Protocol for the 'e-Nudge trial': a randomised controlled trial of electronic feedback to reduce the cardiovascular risk of individuals in general practice [ISRCTN64828380]

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.

Clinical Decision Support Systems and Prevention: A Community Guide Cardiovascular Disease Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) can help clinicians assess cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk and manage CVD risk factors by providing tailored assessments and treatment recommendations based on individual patient data. The goal of this systematic review was to examine the effectiveness of CDSSs in improving screening for CVD risk factors, practices for CVD-related preventive care services such as clinical tests and prescribed treatments, and management of CVD risk factors.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

An existing systematic review (search period, January 1975-January 2011) of CDSSs for any condition was initially identified. Studies of CDSSs that focused on CVD prevention in that review were combined with studies identified through an updated search (January 2011-October 2012). Data analysis was conducted in 2013.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

A total of 45 studies qualified for inclusion in the review. Improvements were seen for recommended screening and other preventive care services completed by clinicians, recommended clinical tests completed by clinicians, and recommended treatments prescribed by clinicians (median increases of 3.8, 4.0, and 2.0 percentage points, respectively). Results were inconsistent for changes in CVD risk factors such as systolic and diastolic blood pressure, total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and hemoglobin A1C levels.

CONCLUSIONS

CDSSs are effective in improving clinician practices related to screening and other preventive care services, clinical tests, and treatments. However, more evidence is needed from implementation of CDSSs within the broad context of comprehensive service delivery aimed at reducing CVD risk and CVD-related morbidity and mortality.

Automated electronic reminders to facilitate primary cardiovascular disease prevention: randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Primary care databases contain cardiovascular disease risk factor data, but practical tools are required to improve identification of at-risk patients.

AIM

To test the effects of a system of electronic reminders (the 'e-Nudge') on cardiovascular events and the adequacy of data for cardiovascular risk estimation.

DESIGN OF STUDY

Randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Nineteen general practices in the West Midlands, UK.

METHOD

The e-Nudge identifies four groups of patients aged over 50 years on the basis of estimated cardiovascular risk and adequacy of risk factor data in general practice computers. Screen messages highlight individuals at raised risk and prompt users to complete risk profiles where necessary. The proportion of the study population in the four groups was measured, as well as the rate of cardiovascular events in each arm after 2 years.

RESULTS

Over 38 000 patients' electronic records were randomised. The intervention led to an increase in the proportion of patients with sufficient data who were identifiably at risk, with a difference of 1.94% compared to the control group (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.38 to 2.50, P<0.001). A corresponding reduction occurred in the proportion potentially at risk but requiring further data for a risk estimation (difference = -3.68%, 95% CI = -4.53 to -2.84, P<0.001). No significant difference was observed in the incidence of cardiovascular events (rate ratio = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.85 to 1.10, P = 0.59).

CONCLUSION

Automated electronic reminders using routinely collected primary care data can improve the adequacy of cardiovascular risk factor information during everyday practice and increase the visibility of the at-risk population.

Identifying individuals for primary cardiovascular disease prevention in UK general practice: priorities and resource implications

Targeted cardiovascular disease prevention relies on risk-factor information held in primary care records. A risk algorithm, the 'e-Nudge', was applied to data from a population of >or=50-year-olds in 19 West Midlands practices, to identify those individuals at risk of cardiovascular disease. Altogether, 5.9% were identified aged 50-74 years at >or=20% 10-year risk based on existing data, and a further 26.4% were potentially at risk but had missing risk-factor information; 9.2% of patients aged over 50 years with established cardiovascular disease had at least one modifiable risk factor outside the audit target of the Quality and Outcomes Framework. Implications for resource allocation are discussed.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Cardiovascular disease prevention in primary care

Since the publication of the National Service Framework for coronary heart disease, there has been a move towards primary disease prevention with a greater focus on an individual's absolute risk. Meta-analysis and systematic reviews of the evidence for primary prevention are incomplete and the current guidelines and policy have led to considerable confusion in clinical practice. There is an increased use of risk assessment tools but no effective method of reviewing current activity with the limited integration into the existing Quality Outcome Framework. There is an inadequate evidence for some of the risk factors used to identify individuals at risk, the risk calculators used to quantify the degree of risk and the methods of communicating risk to patients are largely unproven or completely missing. There is a need for a co-ordinated vascular disease prevention programme which can be applied at the individual and at the population level but is also amenable to evaluation.