Physicians' ability to predict the risk of coronary heart disease

BACKGROUND: Coronary heart disease (CHD) is the leading cause of death in the United States. Previous research examining physicians ability to estimate cardiovascular risk has shown that physicians' generally overestimate the absolute risk of CHD events. This question has, however, only studied risk prediction for a limited number of patient care scenarios. The aim of this study is to measure the ability of physicians to estimate the risk of CHD events in patients with no previous history of coronary heart disease. METHODS: Twelve primary prevention scenarios with a 5-year risk of CHD events were developed. This questionnaire was surveyed at 3 university teaching hospitals where the participants were a convenience sample of internal medicine residents and fellows or attending physicians in general internal medicine or cardiology. For each scenario, physicians were asked to estimate the baseline 5-year risk of a coronary heart disease event and the revised risk if the patient were to receive lipid-lowering drug therapy. Estimates of the baseline 5-year risk were compared with values calculated from Framingham risk equations. Inaccurate responses were defined as those with a ratio of estimated to actual risk of more than 1.5 or less than 0.67. Physicians' estimates of the relative risk reduction with therapy were considered to be accurate if they were between 25% and 40%. RESULTS: 79 physicians (53 residents, 8 fellows, 18 attending physicians) completed the survey. Only 24% of physicians' risk estimates were accurate. In most cases, physicians overestimated the absolute risk of cardiovascular events without therapy (proportion overestimating ranged from 32–92% for the 12 individual scenarios). Physicians made larger errors in patient scenarios involving patients with high total or LDL cholesterol levels. Physicians' estimates of the relative risk reduction from treatment were more accurate: 43% of estimates were between 25 and 40%. Over 85% of physicians recommended treatment in 10 of 12 scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians overestimate the absolute risk of CHD events and the potential absolute benefit of drug therapy

Aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in diabetes mellitus

Aspirin is effective for the prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with a history of vascular disease, as so-called secondary prevention. In general populations with no history of previous myocardial infarction or stroke, aspirin also seems useful for primary prevention of cardiovascular events, although the absolute benefits are smaller than those seen in patients with previous cardiovascular disease. Patients with diabetes mellitus are at an increased risk of cardiovascular events, but new trials have raised questions about the benefit of aspirin for primary prevention in patients with this disorder. This Review comprehensively examines the basic pharmacology of aspirin and provides an overview of the randomized, controlled trials of aspirin therapy that have included patients with diabetes mellitus. On the basis of currently available evidence from primary prevention trials, aspirin is estimated to reduce the relative risk of myocardial infarction and stroke by about 10% in patients with diabetes mellitus; however, aspirin also increases the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding. As such, low-dose aspirin therapy (75–162 mg) is reasonable for patients with diabetes mellitus and a 10-year risk of cardiovascular events >10%. Results from upcoming large trials will help clarify the effects of aspirin with greater precision, including whether the benefits differ between men and women

Evidence based management of hypertension: Using cardiovascular risk profiles to individualise hypertensive treatment

This is the fourth in a series of five articles Individual risks must be assessed in order to for the best decision to be made as to which patients to treat and how. Assessment identifies important cardiovascular risk factors that may warrant treatment and helps to establish the absolute benefits that patients can expect from particular treatments. The benefits of treating hypertensive patients also vary, depending on each patient's competing risks of dying from other than cardiovascular causes. For example, patients with multiple serious conditions, such as end stage Alzheimer's disease, obstructive lung disease, frequent falls, gout, and urinary incontinence, have high competing risks that may minimise or negate the benefits of treating their hypertension. #### Summary points Several treatment options reduce risk of cardiovascular disease and improve outcomes in patients with hypertension Providers should consider the expected benefits and potential adverse effects of different treatment options and discuss them with patients The use of decision tools may help decision making about options for reducing cardiovascular risk Establishing treatment priorities for patients with multiple cardiovascular risk factors and multiple conditions is difficult. Factors such as those given in the box deserve consideration. Knowing and weighing up multiple risk factors, conditions, and treatments is difficult. Explaining them to patients is daunting and time consuming. Some patients prefer to be told what to do rather than to have to take in the diverse, complicated information necessary to make their

The effect of offering different numbers of colorectal cancer screening test options in a decision aid: a pilot randomized trial

