ABSTRACT
Background One-time atrial fibrillation (AF) screening trials have produced mixed results; we sought a subset for whom screening is effective.
Methods We conducted a secondary analysis of VITAL-AF, a randomized trial of one-time, brief, single-lead ECG screening during primary care visits. We tested two approaches to identify a subgroup where screening is effective. First, we developed an effect-based model using a T-learner. Specifically, we separately predicted the likelihood of AF diagnosis under screening and usual care conditions; the difference in probabilities was the predicted screening effectiveness. Second, we used a validated AF risk model to test for heterogeneous screening effectiveness.
Results In the effect-based analysis, in the highest quartile of predicted screening effectiveness, AF diagnosis rates were higher in the screening group (4.00 vs. 2.88 per 100 person-years, rate difference 1.12, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.13). In the risk-based analysis, in the highest quartile of baseline AF risk, AF diagnosis rates were also higher in the screening group (5.55 vs. 4.23 per 100 person-years, rate difference 1.32, 95% CI 0.14 to 2.50). Predicted screening effectiveness and predicted baseline AF risk were weakly correlated (Spearman correlation coefficient 0.23). Patients with low primary care use, using rate control medications, females, and Black patients were overrepresented in the high-effectiveness group even when they were not at high risk of developing AF.
Conclusions In a secondary analysis of VITAL-AF, we identified subgroups where one-time screening was associated with increased AF diagnoses using both effect-based and risk-based approaches. In this study, predicted AF risk was only a partial proxy for predicted screening effectiveness. Even when individuals are not in the high-risk subset, features like low primary care use and rate control medication use can identify individuals for whom AF screening has a large impact. Future AF screening efforts should focus on screening both “high-risk” and “high-effectiveness” individuals.
What is Known
Because trials testing office-based screening for atrial fibrillation have produced mixed results, some have suggested we focus screening efforts on high-risk individuals.
Newer methods allow us to test for screening heterogeneity using risk-based analyses and separately effect-based analyses, which disentangle screening effects from baseline disease risk.
What the Study Adds
Both the risk-based analysis and the effect-based analysis identified “high-risk” and “high-effectiveness” subgroups, respectively, where one-time AF screening was effective.
“High-risk” and “high-effectiveness” groups only partially overlap; even when individuals are not in the high-risk subset, features like low primary care use and rate control medication use an identify individuals for whom AF screening has a large impact.
Future AF screening efforts should focus on screening both “high-risk” and “high-effectiveness” people.
Competing Interest Statement
Conflict of Interest Disclosure: Dr. Shah reported funding from the National Institute on Aging/National Institutes of Health related to the conduct of this study (noted below). Dr. Atlas has received sponsored research support from Bristol Myers Squibb / Pfizer and American Heart Association (18SFRN34250007). Dr. Atlas has consulted for Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, and Fitbit. Dr. Ashburner is supported by NIH grant K01HL148506, American Heart Association 18SFRN34250007, and has received sponsored research support from Bristol Myers Squibb / Pfizer. Dr. Ellinor is supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health (R01HL092577, R01HL157635), by a grant from the American Heart Association (18SFRN34110082, 961045), and by a grant from the European Union (MAESTRIA 965286). Dr. Ellinor has received sponsored research support from Bayer AG, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb and IBM; he has also served on advisory boards or consulted for Bayer AG. Dr. Lubitz is an employee of Novartis. Dr. Lubitz was previously supported by NIH grants R01HL139731 and R01HL157635, and American Heart Association 18SFRN34250007. Dr. Lubitz received sponsored research support from Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Fitbit, Medtronic, Premier, and IBM, and has consulted for Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Blackstone Life Sciences, and Invitae. Dr. Singer is supported, in part, by the Eliot B. and Edith C. Shoolman Fund of Massachusetts General Hospital. Dr. Singer receives research support from Bristol Myers Squibb-Pfizer and has received consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Fitbit (Google), Medtronic, and Pfizer. Dr. McManus reports having received compensation from Fitbit for serving on the Fitbit Heart Study Advisory Board, from the Heart Rhythm Society for service as Editor, from Avania and NAMSA for serving on Data and Safety Monitoring Boards and has received non-compensatory study support from Apple Computer, Fitbit, and Care Evolution. The remaining authors have nothing to disclose.
Funding Statement
This analysis was funded by the NIA (K76AG074919). The VITAL-AF study was an investigator-initiated study funded by the Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The Mass General Brigham Institutional Review Board approved the research protocol. Participants provided informed consent to participate. The study was considered minimal risk, and a waiver of documentation of informed consent was granted.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
updated analysis with more stable predictions
Data Availability
Data are not publicly available.
Non-standard Abbreviations and Acronyms
- AF
- atrial fibrillation
- CHARGE-AF
- Cohorts for Heart and Aging Research in Genomic Epidemiology AF
- D2AF
- Diagnosing Atrial Fibrillation
- DAPT
- Dual Antiplatelet Therapy
- GLM
- generalized linear model
- LASSO
- least absolute shrinkage and selection operator
- PASCAL
- PFO-Associated Stroke Causal Likelihood
- PFO
- patent foramen ovale
- RCT
- randomized clinical trial
- SAFE
- Screening for Atrial Fibrillation in the Elderly
