693 (21.4%) had a coded QRISK2 score. Statins were initiated in 6.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 6.4% to 6.7%) of those with coded and 4.1% (95% CI = 4.0% to 4.1%) of uncoded QRISK2 (P<0.001). Statin initiations were consistent with National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline recommendations in 85.0% (95% CI = 84.2% to 85.8%) of coded and 44.2% (95% CI = 43.5% to 44.9%) of uncoded QRISK2 groups (P<0.001). When coded, QRISK2 score was the main predictor of statin initiation, but total cholesterol was the main predictor when a QRISK2 score was not coded.

Conclusion

When a QRISK2 score is coded, prescribing is more consistent with guidelines. With no QRISK2 score, prescribing is mainly based on total cholesterol. Using QRISK2 is associated with statin prescribing that is more likely to benefit patients. Promoting the routine CVD risk estimation is essential to optimise decision making.

Design, methods, and reporting of impact studies of cardiovascular clinical prediction rules are suboptimal: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate design, methods, and reporting of impact studies of cardiovascular clinical prediction rules (CPRs).

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We conducted a systematic review. Impact studies of cardiovascular CPRs were identified by forward citation and electronic database searches. We categorized the design of impact studies as appropriate for randomized and nonrandomized experiments, excluding uncontrolled before-after study. For impact studies with appropriate study design, we assessed the quality of methods and reporting. We compared the quality of methods and reporting between impact and matched control studies.

RESULTS

We found 110 impact studies of cardiovascular CPRs. Of these, 65 (59.1%) used inappropriate designs. Of 45 impact studies with appropriate design, 31 (68.9%) had substantial risk of bias. Mean number of reporting domains that impact studies with appropriate study design adhered to was 10.2 of 21 domains (95% confidence interval, 9.3 and 11.1). The quality of methods and reporting was not clearly different between impact and matched control studies.

CONCLUSION

We found most impact studies either used inappropriate study design, had substantial risk of bias, or poorly complied with reporting guidelines. This appears to be a common feature of complex interventions. Users of CPRs should critically evaluate evidence showing the effectiveness of CPRs.

Cardiovascular Risk Calculators and their Applicability to South Asians

BACKGROUND

Estimation of absolute cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk and tailoring therapies according to the estimated risk is a fundamental concept in the primary prevention of CVD is assessed in this study. Numerous CVD risk scores are currently available for use in various populations but unfortunately, none exist for South Asians who have much higher CVD risk as compared to their western counterparts.

METHODS

A literature search was done using PubMed and Google search engines to prepare a narrative review on this topic.

RESULTS

Various currently available CVD risk scores and their pros and cons are summarized. The studies performed in native as well as migrant South Asians evaluating the accuracy of these risk scores for estimation of CVD risk are also summarized. The findings of these studies have generally been inconsistent, but it appears that the British risk scores (e.g. QRISK versions) may be more accurate because of inclusion of migrant South Asians in the derivation of these risk scores. However, the lack of any prospective study precludes our ability to draw any firm conclusions. Finally, the potential solution to these challenges, including the role of recalibration and subclinical atherosclerosis imaging, is also discussed.

CONCLUSION

This review highlights the need to develop large, representative, prospectively followed databases of South Asians providing information on various CVD risk factors and their contribution to incident CVD. Such databases will not only allow the development of validated CVD risk scores for South Asians but will also enable application of machine-learning approaches to provide personalized solutions to CVD risk assessment and management in these populations.

Cardiovascular risk assessment: The foundation of preventive cardiology

The foundation of preventive cardiology begins with knowing the patient's baseline cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk from which the patient-clinician risk discussion informs on the best ways to lower risk through lifestyle management, as well as a decision about the initiation and intensity of pharmacologic therapy. Global CVD risk assessment involves estimation of cardiovascular risk using a basic panel of risk factors. The Framingham Heart Study championed the first such risk scores, followed by others around the world. Most recently, the Pooled Cohort Equations (PCE) have been recommended in the United States as a starting point in CVD risk assessment. Persons at low (<5%) 10-year risk are generally recommended for lifestyle management only and those at highest (>20%) 10-year risk are recommended for both lifestyle and pharmacologic therapy to reduce risk. Assessing the presence of one or more "risk enhancing" factors is intended to inform the treatment decision in those at borderline (5-<7.5%) or intermediate (7.5-20%) risk, with the use of coronary calcium scores to further refine the treatment decision. Moreover, not all those with ASCVD are treated equal, and recent guidelines provide criteria for identifying those at very high risk. While current techniques best predict long-term risk of CVD events, biomarkers strategies are being developed to predict near-term events, and other imaging techniques such as coronary CT angiography and vascular MRI hold promise to identify vulnerable plaque. Validation and incorporating into clinical practice such state of the art techniques will be vital to moving CVD risk assessment to the next level.

Implementing cardiovascular disease prevention guidelines to translate evidence-based medicine and shared decision making into general practice: theory-based intervention development, qualitative piloting and quantitative feasibility

BACKGROUND

The use of cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention guidelines based on absolute risk assessment is poor around the world, including Australia. Behavioural barriers amongst GPs and patients include capability (e.g. difficulty communicating/understanding risk) and motivation (e.g. attitudes towards guidelines/medication). This paper outlines the theory-based development of a website for GP guidelines, and piloting of a new risk calculator/decision aid.