BACKGROUND: Decision aids can improve decision making processes, but the amount and type of information that they should attempt to communicate is controversial. We sought to compare, in a pilot randomized trial, two colorectal cancer (CRC) screening decision aids that differed in the number of screening options presented. METHODS: Adults ages 48–75 not currently up to date with screening were recruited from the community and randomized to view one of two versions of our previously tested CRC screening decision aid. The first version included five screening options: fecal occult blood test (FOBT), sigmoidoscopy, a combination of FOBT and sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, and barium enema. The second discussed only the two most frequently selected screening options, FOBT and colonoscopy. Main outcomes were differences in screening interest and test preferences between groups after decision aid viewing. Patient test preference was elicited first without any associated out-of-pocket costs (OPC), and then with the following costs: FOBT-$10, sigmoidoscopy-$50, barium enema-$50, and colonoscopy-$200. RESULTS: 62 adults participated: 25 viewed the 5-option decision aid, and 37 viewed the 2-option version. Mean age was 54 (range 48–72), 58% were women, 71% were White, 24% African-American; 58% had completed at least a 4-year college degree. Comparing participants that viewed the 5-option version with participants who viewed the 2-option version, there were no differences in screening interest after viewing (1.8 vs. 1.9, t-test p = 0.76). Those viewing the 2-option version were somewhat more likely to choose colonoscopy than those viewing the 5-option version when no out of pocket costs were assumed (68% vs. 46%, p = 0.11), but not when such costs were imposed (41% vs. 42%, p = 1.00). CONCLUSION: The number of screening options available does not appear to have a large effect on interest in colorectal cancer screening. The effect of offering differing numbers of options may affect test choice when out-of-pocket costs are not considered

Development and evaluation of a new survey instrument to measure the quality of colorectal cancer screening decisions

Background: Guidelines for colorectal cancer screening recommend that patients be informed about options and be able to select preferred method of screening; however, there are no existing measures available to assess whether this happens. Methods: Colorectal Cancer Screening Decision Quality Instrument (CRC-DQI) includes knowledge items and patients' goals and concerns. Items were generated through literature review and qualitative work with patients and providers. Hypotheses relating to the acceptability, feasibility, discriminant validity and retest reliability of the survey were examined using data from three studies: (1) 2X2 randomized study of participants recruited online, (2) cross-sectional sample of patients recruited in community health clinics, and (3) cross-sectional sample of providers recruited from American Medical Association Master file. Results: 338 participants were recruited online, 94 participants were recruited from community health centers, and 115 physicians were recruited. The CRC-DQI was feasible and acceptable with low missing data and high response rates for both online and paper-based administrations. The knowledge score was able to discriminate between those who had seen a decision aid or not (84% vs. 64%, p < 0.001) and between providers, online patients and clinic patients (89% vs. 74% vs. 41%, p < 0.001 for all comparisons). The knowledge score and most of the goals had adequate retest reliability. About half of the participants received a test that matched their goals (47% and 51% in online and clinic samples respectively). Many respondents who had never been screened had goals that indicated a preference for colonoscopy. A minority of respondents in the online (21%) and in clinic (2%) samples were both well informed and received a test that matched their goals. Conclusions: The CRC-DQI demonstrated good psychometric properties in diverse samples, and across different modes of administration. Few respondents made high quality decisions about colon cancer screening

Evaluating the Clinical Utility of a Biomarker: A Review of Methods for Estimating Health Impact

Biomarkers, broadly defined, are markers of a biological process or state.1 Biomarkers are often used in research studies, but they may also be useful for clinicians and patients if they provide information about current status or future risk of disease. It is not always clear, however, when a novel biomarker provides enough useful information to justify measuring it in the context of clinical care. Evaluating the clinical utility of a novel biomarker requires a phased approach.2 Early-phase studies must prove that the biomarker is associated statistically with the clinical state of interest and adds information about presence or risk of disease above and beyond established markers. Midphase studies describe how often this incremental information might alter physician prescribing decisions. Early- and mid-phase studies are useful because they help investigators compare biomarker performance in terms that are generic (ie, not dependent on the specifics of the disease state being studied). Generic measures of biomarker performance have been reviewed previously2,–,16 and are described in Table 1 along with relevant published examples.17,–,32 View this table: Table 1. Generic Measures of Biomarker Performance Measuring biomarker performance in generic terms, however, is not sufficient for demonstrating clinical utility.6 The decision to use a biomarker in clinical practice should be based on an expectation that it will have a positive net health impact, and measuring health impact, by definition, requires use of measurements that consider the specific disease state being studied and its consequences. The goal of this review is to describe the methods by which evidence about the health impact of measuring a biomarker may be generated (late-phase evidence2) using examples relevant to cardiovascular disease and with a focus on the use of randomized clinical trials and modeling for estimating health impact. ### Mechanisms by Which Biomarker Measurement Can Impact Health There are 3 fundamental