Systematic versus opportunistic risk assessment for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Dyakova M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6494380 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Systematic versus opportunistic risk assessment for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.
Dyakova Mariana M Shantikumar Saran S Colquitt Jill L JL Drew Christian M CM Sime Morag M MacIver Joanna J Wright Nicola N Clarke Aileen A Rees Karen K
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 20160129 1
<h4>Background</h4>Screening programmes can potentially identify people at high cardiovascular risk and reduce cardiovascular disease (CVD) morbidity and mortality. However, there is currently not enough evidence showing clear clinical or economic benefits of systematic screening-like programmes over the widely practised opportunistic risk assessment of CVD in primary care settings.<h4>Objectives</h4>The primary objective of this review was to assess the effectiveness, costs and adverse effects ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description: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.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.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.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).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.CRD42015019821.
| S-EPMC5372072 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundOur 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.MethodsWe 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 .ResultsWe 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.ConclusionsThere 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 registrationSystematic review protocol was registered with the International PROSPERO database - registration number CRD42016046898 .
| S-EPMC6327540 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6464686 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Despite enormous advances in both surgical and pharmacological treatment, cardiovascular diseases are still the most common cause of morbidity and disability in the western world [...].
| S-EPMC9781134 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Coronary artery calcium (CAC), which is detected using computed tomography scanning, is a well-established indicator of subclinical atherosclerosis. The CAC score is independently associated with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) outcomes and provides improved predictive values for estimating the risk of ASCVD beyond traditional risk factors. Thus, CAC is considered to have important implications for reclassification as a decision aid among individuals in the preclinical phase and as the primary prevention of ASCVD. This review is focused on epidemiological evidence on CAC in asymptomatic population-based samples from Western countries and Japan. We also discuss the usability of CAC as a tool for assessing ASCVD risk and its role in the primary prevention of ASCVD. A lack of evidence for the CAC score in ASCVD risk assessment beyond traditional risk factors in populations other than those in Western countries (including Japan) warrants further investigation. Clinical trials are also necessary to demonstrate the usefulness and safety of CAC screening in the primary prevention of ASCVD.
| S-EPMC10564647 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBenefit-targeted statin prescribing may be superior to risk-targeted statin prescribing (the current standard), but the impact and efficiency of this approach are unclear.Methods and resultsWe analyzed the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) using an open-source model (the Prevention Impact and Efficiency Model) to compare targeting of statin therapy according to expected benefit (benefit-targeted) versus baseline risk (risk-targeted) in terms of projected population-level impact and efficiency. Impact was defined as relative % reduction in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in the US population for the given strategy compared to current statin treatment patterns; and efficiency as the number needed to treat over 10 years (NNT10, average and maximum) to prevent each atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease event. Benefit-targeted moderate-intensity statin therapy at a treatment threshold of 2.3% expected 10-year absolute risk reduction could produce a 5.7% impact (95% confidence interval, 4.8-6.7). This is approximately equivalent to the potential impact of risk-targeted therapy at a treatment threshold of 5% 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk (5.6% impact [4.7-6.6]). Whereas the estimated maximum NNT10 is much improved for benefit-targeted versus risk-targeted therapy at these equivalent-impact thresholds (43.5 vs 180), the average NNT10 is nearly equivalent (24.2 vs 24.6). Reaching 10% impact (half the Healthy People 2020 impact objective, loosely defined) is theoretically possible with benefit-targeted moderate-intensity statins of persons with expected absolute risk reduction >2.3% if we expand age eligibility and account for treatment of all persons with diabetes mellitus or with low-density lipoprotein >190 mg/dL (impact=12.4%; average NNT10=23.0).ConclusionsBenefit-based targeting of statin therapy provides modest gains in efficiency over risk-based prescribing and could theoretically help attain approximately half of the Healthy People 2020 impact goal with reasonable efficiency.