METHODS

Stage 1 involved identifying evidence-based solutions using the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) framework, informed by previous research involving 400 GPs and 600 patients/consumers. Stage 2 co-developed website content with GPs. Stage 3 piloted a prototype website at a national GP conference. Stage 4 iteratively improved the website based on "think aloud" interviews with GPs and patients. Stage 5 was a feasibility study to evaluate potential efficacy (guidelines-based recommendations for each risk category), acceptability (intended use) and demand (actual use over 1 month) amongst GPs (n = 98).

RESULTS

Stage 1 identified GPs as the target for behaviour change; the need for a new risk calculator/decision aid linked to existing audit and feedback training; and online guidelines as a delivery format. Stage 2-4 iteratively improved content and format based on qualitative feedback from GP and patient user testing over three rounds of website development. Stage 5 suggested potential efficacy with improved identification of hypothetical high risk patients (from 26 to 76%) and recommended medication (from 57 to 86%) after viewing the website (n = 42), but prescribing to low risk patients remained similar (from 19 to 22%; n = 37). Most GPs (89%) indicated they would use the website in the next month, and 72% reported using it again after one month (n = 98). Open feedback identified implementation barriers including a need for integration with medical software, low health literacy resources and pre-consultation assessment.

CONCLUSIONS

Following a theory-based development process and user co-design, the resulting intervention was acceptable to GPs with high intentions for use, improved identification of patient risk categories and more guidelines-based prescribing intentions for high risk but not low risk patients. The effectiveness of linking the intervention to clinical practice more closely to address implementation barriers will be evaluated in future research.

Association of Health Literacy Levels Between Family Members

Background: Health literacy (HL) is not solely an individual skill but a distributed resource available within individual's social networks. This study explored the associations between individual and family member HL using two separate self-report measures of HL: the European Health Literacy Survey Questionnaire (HLS-EU-Q47) and the Communicative and Critical Health Literacy scale (CCHL).

Methods: A self-administered questionnaire survey was conducted with 501 pairs of Japanese residents aged 30 to 79 and their family members whom they most often consulted for help with health issues. HL was measured using HLS-EU-Q47 and CCHL.

Results: The HL scores of individuals and their family members were positively correlated for both measures. The correlation was stronger for the HLS-EU-Q47, presumably because it measures the perceived manageability of health-related tasks that implicitly depend on the availability of support for an individual. In contrast, the CCHL measures a single individual's perceived abilities. Both individual and family member CCHL scores were independently related to individual HLS-EU-Q47 scores, particularly when an individual had a family member with a higher CCHL score than his/her own.

Conclusions: Limited individual ability to achieve health-related tasks might be compensated for by the higher ability of other family members. In addressing problems with limited health literacy, future studies should focus not only on the individual but also on people who can provide an individual with support.

Beginning with high value care in mind: A scoping review and toolkit to support the content, delivery, measurement, and sustainment of high value care

OBJECTIVE

To create a shared vision for the content, delivery, measurement, and sustainment of patient-centered high value care.

METHODS

We performed a scoping review and translated findings into toolkit for system leaders. For our scoping review, we searched Medline, 2005-November 2015, for literature on patient-centered care (PCC) and its relationship to a high value care change model. We supplemented searches with key author, Google Scholar, and key website searches. One author reviewed all titles, abstracts, and articles for inclusion; another reviewed a random 20%. To develop our toolkit, we translated evidence into simple, actionable briefs on key topics and added resources. We then iteratively circulated briefs and the overall toolkit to potential users, making updates as needed.

RESULTS

In our scoping review, we found multiple interventions and measures to support the components of PCC and our change model. We found little on the overall effects of PCC or how PCC creates value. Potential users reported our toolkit was simple, understandable, thorough, timely, and likely to be globally useful.

CONCLUSIONS

Considerable evidence supports patient-centered high value care and a toolkit garnered enthusiasm.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The toolkit is ready for use, but needs comparison to other approaches.

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. They aim to detect disease and risk factors for disease with the purpose of reducing morbidity and mortality. Most of the commonly used individual 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. This is the first update of the review published in 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the benefits and harms of general health checks.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases and two trials registers on 31 January 2018. Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts, assessed papers for eligibility and read reference lists. One review author used citation tracking (Web of Knowledge) and asked trial authors 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 for more than one disease or risk factor in more than one organ system.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in the trials. We contacted trial authors for additional outcomes or trial details when necessary. When possible, we analysed the results with a random-effects model meta-analysis; otherwise, we did a narrative synthesis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 trials, 15 of which reported outcome data (251,891 participants). Risk of bias was generally low for our primary outcomes. Health checks have little or no effect on total mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.03; 11 trials; 233,298 participants and 21,535 deaths; high-certainty evidence, I² = 0%), or cancer mortality (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.12; 8 trials; 139,290 participants and 3663 deaths; high-certainty evidence, I² = 33%), and probably have little or no effect on cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.16; 9 trials; 170,227 participants and 6237 deaths; moderate-certainty evidence; I² = 65%). Health checks have little or no effect on fatal and non-fatal ischaemic heart disease (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.03; 4 trials; 164,881 persons, 10,325 events; high-certainty evidence; I² = 11%), and probably have little or no effect on fatal and non-fatal stroke (RR 1.05 95% CI 0.95 to 1.17; 3 trials; 107,421 persons, 4543 events; moderate-certainty evidence, I² = 53%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

General health checks are unlikely to be beneficial.

Effect of using cardiovascular risk scoring in routine risk assessment in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: an overview of systematic reviews

Background

Our objectives were to critically appraise and summarise the current evidence for the effectiveness of using cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk scoring (total risk assessment - TRA) in routine risk assessment in primary prevention of CVD compared with standard care with regards to patients outcomes, clinical risk factor levels, medication prescribing, and adverse effects.

