Search

Background: Despite using identical evidence to support practice guidelines for lipid-lowering treatment in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD), it is unclear to what extent the 2018 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Multisociety, 2016 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), 2020 Department of Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense, 2021 Canadian Cardiovascular Society, and 2019 European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society guidelines differ in grading and assigning levels of evidence and classes of recommendations (LOE/class) at a population level.Methods: We included 7262 participants, aged 45 to 75 years, without history of CVD from the prospective population-based Rotterdam Study. Per guideline, proportions of the population recommended statin therapy by LOE/class, sensitivity and specificity for CVD events, and numbers needed to treat at 10 years were calculated.Results: Mean age was 61.1 (SD 6.9) years; 58.2% were women. American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Multisociety, USPSTF, Department of Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense, Canadian Cardiovascular Society, and European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society strongly recommended statin initiation in respective 59.4%, 40.2%, 45.2%, 73.7%, and 42.1% of the eligible population based on high-quality evidence. Sensitivity for CVD events for treatment recommendations supported with strong LOE/class was 86.3% for American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Multisociety (IA or IB), 69.4% for USPSTF (USPSTF-B), 74.5% for Department of Veterans Affairs/Department of Defense (strong for), 93.3% for Canadian Cardiovascular Society (strong), and 66.6% for European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society (IA). Specificity was highest for the USPSTF at 45.3% and lowest for European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society at 10.0%. Estimated numbers needed to treat at 10 years for those with the strongest LOE/class were ranging from 20 to 26 for moderate-intensity and 12 to 16 for high-intensity statins.Conclusions: Sensitivity, specificity, and numbers needed to treat at 10 years for assigned LOE/class varied greatly among 5 CVD prevention guidelines. The level of variability seems to be driven by differences in how the evidence is graded and translated into LOE/class underlying the treatment recommendations by different professional societies. Efforts towards harmonizing evidence grading systems for clinical guidelines in primary prevention of CVD may reduce ambiguity and reinforce updated evidence-based recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Most individual preventive therapies potentially narrow or widen health disparities depending on the difference in community effectiveness across socioeconomic position (SEP). The equity tipping point (defined as the point at which health disparities become larger) can be calculated by varying components of community effectiveness such as baseline risk of disease, intervention coverage and/or intervention efficacy across SEP., Methods: We used a simple modelling approach to estimate the community effectiveness of diabetes prevention across SEP in Canada under different scenarios of intervention coverage., Results: Five-year baseline diabetes risk differed between the lowest and highest income groups by 1.76%. Assuming complete coverage across all income groups, the difference was reduced to 0.90% (144 000 cases prevented) with lifestyle interventions and 1.24% (88 100 cases prevented) with pharmacotherapy. The equity tipping point was estimated to be a coverage difference of 30% for preventive interventions (100% and 70% coverage among the highest and lowest income earners, respectively)., Conclusion: Disparities in diabetes risk could be measurably reduced if existing interventions were equally adopted across SEP. However, disparities in coverage could lead to increased inequity in risk. Simple modelling approaches can be used to examine the community effectiveness of individual preventive interventions and their potential to reduce (or increase) disparities. The equity tipping point can be used as a critical threshold for disparities analyses.

Objective: To quantify the influence of type 2 diabetes risk distribution on prevention benefit and apply a method to optimally identify population targets., Methods: We used data from the 2011 Canadian Community Health Survey (N=45,040) and the validated Diabetes Population Risk Tool to calculate 10-year diabetes risk. We calculated the Gini coefficient as a measure of risk dispersion. Intervention benefit was estimated using absolute risk reduction (ARR), number-needed-to-treat (NNT), and number of cases prevented., Results: There is a wide variation of diabetes risk in Canada (Gini=0.48) and with an inverse relation to risk (r=-0.99). Risk dispersion is lower among individuals meeting an empirically derived risk cut-off (Gini=0.18). Targeting prevention based on a risk cut-off (10-year risk ≥ 16.5%) resulted in a greater number of cases prevented (340 thousand), higher ARR (7.7%) and lower NNT (13) compared to targeting individuals based on risk factor targets., Conclusions: This study provides empirical evidence to demonstrate that risk variability is an important consideration for estimating the prevention benefit. Prioritizing target populations using an empirically derived cut-off based on a multivariate risk score will result in greater benefit and efficiency compared to risk factor targets., (© 2013. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: We wanted to describe family physicians' use of information from an electronic knowledge resource for answering clinical questions, and their perception of subsequent patient health outcomes; and to estimate the number needed to benefit from information (NNBI), defined as the number of patients for whom clinical information was retrieved for 1 to benefit., Methods: We undertook a mixed methods research study, combining quantitative longitudinal and qualitative research studies. Participants were 41 family physicians from primary care clinics across Canada. Physicians were given access to 1 electronic knowledge resource on handheld computer in 2008-2009. For the outcome assessment, participants rated their searches using a validated method. Rated searches were examined during interviews guided by log reports that included ratings. Cases were defined as clearly described searches where clinical information was used for a specific patient. For each case, interviewees described information-related patient health outcomes. For the mixed methods data analysis, quantitative and qualitative data were merged into clinical vignettes (each vignette describing a case). We then estimated the NNBI., Results: In 715 of 1,193 searches for information conducted during an average of 86 days, the search objective was directly linked to a patient. Of those searches, 188 were considered to be cases. In 53 cases, participants associated the use of information with at least 1 patient health benefit. This finding suggested an NNBI of 14 (715/53)., Conclusion: The NNBI may be used in further experimental research to compare electronic knowledge resources. A low NNBI can encourage clinicians to search for information more frequently. If all searches had benefits, the NNBI would be 1. In addition to patient benefits, learning and knowledge reinforcement outcomes are frequently reported.

Canada is consistently ranked as one of the best places to live in the world. A crucial part of this view is based on Canada's approach to public health, which has achieved measurable results in the rate reduction of some leading causes of disease and death. It is therefore surprising to learn that in tackling the leading cause of death for Canadian children and youth, Canada ranks a disappointing 18th of 26 nations in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (UNICEF 2001). Few are aware that unintentional injury is the leading cause of death for Canadian children and youth between the ages of one and 14. In Canada, injury kills more children and youth than all disease (Canadian Institutes of Health Research 2008). Unintentional injuries are a leading public health issue that directly impacts the health, well-being and quality of life of those injured, as well as their families, communities and greater society. Nevertheless, injury is often neglected, and investment is rarely equal to the magnitude of the problem. The reality is that injury prevention has not kept pace with other public health interventions such as tobacco control or infectious disease prevention programs. Despite its devastating impact, injury remains an invisible epidemic.