| S-EPMC5523747 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe recent guidelines for preventing atherosclerotic cardiovascular events are an important advancement. For primary prevention, statins are recommended if the ten-year risk is ≥ 5% (consideration for therapy) or ≥ 7.5% (definitive treatment unless contraindication after discussion). We rationalized that a significant cohort with ten-year risk below the treatment thresholds would predictably surpass them within the recommended 4-6 year window for reassessing the ten-year risk. As atherosclerosis is a progressive disease, these individuals may therefore benefit with more aggressive therapies even at baseline.Methods and findingsWe used publicly available NHANES dataset for ten-year risk calculation. There were 1805 participants. To evaluate the ten-year risk change at five years, we considered two scenarios: no change in the baseline parameters except increased age by five (No Change) and alternatively 10% improvement in systolic BP, total and HDL-c, no smoking with five-year increase in age (Reduced Risk Profile). Amongst non-diabetics with <5% risk at baseline, 35% reached or exceeded 5% risk in five years (5% reached or exceed the 7.5% risk) with No Change and 9% reached or exceeded 5% risk in five years (none reached 7.5% risk) with Reduced Risk Profile; furthermore, 94% of the non-diabetic cohort with baseline risk between 3.5%-5% would exceed the 5% and/or 7.5% boundary limit with No Change. Amongst non-diabetics with 5-7.5% baseline risks, 87% reached or exceeded 7.5% with No Change while 30% reached or exceeded 7.5% risk with Reduced Risk Profile.ConclusionsA significant population cohort at levels below the treatment thresholds will predictably exceed these limits with time with or without improvement in modifiable risk factors and may benefit with more aggressive therapy at baseline. We provide an improved risk calculator that allows for integrating expected risk modification into discussion with an individual. This needs to be prospectively tested in clinical trials.
| S-EPMC4131882 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCardiovascular disease (CVD) risk prediction is important for guiding the intensity of therapy in CVD prevention. Whilst current risk prediction algorithms use traditional statistical approaches, machine learning (ML) presents an alternative method that may improve risk prediction accuracy. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate whether ML algorithms demonstrate greater performance compared with traditional risk scores in CVD risk prognostication.Methods and resultsMEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and SCOPUS Web of Science Core collections were searched for studies comparing ML models to traditional risk scores for CVD risk prediction between the years 2000 and 2021. We included studies that assessed both ML and traditional risk scores in adult (≥18 year old) primary prevention populations. We assessed the risk of bias using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) tool. Only studies that provided a measure of discrimination [i.e. C-statistics with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)] were included in the meta-analysis. A total of 16 studies were included in the review and meta-analysis (3302 515 individuals). All study designs were retrospective cohort studies. Out of 16 studies, 3 externally validated their models, and 11 reported calibration metrics. A total of 11 studies demonstrated a high risk of bias. The summary C-statistics (95% CI) of the top-performing ML models and traditional risk scores were 0.773 (95% CI: 0.740-0.806) and 0.759 (95% CI: 0.726-0.792), respectively. The difference in C-statistic was 0.0139 (95% CI: 0.0139-0.140), P < 0.0001.ConclusionML models outperformed traditional risk scores in the discrimination of CVD risk prognostication. Integration of ML algorithms into electronic healthcare systems in primary care could improve identification of patients at high risk of subsequent CVD events and hence increase opportunities for CVD prevention. It is uncertain whether they can be implemented in clinical settings. Future implementation research is needed to examine how ML models may be utilized for primary prevention.This review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020220811).
| S-EPMC10284268 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC1861256 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPrimary care is usually the entry point for preventing cardiovascular disease (CVD). Quality indicators can be used to assess and monitor the quality of care provided in a primary care setting. In this systematic review, we aimed to identify, summarise, and assess the methodological quality of indicators reported in the articles for the primary prevention of CVD in primary care.MethodsWe searched Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, SCOPUS, and grey literature for articles containing quality indicators published in English language. Quality indicators were categorised using the Donabedian framework: Structure (organisation of care), Process (assessment of metabolic risk factors, global risk assessment, lifestyle management, prescription of medications, risk communication/advice, referral), and Outcome (attainment of risk factor targets). Articles were reviewed by two authors, using the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation (AIRE) instrument, where a score of ≥50% for each domain indicated strong methodological quality (e.g., stakeholder involvement).ResultsWe identified 282 articles for full-text review; 57 articles were included for extraction. A total of 726 (681 unique) quality indicators were extracted. Three out of four (76%) were process indicators (56 articles), followed by 15% outcome indicators (40 articles), and 9% structure indicators (12 articles). One-third of process indicators were related to the assessment of metabolic risk factors (222/726 indicators, 41 articles), followed by lifestyle management (153/726 indicators, 39 articles), prescription of medications (122/726 indicators, 37 articles), and global risk assessment (27/726, 14 articles). Few indicators were related to risk communication/advice (20/726 indicators, 7 articles) and referral (9/726 indicators, 6 articles). Only 26/57 (46%) articles were found to have strong methodological quality.ConclusionWe summarised and appraised the methodological quality of indicators for the primary prevention of CVD. The next step requires prioritising a minimum set of quality indicators to encourage standardised collection and monitoring across countries.
| S-EPMC11620663 | biostudies-literature