Methods

We carried out an overview of existing systematic reviews (SRs). Presentation of the results aligned guidelines from the PRISMA statement. The data is presented as a narrative synthesis. We searched MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE, CENTRAL and SCOPUS databases from January 1990 to March 2017, reviewed the reference lists of all included SRs and searched for ongoing SRs in PROSPERO database. We encompassed SRs and meta-analyses which took into account RCTs, quasi-RCTs, and observational studies investigating the effect of using CVD risk scoring. Only studies performed in a primary care setting, with adult participants free of clinical CVD were eligible. Intervention was CVD risk assessment with use of the total CVD risk scoring compared with standard care with no use of TRA .

Results

We identified 2157 records, we then recognised and analysed 10 relevant SRs. One SR reported statistically insignificant reduction of CVD death, when using TRA, the second SR presented meta-analysis which reported no effect on fatal and non-fatal CV events compared with conventional care (5.4% vs 5.3%; RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.08; I² = 25%). Three SRs have shown that using TRA causes no adverse events. The impact of TRA on global CVD risk as well as individual risk factors is ambiguous, but a tendency towards slight reduction of blood pressure, total cholesterol and smoking levels, especially in high risk patient groups was observed. TRA had no influence on lifestyle behaviour.

Conclusions

There is limited evidence, of low overall quality, suggesting a possible lack of effectiveness of TRA in reducing CVD events and mortality, as well as a clinically insignificant influence on individual risk factor levels. Using TRA does not cause harm to patients.

Trial registration

Systematic review protocol was registered with the International PROSPERO database - registration number CRD42016046898.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12872-018-0990-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Effects of invitation to participate in health surveys on the incidence of cardiovascular disease: a randomized general population study

Background

The effects of health checks on reducing cardiovascular disease morbidity and mortality in the general population have been questioned. There are few randomized studies with long-term follow-up. We used a cohort randomly selected from a general population as a randomized trial to study the effect of repeated general health checks on the 30-year incidence of ischaemic heart disease (IHD), stroke and all-cause mortality.

Methods

The study included all persons ( n = 17 845) aged 30, 40, 50 and 60 years living in 11 municipalities in Copenhagen, the capital of Denmark. An age- and gender-stratified random sample ( n = 4789) was invited to up to three health checks, from 1982 to 1994 (intervention group). The remaining 12 994 persons were defined as the control group. Complete follow-up on mortality, emigration and fatal and non-fatal IHD and stroke until 31 December 2012 was obtained by linkage to registries.

Results

There were 3209 and 2190 incident cases of IHD and stroke, respectively, and a total of 6432 deaths during follow-up (mean = 25.2 years). The hazard ratios (HRs) (95% confidence intervals, CIs) for persons in the intervention group versus persons in the control group were as follows: IHD (HR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.92, 1.07), stroke (HR: 1.14, 95% CI: 1.04, 1.25) and all-cause mortality (HR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.98, 1.09).

Conclusions

Repeated general health checks offered to the general population had no beneficial effects on the development of IHD, stroke or all-cause mortality during 30 years of follow-up. An increased incidence of stroke was observed in the group offered health checks.

Improving health literacy in a Japanese community population-A pilot study to develop an educational programme

Objective

Although a growing number of interventional studies on health literacy have been conducted recently, the majority were designed in clinical settings, focusing mainly on functional health literacy. This study evaluated a programme designed to improve health literacy in a community population, with a scope of going beyond functional health literacy.

Methods

In collaboration with an Approved Specified Nonprofit organization (NPO), we evaluated a five‐session programme designed to provide basic knowledge on health‐care policy and systems, current issues in health care in Japan, patient roles and relationships with health‐care providers and interpersonal skills. In total, 67 of 81 programme participants agreed to participate in the study, and 54 returned the completed questionnaires at baseline and at follow‐up. Health literacy and trust in the medical profession were measured at baseline and at follow‐up. Participants’ learning through the programme was qualitatively analysed by thematic analysis.

Results

Quantitative examinations of the changes in health literacy and degree of trust in medical professionals between the baseline and follow‐up suggested that health literacy significantly improved after implementing the programme. The thematic analysis of participants’ learning throughout the programme suggested that they not only acquired knowledge and skills but also experienced a shift in their beliefs and behaviours.

Discussion

Providing individuals who are motivated to learn about health‐care systems and collaborate with health‐care providers with the necessary knowledge and skills may improve their health literacy, which could enable them to maintain and promote their health and that of their family and other people around them.

Estimation and development of 10- and 20-year cardiovascular mortality risk models in an industrial male workers database

We examined the performance of the Framingham Heart Study (FHS) and the European Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) models for cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality prediction in Israeli industrial workers, and developed and validated new risk prediction models for CVD mortality incidence in the same population. Our database was a longitudinal Israeli industrial cohort (CORDIS cohort) of 4809 adult males followed-up for 22years. Performance of the FHS and the SCORE prediction models was analyzed by insertion of the CORDIS cohort measurements to each model separately. The standard prognostic variables and results obtained from the new refined Cox regression analyses were used to construct two new 10- and 20-year CVD mortality risk scoring systems: a modified FHS model (FHS/Cox) and an omnibus model with Cox regression (Omnibus/Cox). The SCORE model of high-risk and low-risk charts yielded 10-year mortality mean risks of 1.12% and 0.64%, respectively, for male subjects aged>30years. The new FHS/Cox and Omnibus/Cox models generated a mean predictive 10-year risk of 1.12% and 1.50%, respectively. The mean 20-year risk predicted by the new FHS/Cox and the Omnibus/Cox models was 2.66% and 3.75%, respectively. Internal validation of both models demonstrated a high and stable area under the receiver operating characteristic curve>0.85. No significant differences were found between the two models. In conclusion, the CVD mortality risk prediction scoring systems tailored for the Israeli workers population demonstrated good performance. Additional studies to externally validate these algorithms will indicate which of these quantitative risk estimation platforms should be used in specific settings.

