Understanding treatment-subgroup effect in primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease: An exploration using meta-analyses of individual patient data.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Recommendations for preventing cardiovascular (CV) disease are currently separated into primary and secondary prevention. We hypothesize that relative effects of interventions for CV prevention are not different across primary and secondary prevention cohorts. Our aim was to test for differences in relative effects on CV events in common preventive CV interventions across primary and secondary prevention cohorts. METHODS AND RESULTS: A systematic search was performed to identify individual patient data (IPD) meta-analyses that included both primary and secondary prevention populations. Eligibility assessment, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were conducted independently and in duplicate. We extracted relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) of the interventions over patient-important outcomes and estimated the ratio of RR for primary and secondary prevention populations. We identified five eligible IPDs representing 524,570 participants. Quality assessment resulted in overall low-to-moderate methodological quality. We found no subgroup effect across prevention categories in any of the outcomes assessed. CONCLUSION: In the absence of significant treatment-subgroup interactions between primary and secondary CV prevention cohorts for common preventive interventions, clinical practice guidelines could offer recommendations tailored to individual estimates of CV risk without regard to membership to primary and secondary prevention cohorts. This would require the development of reliable ASCVD risk estimators that apply across both cohorts.

Shared Decision Making Tools for People Facing Stroke Prevention Strategies in Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Environmental Scan.

OBJECTIVE: Shared decision making (SDM) tools can help implement guideline recommendations for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) considering stroke prevention strategies. We sought to characterize all available SDM tools for this purpose and examine their quality and clinical impact. METHODS: We searched through multiple bibliographic databases, social media, and an SDM tool repository from inception to May 2020 and contacted authors of identified SDM tools. Eligible tools had to offer information about warfarin and ≥1 direct oral anticoagulant. We extracted tool characteristics, assessed their adherence to the International Patient Decision Aids Standards, and obtained information about their efficacy in promoting SDM. RESULTS: We found 14 SDM tools. Most tools provided up-to-date information about the options, but very few included practical considerations (e.g., out-of-pocket cost). Five of these SDM tools, all used by patients prior to the encounter, were tested in trials at high risk of bias and were found to produce small improvements in patient knowledge and reductions in decisional conflict. CONCLUSION: Several SDM tools for stroke prevention in AF are available, but whether they promote high-quality SDM is yet to be known. The implementation of guidelines for SDM in this context requires user-centered development and evaluation of SDM tools that can effectively promote high-quality SDM and improve stroke prevention in patients with AF.