Systematic Review of Guidelines on Peripheral Artery Disease Screening

BACKGROUND: Peripheral artery disease (PAD) screening may be performed to prevent progression of PAD or future cardiovascular disease in general. Recommendations for PAD screening have to be derived indirectly because no randomized trials comparing screening versus no screening have been performed. We performed a systematic review of guidelines to evaluate the value of PAD screening in asymptomatic adults. METHODS: Guidelines in English published between January 1, 2003 and January 20, 2011 were retrieved using MEDLINE, CINAHL, the National Guideline Clearinghouse, the National Library for Health, the Canadian Medication Association Infobase, and the G-I-N International Guideline Library. Guidelines developed by national and international medical societies from Western countries, containing recommendations on PAD screening, were included. Two reviewers independently assessed rigor of guideline development using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE) instrument. One reviewer performed full extraction of recommendations, which was validated by a second reviewer. RESULTS: Of 2779 titles identified, 8 guidelines were included. AGREE scores varied from 33% to 81%. Five guidelines advocated PAD screening, others found insufficient evidence for PAD screening or were against it. Measurement of the ankle-brachial index (ABI) was generally recommended for middle-aged populations with elevated cardiovascular risk levels. Those identified as having PAD are reclassified as high risk, warranting intensive preventive interventions to reduce their risk of a cardiovascular event. The underlying evidence mainly consisted of studies performed in patients with established PAD. A meta-analysis that evaluated ABI testing in the context of traditional cardiovascular risk assessment was interpreted differently. CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations on PAD screening vary across current guidelines, making the value of PAD screening uncertain. The variation seems to reflect lack of studies that show added value of detection of early PAD beyond expectant management and traditional risk assessment. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. The American Journal of Medicine (2012) 125, 198-20

Systematic Review of Guidelines on Imaging of Asymptomatic Coronary Artery Disease

Objectives The purpose of this study was to critically appraise guidelines on imaging of asymptomatic coronary artery disease (CAD). Background Various imaging tests exist to detect CAD in asymptomatic persons. Because randomized controlled trials are lacking, guidelines that address the use of CAD imaging tests may disagree. Methods Guidelines in English published between January 1, 2003, and February 26, 2010, were retrieved using MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, the National Guideline Clearinghouse, the National Library for Health, the Canadian Medication Association Infobase, and the Guidelines International Network International Guideline Library. Guidelines developed by national and international medical societies from Western countries, containing recommendations on imaging of asymptomatic CAD were included. Rigor of development was scored by 2 independent reviewers using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE) instrument. One reviewer performed full extraction of recommendations, which was checked by a second reviewer. Results Of 2,415 titles identified, 14 guidelines met our inclusion criteria. Eleven of 14 guidelines reported relationship with industry. The AGREE scores varied across guidelines from 21% to 93%. Two guidelines considered cost effectiveness. Eight guidelines recommended against or found insufficient evidence for testing of asymptomatic CAD. The other 6 guidelines recommended imaging patients at intermediate or high CAD risk based on the Framingham risk score, and 5 considered computed tomography calcium scoring useful for this purpose. Conclusions Guidelines on risk assessment by imaging of asymptomatic CAD contain conflicting recommendations. More research, including randomized controlled trials, evaluating the impact of imaging on clinical outcomes and costs is needed. (J Am Coll Cardiol 2011;57:1591-600) (C) 2011 by the American College of Cardiology Foundatio

Systematic Review of Guidelines on Cardiovascular Risk Assessment Which Recommendations Should Clinicians Follow for a Cardiovascular Health Check?

Objective: To appraise guidelines on cardiovascular risk assessment to guide selection of screening interventions for a health check. Data Sources: Guidelines in the English language published between January 1, 2003, and May 2, 2009, were retrieved using MEDLINE and CINAHL. This was supplemented by searching the National Guideline Clearing-house, National Library for Health, Canadian Medical Association Infobase, and G-I-N International Guideline Library. Study Selection: We included guidelines developed on behalf of professional organizations from Western countries, containing recommendations on cardiovascular risk assessment for the apparently healthy population. Titles and abstracts were assessed by 2 independent reviewers. Of 1984 titles identified, 27 guidelines met our criteria. Data Extraction: Rigor of guideline development was assessed by 2 independent reviewers. One reviewer ex-tracted information on conflicts of interest and recommendations. Results: Sixteen of 27 guidelines reported conflicts of interest and 17 showed considerable rigor. These included recommendations on assessment of total cardiovascular risk (7 guidelines), dyslipidemia (2), hypertension (2), and dysglycemia (7). Recommendations on total cardiovascular risk and dyslipidemia included prediction models integrating multiple risk factors, whereas remaining recommendations were focused on single risk factors. No consensus was found on recommended target populations, treatment thresholds, and screening tests. Conclusions: Differences among the guidelines imply important variation in allocation of preventive interventions. To make informed decisions, physicians should use only the recommendations from rigorously developed guidelines