The systematic coronary risk evaluation (SCORE) for the prevention of cardiovascular diseases. Does evidence exist for its effectiveness? A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

The SCORE model predicts the ten-year risk of cardiovascular mortality but it is still unknown whether applying the SCORE in clinical practice subsequently improves cardiovascular disease (CVD) outcomes. The objective of this study is to assess the effect of total cardiovascular risk estimation using the SCORE in preventing serious cardiovascular events in European adults without prior CVD.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Data sources: eight bibliographical databases (2003 - August 2015), other internet sources and reference lists of articles were checked. This was supplemented by contact with the board members of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the authors of the SCORE model.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

all prospective studies in any language investigating the effect of using the SCORE on the clinical outcome (CVD death, major events and adverse outcomes) in an adult population were examined. Two reviewers assessed the studies independently (titles, abstracts, full texts). After removal of duplicates, 5,256 records were screened and 14 full text papers considered. No eligible studies were identified. An extensive literature search revealed no randomized control trial or other prospective study comparing significant clinical outcomes between groups that used the SCORE and those who did not.

CONCLUSIONS

The effect of using the SCORE (with or without subsequent intervention) on CVD death, all-cause mortality, major CVD events like myocardial infarction and stroke, as well as adverse outcomes, is still unknown. A cluster randomised controlled trial is warranted to evaluate the use of the SCORE on important outcomes.

Global cardiovascular risk assessment in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in adults: systematic review of systematic reviews

OBJECTIVE

To identify, critically appraise and summarise existing systematic reviews on the impact of global cardiovascular risk assessment in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in adults.

DESIGN

Systematic review of systematic reviews published between January 2005 and October 2016 in The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE or CINAHL databases, and post hoc analysis of primary trials.

PARTICIPANTS, INTERVENTIONS, OUTCOMES

Systematic reviews of interventions involving global cardiovascular risk assessment relative to no formal risk assessment in adults with no history of CVD. The primary outcomes of interest were CVD-related morbidity and mortality and all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes were systolic blood pressure (SBP), cholesterol and smoking.

RESULTS

We identified six systematic reviews of variable but generally of low quality (mean Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 4.2/11, range 0/11 to 7/11). No studies identified by the systematic reviews reported CVD-related morbidity or mortality or all-cause mortality. Meta-analysis of reported randomised controlled trials (RCTs) showed small reductions in SBP (mean difference (MD) -2.22 mm Hg (95% CI -3.49 to -0.95); I²=66%; n=9; GRADE: very low), total cholesterol (MD -0.11 mmol/L (95% CI -0.20 to -0.02); I²=72%; n=5; GRADE: very low), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (MD -0.15 mmol/L (95% CI -0.26 to -0.05), I²=47%; n=4; GRADE: very low) and smoking cessation (RR 1.62 (95% CI 1.08 to 2.43); I²=17%; n=7; GRADE: low). The median follow-up time of reported RCTs was 12 months (range 2-36 months).

CONCLUSIONS

The quality of existing systematic reviews was generally poor and there is currently no evidence reported in these reviews that the prospective use of global cardiovascular risk assessment translates to reductions in CVD morbidity or mortality. There are reductions in SBP, cholesterol and smoking but they may not be clinically significant given their small effect size and short duration. Resources need to be directed to conduct high-quality systematic reviews focusing on hard patient outcomes, and likely further primary RCTs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42015019821.

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.

Effect of using cardiovascular risk scoring in routine risk assessment in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: protocol for an overview of systematic reviews

INTRODUCTION

Major clinical practice guidelines recommend assessing risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) using absolute/global/total CVD risk scores. However, the effectiveness of using them in clinical practice, despite publication of numerous randomised controlled trials (RCTs), is still poorly understood. To summarise and analyse current knowledge in this field, we will carry out an overview of existing systematic reviews (SRs). The objective of this overview will be to assess the effect of using cardiovascular risk scoring in routine risk assessment in primary prevention of CVD compared with standard care.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will include SRs and meta-analyses which take into account RCTs and quasi-RCTs investigating the effect of using cardiovascular risk scoring in routine risk assessment in primary prevention of CVD. SRs will be retrieved from 4 bibliographical databases and reference lists of identified reviews. Additionally, the PROSPERO database will be searched for unpublished, ongoing or recently completed SRs. 2 reviewers will assess the SRs independently for eligibility and bias. The data will be extracted to a special form. Any disagreement will be resolved by discussion. In case of lack of consensus, a third author will arbitrate. The overview of SRs will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval is not required for overview of SRs. We will summarise evidence concerning whether use of the absolute/global/total CVD risk scoring tools in primary prevention of CVD is effective and supported with scientific data or not. If we face unsatisfactory confirmation, we will highlight a need for further research and advice on how to plan such a study. We will submit the results of our study for peer-review publication in a journal indexed in the international bibliographic database of biomedical information.

