Estimated stroke risk, yield, and number needed to screen for atrial fibrillation detected through single time screening: a multicountry patient-level meta-analysis of 141,220 screened individuals
UMass Chan Affiliations
Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, MD/PHD ProgramGraduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Clinical and Population Health Research Program
Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine
Document Type
Journal ArticlePublication Date
2019-09-25Keywords
Atrial fibrillationScreening guidelines
Electrocardiography
Age groups
Cost-effectiveness analysis
Health screening
Age distribution
Ischemic stroke
UMCCTS funding
Biostatistics
Cardiology
Cardiovascular Diseases
Clinical Epidemiology
Epidemiology
Health Services Administration
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
BACKGROUND: The precise age distribution and calculated stroke risk of screen-detected atrial fibrillation (AF) is not known. Therefore, it is not possible to determine the number needed to screen (NNS) to identify one treatable new AF case (NNS-Rx) (i.e., Class-1 oral anticoagulation [OAC] treatment recommendation) in each age stratum. If the NNS-Rx is known for each age stratum, precise cost-effectiveness and sensitivity simulations can be performed based on the age distribution of the population/region to be screened. Such calculations are required by national authorities and organisations responsible for health system budgets to determine the best age cutoffs for screening programs and decide whether programs of screening should be funded. Therefore, we aimed to determine the exact yield and calculated stroke-risk profile of screen-detected AF and NNS-Rx in 5-year age strata. METHODS AND FINDINGS: A systematic review of Medline, Pubmed, and Embase was performed (January 2007 to February 2018), and AF-SCREEN international collaboration members were contacted to identify additional studies. Twenty-four eligible studies were identified that performed a single time point screen for AF in a general ambulant population, including people > /=65 years. Authors from eligible studies were invited to collaborate and share patient-level data. Statistical analysis was performed using random effects logistic regression for AF detection rate, and Poisson regression modelling for CHA2DS2-VASc scores. Nineteen studies (14 countries from a mix of low- to middle- and high-income countries) collaborated, with 141,220 participants screened and 1,539 new AF cases. Pooled yield of screening was greater in males across all age strata. The age/sex-adjusted detection rate for screen-detected AF in > /=65-year-olds was 1.44% (95% CI, 1.13%-1.82%) and 0.41% (95% CI, 0.31%-0.53%) for < 65-year-olds. New AF detection rate increased progressively with age from 0.34% ( < 60 years) to 2.73% ( > /=85 years). Neither the choice of screening methodology or device, the geographical region, nor the screening setting influenced the detection rate of AF. Mean CHA2DS2-VASc scores (n = 1,369) increased with age from 1.1 ( < 60 years) to 3.9 ( > /=85 years); 72% of > /=65 years had > /=1 additional stroke risk factor other than age/sex. All new AF > /=75 years and 66% between 65 and 74 years had a Class-1 OAC recommendation. The NNS-Rx is 83 for > /=65 years, 926 for 60-64 years; and 1,089 for < 60 years. The main limitation of this study is there are insufficient data on sociodemographic variables of the populations and possible ascertainment biases to explain the variance in the samples. CONCLUSIONS: People with screen-detected AF are at elevated calculated stroke risk: above age 65, the majority have a Class-1 OAC recommendation for stroke prevention, and > 70% have > /=1 additional stroke risk factor other than age/sex. Our data, based on the largest number of screen-detected AF collected to date, show the precise relationship between yield and estimated stroke risk profile with age, and strong dependence for NNS-RX on the age distribution of the population to be screened: essential information for precise cost-effectiveness calculations.Source
PLoS Med. 2019 Sep 25;16(9):e1002903. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002903. eCollection 2019 Sep. Link to article on publisher's site
DOI
10.1371/journal.pmed.1002903Permanent Link to this Item
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14038/41217PubMed ID
31553733Notes
Full author list omitted for brevity. For the full list of authors, see article.
Related Resources
Rights
Copyright: © 2019 Lowres et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.Distribution License
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
10.1371/journal.pmed.1002903
Scopus Count
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Copyright: © 2019 Lowres et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Related items
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
-
Does Routine Screening Matter? The Prenatal Emotional Health Screening Project (PEHS)Taub, Jennifer; Lundquist, Rebecca; Fletcher, Kenneth E.; Zandi, Tara (2007-09-01) -
Impact of Mental Health Screening with the Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument (MAYSI-2) in Juvenile DetentionWilliams, Valerie F.; Grisso, Thomas (2008-01-01)Introduction: Recent evidence suggests that the prevalence of mental health disorders among youth entering juvenile pretrial detention centers is two to three times higher than youths in the general population (Teplin, Abram, McClelland, Dulcan & Mericle, 2002). Within the past five years, mental health screening upon entry to a juvenile justice facility has become standard practice across the nation. We know more about the validity and reliability of mental health screening tools used in this context than we do about the factors that facilitate their implementation. If tools are not implemented properly, their adequate validity is virtually lost. Effective screening procedures require attention to how screening instruments are put into place and how they actually function within juvenile justice facilities. Introduced in 2000, the Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument—Second Version (MAYSI-2; Grisso & Barnum, 2006) is now the most widely used mental health screening tool in juvenile justice secure facilities in the United States. -
Cystic fibrosis newborn screening: using experience to optimize the screening algorithmHale, Jaime E.; Parad, Richard B.; Dorkin, Henry L.; Gerstle, Robert; Lapey, Allen; O'Sullivan, Brian P.; Spencer, L. Terry; Yee, William; Comeau, Anne Marie (2010-10-04)Newborn screening (NBS) for cystic fibrosis (CF) offers the opportunity for early diagnosis and improved outcomes in patients with CF and has been universally available in the state of Massachusetts since 1999 using an immunoreactive trypsinogen (IRT)-DNA algorithm. Ideally, CF NBS is incorporated as part of an integrated NBS system that allows for comprehensive and coordinated education, laboratory screening, clinical follow-up, and evaluation so that evidence-based data can be used to maximize quality improvements and optimize the screening algorithm. The New England Newborn Screening Program (NENSP) retrospectively analyzed Massachusetts's CF newborn screening data that yielded decisions to eliminate a screen-positive category, maintain the IRT cutoff value that prompts the second tier DNA testing, and communicate CF relative risk to primary care providers (PCPs) based on categorization of positive CF NBS results.