Systematic review of guidelines on abdominal aortic aneurysm screening

ObjectiveUsually, physicians base their practice on guidelines, but recommendations on the same topic may vary across guidelines. Given the uncertainties regarding abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) screening, physicians should be able to identify systematically and transparently developed recommendations. We performed a systematic review of AAA screening guidelines to assist physicians in their choice of recommendations.MethodsGuidelines in English published between January 1, 2003 and February 26, 2010 were retrieved using MEDLINE, CINAHL, the National Guideline Clearinghouse, the National Library for Health, the Canadian Medication Association Infobase, and the G-I-N International Guideline Library. Guidelines developed by national and international medical societies from Western countries, containing recommendations on AAA screening were included. Three reviewers independently assessed rigor of guideline development using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE) instrument. Two independent reviewers performed extraction of recommendations.ResultsOf 2415 titles identified, seven guidelines were included in this review. Three guidelines were less rigorously developed based on AGREE scores below 40%. All seven guidelines contained a recommendation for one-time screening of elderly men by ultrasonography to select AAAs ≥5.5 cm for elective surgical repair. Four guidelines, of which three were less rigorously developed, contained disparate recommendations on screening of women and middle-aged men at elevated risk. There was no agreement on the management of smaller AAAs.ConclusionsConsensus exists across guidelines on one-time screening of elderly men to detect and treat AAAs ≥5.5 cm. For other target groups and management of small AAAs, prediction models and cost-effectiveness analyses are needed to provide guidance

Clustering of risk factors for non-communicable disease and healthcare expenditure in employees with private health insurance presenting for health risk appraisal: a cross-sectional study

Background: The global increase in the prevalence of NCD's is accompanied by an increase in risk factors for these diseases such as insufficient physical activity and poor nutritional habits. The main aims of this research study were to determine the extent to which insufficient physical activity (PA) clustered with other risk factors for non-communicable disease (NCD) in employed persons undergoing health risk assessment, and whether these risk factors were associated with higher healthcare costs. Methods. Employees from 68 companies voluntarily participated in worksite wellness days, that included an assessment of self-reported health behaviors and clinical measures, such as: blood pressure (BP), Body Mass Index (BMI), as well as total cholesterol concentrations from capillary blood samples. A risk-related age, 'Vitality Risk Age' was calculated for each participant using an algorithm that incorporated multiplicative pooled relative risks for all cause mortality associated with smoking, PA, fruit and vegetable intake, BMI, BP and cholesterol concentration. Healthcare cost data were obtained for employees (n = 2 789). Results: Participants were 36 ± 10 years old and the most prevalent risk factors were insufficient PA (67%) and BMI ≥ 25 (62%). Employees who were insufficiently active also had a greater number of other NCD risk factors, compared to those meeting PA recommendations (chi§ssup§2§esup§ = 43.55; p < 0.0001). Moreover, employees meeting PA guidelines had significantly fewer visits to their family doctor (GP) (2.5 versus 3.11; p < 0.001) than those who were insufficiently PA, which was associated with an average cost saving of ZAR100 per year (p < 0.01). Furthermore, for every additional year that the 'Vitality Risk Age' was greater than chronological age, there was a 3% increased likelihood of at least one additional visit to the doctor (OR = 1.03; 95% CI = 1.01 - 1.05). Conclusion: Physical inactivity was associated with clustering of risk factors for NCD in SA employees. Employees with lower BMI, better self-reported health status and readiness to change were more likely to meet the PA guidelines. These employees might therefore benefit from physical activity intervention programs that could result in improved risk profile and reduced healthcare expenditure