Cohort study investigating the relationship between cholesterol, cardiovascular risk score and the prescribing of statins in UK primary care: study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Risk scoring is an integral part of the prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and should form the basis for the decision to offer medication to reduce cholesterol (statins). However, there is a suggestion in the literature that many patients are still initiated on statins based on raised cholesterol rather than a raised CVD risk. It is important, therefore, to investigate the role that lipid levels and CVD risks have in the decision to prescribe. This research will establish how cholesterol levels and CVD risk independently influence the prescribing of statins for the primary prevention of CVD in primary care.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The Health Improvement Network (THIN) is a database of coded primary care electronic patient records from over 500 UK general practices. From this resource, a historical cohort will be created of patients without a diagnosis of CVD, not currently receiving a prescription for statins and who had a lipid profile measured. A post hoc QRISK2 score will be calculated for these patients and they will be followed up for 60 days to establish whether they were subsequently prescribed a statin. Primary analysis will consist of predictive modelling using multivariate logistic regression with potential predictors including cholesterol level, calculated QRISK2 score, sociodemographic characteristic and comorbidities. Descriptive statistics will be used to identify trends in prescribing and further secondary analysis will explore what other factors may have influenced the prescribing of statins and the degree of interprescriber variability.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The THIN Data Collection Scheme was approved by the South-East Multicentre Research Ethics Committee in 2003. Individual studies using THIN require Scientific Review Committee approval. The original protocol for this study and a subsequent amendment have been approved (16THIN009A1). The results will be published in a peer review journal and presented at national and international conferences.

Study protocol for "Healthy Hearts Northwest": a 2 × 2 randomized factorial trial to build quality improvement capacity in primary care

Background

Little attention has been paid to quality improvement (QI) capacity within smaller primary care practices which comprise nearly half of all primary care settings. Strategies for external support to build such capacity include practice facilitation (PF), shared learning opportunities, and educational outreach. Although PF has proven effectiveness, little is known about the comparative effectiveness of combining these strategies. Here, we describe the protocol of the “Healthy Hearts Northwest” (H2N) study, a randomized trial designed to address these questions while improving risk factors for cardiovascular disease.

Methods/design

The targeted enrollment is 250 smaller primary care practices across Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. The study is utilizing a two-by-two factorial design to assess four different combinations of practice support: PF alone, PF with educational outreach, PF with shared learning opportunities, or PF with both. A mixed methods approach is being used for evaluation and will include data from (1) baseline and follow-up practice and staff surveys; (2) baseline and quarterly clinical performance measurement from each practice on four cardiovascular risk factors: appropriate aspirin use, blood pressure control, lipid management and smoking cessation support; and (3) a quality improvement capacity assessment (QICA) survey used by external practice facilitators to guide improvement efforts.

Discussion

Results from this study will inform future large-scale practice improvement initiatives by providing comparisons of promising external practice support strategies and advance our understanding of how to build QI capacity in primary care.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02839382

Predictors of cholesterol treatment discussions and statin prescribing for primary cardiovascular disease prevention in community health centers

BACKGROUND

Although cholesterol guidelines emphasize cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk to guide primary prevention, predictors of statin use in practice are unknown. We aimed to identify factors associated with a cholesterol treatment discussion and statin prescribing in a high-risk population.

METHODS

We used data from a trial conducted among participants in community health centers without CVD or diabetes and a 10-year coronary heart disease (CHD) risk≥10%. Cholesterol treatment discussion was assessed at 6months and statin prescription at 1year. We used logistic regressions to identify factors associated with each outcome.

RESULTS

We analyzed 646 participants (89% male, mean age 60±9.5years). Cholesterol treatment discussion occurred in 19% and statin prescription in 12% of participants. Ten-year CHD risk was not associated with treatment discussion (OR 1.11 per 1 SD increase, 95% CI 0.91-1.33) but was associated with statin prescription (OR 1.41 per 1 SD increase, 95% CI 1.13-1.75) in unadjusted models. After adjusting for traditional CVD risk factors that contribute to CHD risk, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) was independently associated with statin prescription (OR 1.82 per 1 SD increase, 95% CI 1.66-1.99). Antihypertensive medication use was independently associated with both cholesterol treatment discussion (OR 3.68, 95% CI 2.35-5.75) and statin prescription (OR 3.98, 95% CI 3.30-4.81). Other drivers of CVD risk (age, smoking, and systolic blood pressure) were not associated with statin use.

CONCLUSIONS

Single risk factor management strongly influences cholesterol treatment discussions and statin prescribing patterns. Interventions that promote risk-based statin utilization are needed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov.: NCT01610609.

Impact of UKPDS risk estimation added to a first subjective risk estimation on management of coronary disease risk in type 2 diabetes - An observational study

AIMS

To investigate the impact of the UKPDS risk engine on management of CHD risk in T2DM patients.

METHODS

Observational study among 139 GPs. Data from 933 consecutive patients treated with a maximum of two oral glucose lowering drugs, collected at baseline and after twelve months. GPs estimated the CHD risk themselves and afterwards they calculated this with the UKPDS risk engine. Under- and overestimation were defined as a difference >5 percentage points difference between both calculations. The impact of the UKPDS risk engine was assessed by measuring differences in medication adjustments between the over-, under- and accurately estimated group.

RESULTS

In 42.0% the GP accurately estimated the CHD risk, in 32.4% the risk was underestimated and in 25.6% overestimated. Mean difference between the estimated (18.7%) and calculated (19.1%) 10 years CHD risk was -0.36% (95% CI -1.24 to 0.52). Male gender, current smoking and total cholesterol level were associated with underestimation. Patients with an subjectively underestimated CHD risk received significantly more medication adjustments. Their UKPDS 10 year CHD risk did not increase during the follow-up period, contrary to the other two groups of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The UKPDS risk engine may be of added value for risk management in T2DM.

Impact of provision of cardiovascular disease risk estimates to healthcare professionals and patients: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review whether the provision of information on cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk to healthcare professionals and patients impacts their decision-making, behaviour and ultimately patient health.

DESIGN

A systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

An electronic literature search of MEDLINE and PubMed from 01/01/2004 to 01/06/2013 with no language restriction and manual screening of reference lists of systematic reviews on similar topics and all included papers.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

(1) Primary research published in a peer-reviewed journal; (2) inclusion of participants with no history of CVD; (3) intervention strategy consisted of provision of a CVD risk model estimate to either professionals or patients; and (4) the only difference between the intervention group and control group (or the only intervention in the case of before-after studies) was the provision of a CVD risk model estimate.

RESULTS

After duplicates were removed, the initial electronic search identified 9671 papers. We screened 196 papers at title and abstract level and included 17 studies. The heterogeneity of the studies limited the analysis, but together they showed that provision of risk information to patients improved the accuracy of risk perception without decreasing quality of life or increasing anxiety, but had little effect on lifestyle. Providing risk information to physicians increased prescribing of lipid-lowering and blood pressure medication, with greatest effects in those with CVD risk >20% (relative risk for change in prescribing 2.13 (1.02 to 4.63) and 2.38 (1.11 to 5.10) respectively). Overall, there was a trend towards reductions in cholesterol and blood pressure and a statistically significant reduction in modelled CVD risk (-0.39% (-0.71 to -0.07)) after, on average, 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

There seems evidence that providing CVD risk model estimates to professionals and patients improves perceived CVD risk and medical prescribing, with little evidence of harm on psychological well-being.

Do clinicians recommend aspirin to patients for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease?

BACKGROUND

The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) released updated guidelines in 2009 recommending aspirin to prevent myocardial infarction among at-risk men and stroke among at-risk women.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to examine clinician aspirin recommendation among eligible persons based on cardiovascular risk scores and USPSTF cutoffs.

DESIGN

We used across-sectional analysis of a current nationally representative sample.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants were aged 40 years and older, and in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) (2011-2012).

MAIN MEASURES

We determined aspirin eligibility for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention for each participant based on reported and assessed cardiovascular risk factors. We assessed men's risk using a published coronary heart disease risk calculator based on Framingham equations, and used a similar calculator for stroke to assess risk for women. We applied the USPSTF risk cutoffs for sex and age that account for offsetting risk for gastrointestinal hemorrhage. We assessed clinician recommendation for aspirin based on participant report.

RESULTS

Among men 45-79 years and women 55-79 years, 87 % of men and 16 % of women were potentially eligible for primary CVD aspirin prevention. Clinician recommendation rates for aspirin among those eligible were low, 34 % for men and 42 % for women. Rates were highest among diabetics (63 %), those 65 to 79 years (52 %) or those in poor health (44 %). In contrast, aspirin recommendation rates were 76 % for CVD secondary prevention. After accounting for patient factors, particularly age, eligibility for aspirin prevention was not significantly associated with receiving a clinician's recommendation for aspirin (AOR 0.99 %; CI 0.7-1.4).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite an "A recommendation" from the USPSTF for aspirin for primary prevention of CVD, the majority of men and women potentially eligible for aspirin did not recall a clinical recommendation from their clinician.

The effectiveness of the cardiovascular disease prevention programme 'KardioPro' initiated by a German sickness fund: a time-to-event analysis of routine data

Background

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the developed world. To reduce this burden of disease, a German sickness fund (‘Siemens-Betriebskrankenkasse’, SBK) initiated the prevention programme ‘KardioPro’ including primary (risk factor reduction) and secondary (screening) prevention and guideline-based treatment. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of ‘KardioPro’ as it is implemented in the real world.

Methods

The study is based on sickness fund routine data. The control group was selected from non-participants via propensity score matching. Study analysis was based on time-to-event analysis via Cox proportional hazards regression with the endpoint ‘all-cause mortality, acute myocardial infarction (MI) and ischemic stroke (1)’, ‘all-cause mortality (2)’ and ‘non-fatal acute MI and ischemic stroke (3)’.

Results

A total of 26,202 insurants were included, 13,101 participants and 13,101 control subjects. ‘KardioPro’ enrolment was associated with risk reductions of 23.5% (95% confidence interval (CI) 13.0–32.7%) (1), 41.7% (95% CI 30.2–51.2%) (2) and 3.5% (hazard ratio 0.965, 95% CI 0.811–1.148) (3). This corresponds to an absolute risk reduction of 0.29% (1), 0.31% (2) and 0.03% (3) per year.

Conclusion

The prevention programme initiated by a German statutory sickness fund appears to be effective with regard to all-cause mortality. The non-significant reduction in non-fatal events might result from a shift from fatal to non-fatal events.

Underestimation of risk perception in patients at risk of heart disease

BACKGROUND

Accurate perception of cardiovascular risk is important if people with established, or at high risk of, coronary heart disease are to engage in risk-reducing behaviours.

AIM

This study aimed to determine whether the risk perception of patients undergoing a percutaneous coronary procedure was related to their subsequent engagement in risk-reducing behaviours.

METHODS

Using a prospective correlational design, patients presenting to a tertiary referral hospital in Sydney, Australia for an interventional cardiology procedure were surveyed at baseline and again at six months. Data collected included demographic and clinical information, relative risk perception (RRP-2), psychological status using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale and the Perceived Stress Scale, and physical activity using the Physical Activity Scale. In addition, data on medication adherence and cardiac rehabilitation enrolment were collected at the six-month follow-up.

RESULTS

The study cohort consisted of 220 participants. Statistical analysis revealed a reduction in anxiety (p<0.001), depression (p =0.004) and stress (p <0.001), and an increase in physical activity engagement (p <0.001) from baseline to six-month follow-up. Higher risk perception scores at baseline predicted an increased likelihood of enrolment in a cardiac rehabilitation programme (p =0.01) and adherence to medication regimen (p =0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

This study revealed an overall underestimation of risk perception among a sample of 'high risk' cardiac patients admitted to hospital for an interventional coronary procedure, with those who reported lower risk perception being less likely to attend cardiac rehabilitation and less likely to adhere to their medication regimen.

A perspective on the New American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines for cardiovascular risk assessment

The recently published American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines for cardiovascular risk assessment provide equations to estimate the 10-year and lifetime atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk in African Americans and non-Hispanic whites, include stroke as an adverse cardiovascular outcome, and emphasize shared decision making. The guidelines provide a valuable framework that can be adapted on the basis of clinical judgment and individual/institutional expertise. In this review, we provide a perspective on the new guidelines, highlighting what is new, what is controversial, and potential adaptations. We recommend obtaining family history of ASCVD at the time of estimating ASCVD risk and consideration of imaging to assess subclinical disease burden in patients at intermediate risk. In addition to the adjuncts for ASCVD risk estimation recommended in the guidelines, measures that may be useful in refining risk estimates include carotid ultrasonography, aortic pulse wave velocity, and serum lipoprotein(a) levels. Finally, we stress the need for research efforts to improve assessment of ASCVD risk given the suboptimal performance of available risk algorithms and suggest potential future directions in this regard.

Communicating cardiovascular disease risk: an interview study of General Practitioners' use of absolute risk within tailored communication strategies

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention guidelines encourage assessment of absolute CVD risk - the probability of a CVD event within a fixed time period, based on the most predictive risk factors. However, few General Practitioners (GPs) use absolute CVD risk consistently, and communication difficulties have been identified as a barrier to changing practice. This study aimed to explore GPs' descriptions of their CVD risk communication strategies, including the role of absolute risk.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 25 GPs in New South Wales, Australia. Transcribed audio-recordings were thematically coded, using the Framework Analysis method to ensure rigour.

RESULTS

GPs used absolute CVD risk within three different communication strategies: 'positive', 'scare tactic', and 'indirect'. A 'positive' strategy, which aimed to reassure and motivate, was used for patients with low risk, determination to change lifestyle, and some concern about CVD risk. Absolute risk was used to show how they could reduce risk. A 'scare tactic' strategy was used for patients with high risk, lack of motivation, and a dismissive attitude. Absolute risk was used to 'scare' them into taking action. An 'indirect' strategy, where CVD risk was not the main focus, was used for patients with low risk but some lifestyle risk factors, high anxiety, high resistance to change, or difficulty understanding probabilities. Non-quantitative absolute risk formats were found to be helpful in these situations.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated how GPs use three different communication strategies to address the issue of CVD risk, depending on their perception of patient risk, motivation and anxiety. Absolute risk played a different role within each strategy. Providing GPs with alternative ways of explaining absolute risk, in order to achieve different communication aims, may improve their use of absolute CVD risk assessment in practice.

General practitioners' use of absolute risk versus individual risk factors in cardiovascular disease prevention: an experimental study

OBJECTIVE

To understand general practitioners' (GPs) use of individual risk factors (blood pressure and cholesterol levels) versus absolute risk in cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk management decision-making.

DESIGN

Randomised experiment. Absolute risk, systolic blood pressure (SBP), cholesterol ratio (total cholesterol/high-density lipoprotein (TC/HDL)) and age were systematically varied in hypothetical cases. High absolute risk was defined as 5-year risk of a cardiovascular event >15%, high blood pressure levels varied between SBP 147 and 179 mm Hg and high cholesterol (TC/HDL ratio) between 6.5 and 7.2 mmol/L.

SETTING

4 GP conferences in Australia.

PARTICIPANTS

144 Australian GPs.

OUTCOMES

GPs indicated whether they would prescribe cholesterol and/or blood pressure lowering medication. Analyses involved logistic regression.

RESULTS

For patients with high blood pressure: 93% (95% CI 86% to 96%) of high absolute risk patients and 83% (95% CI 76% to 88%) of lower absolute risk patients were prescribed blood pressure medication. Conversely, 30% (95% CI 25% to 36%) of lower blood pressure patients were prescribed blood pressure medication if absolute risk was high and 4% (95% CI 3% to 5%) if lower. 69% of high cholesterol/high absolute risk patients were prescribed cholesterol medication (95% CI 61% to 77%) versus 34% of high cholesterol/lower absolute risk patients (95% CI 28% to 41%). 36% of patients with lower cholesterol (95% CI 30% to 43%) were prescribed cholesterol medication if absolute risk was high versus 10% if lower (95% CI 8% to 13%).

CONCLUSIONS

GPs' decision-making was more consistent with the management of individual risk factors than an absolute risk approach, especially when prescribing blood pressure medication. The results suggest medical treatment of lower risk patients (5-year risk of CVD event <15%) with mildly elevated blood pressure or cholesterol levels is likely to occur even when an absolute risk assessment is specifically provided. The results indicate a need for improving uptake of absolute risk guidelines and GP understanding of the rationale for using absolute risk.

Risk predictive modelling for diabetes and cardiovascular disease

Absolute risk models or clinical prediction models have been incorporated in guidelines, and are increasingly advocated as tools to assist risk stratification and guide prevention and treatments decisions relating to common health conditions such as cardiovascular disease (CVD) and diabetes mellitus. We have reviewed the historical development and principles of prediction research, including their statistical underpinning, as well as implications for routine practice, with a focus on predictive modelling for CVD and diabetes. Predictive modelling for CVD risk, which has developed over the last five decades, has been largely influenced by the Framingham Heart Study investigators, while it is only ∼20 years ago that similar efforts were started in the field of diabetes. Identification of predictive factors is an important preliminary step which provides the knowledge base on potential predictors to be tested for inclusion during the statistical derivation of the final model. The derived models must then be tested both on the development sample (internal validation) and on other populations in different settings (external validation). Updating procedures (e.g. recalibration) should be used to improve the performance of models that fail the tests of external validation. Ultimately, the effect of introducing validated models in routine practice on the process and outcomes of care as well as its cost-effectiveness should be tested in impact studies before wide dissemination of models beyond the research context. Several predictions models have been developed for CVD or diabetes, but very few have been externally validated or tested in impact studies, and their comparative performance has yet to be fully assessed. A shift of focus from developing new CVD or diabetes prediction models to validating the existing ones will improve their adoption in routine practice.

General practitioners' use of different cardiovascular risk assessment strategies: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

To identify factors that influence the extent to which general practitioners use absolute risk (AR) assessment in cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk assessment.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Semi-structured interviews with 25 currently practising GPs from eight Divisions of General Practice in New South Wales, Australia, between October 2011 and May 2012. Data were analysed using framework analysis.

RESULTS

The study identified five strategies that GPs use with patients in different situations, defined in terms of the extent to which AR was used and the reasons given for this: the AR-focused strategy, used when AR assessment was considered useful for the patient; the AR-adjusted strategy, used to account for additional risk factors such as family history; the clinical judgement strategy, used when GPs considered that their judgement took multiple risk factors into account as effectively as AR; the passive disregard strategy, used when GPs lacked sufficient time, access or experience to use AR; and the active disregard strategy, used when AR was considered to be inappropriate for the patient. The strategies were linked with different opportunity, capability and motivation barriers to the use of AR.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides an in-depth insight into the factors that influence GPs' use of AR in CVD risk assessment. The results suggest that GPs use a range of strategies in different situations, so different approaches may be required to improve the use of AR guidelines in practice.

Providing clinicians with a patient's 10-year cardiovascular risk improves their statin prescribing: a true experiment using clinical vignettes

BACKGROUND

Statins are effective for primary prevention of cardiovascular (CV) disease, the leading cause of death in the world. Multinational guidelines emphasize CV risk as an important factor for optimal statin prescribing. However, it's not clear how primary care providers (PCPs) use this information. The objective of this study was to determine how primary care providers use information about global CV risk for primary prevention of CV disease.

METHODS

A double-blinded, randomized experiment using clinical vignettes mailed to office-based PCPs in the United States who were identified through the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile in June 2012. PCPs in the control group received clinical vignettes with all information on the risk factors needed to calculate CV risk. The experimental group received the same vignettes in addition to the subject's 10-year calculated CV risk (Framingham risk score). The primary study outcome was the decision to prescribe a statin.

RESULTS

Providing calculated CV risk to providers increased statin prescribing in the two high-risk cases (CV risk > 20%) by 32 percentage points (41% v. 73%; 95% CI = 23-40, p <0.001; relative risk [RR] = 1.78) and 16 percentage points (12% v. 27%, 95% CI 8.5-22.5%, p <0.001; RR = 2.25), and decreased statin prescribing in the lowest risk case (CV risk = 2% risk) by 9 percentage points [95% CI = 1.00-16.7%, p = 0.003, RR = 0.88]. Fewer than 20% of participants in each group reported routinely calculating 10-year CV risk in their patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Providers do not routinely calculate 10-year CV risk for their patients. In this vignette experiment, PCPs undertreated low LDL, high CV risk patients. Giving providers a patient's calculated CV risk improved statin prescribing. Providing PCPs with accurate estimates of patient CV risk at the point of service has the potential to improve the efficiency of statin prescribing.

Agreement among cardiovascular disease risk calculators

BACKGROUND

Use of cardiovascular disease risk calculators is often recommended by guidelines, but research on consistency in risk assessment among calculators is limited.

METHOD AND RESULTS

A search of PubMed and Google was performed. Five clinicians selected 25 calculators by independent review. Hypothetical patients were created with the use of 7 risk factors (age, sex, smoking, blood pressure, high-density lipoprotein, total cholesterol, and diabetes mellitus) dichotomized to high and low, generating 2(7) patients (128 total). These patients were assessed by each calculator by 2 clinicians. Risk estimates (and assigned risk categories) were compared among calculators. Selected calculators were from 8 countries, used 5- or 10-year predictions, and estimated either cardiovascular disease or coronary heart disease. With the use of 3 risk categories (low, medium, and high), the 25 calculators categorized each patient into a mean of 2.2 different categories, and 41% of unique patients were assigned across all 3 risk categories. Risk category agreement between pairs of calculators was 67%. This did not improve when analysis was limited to just the 10-year cardiovascular disease calculators. In nondiabetics, the highest calculated risk estimate from a calculator averaged 4.9 times higher (range, 1.9-13.3) than the lowest calculated risk estimate for the same patient. This did not change meaningfully for diabetics or when the analysis was limited to 10-year cardiovascular disease calculators.

CONCLUSIONS

The decision as to which calculator to use for risk estimation has an important impact on both risk categorization and absolute risk estimates. This has broad implications for guidelines recommending therapies based on specific calculators.