Systematic versus opportunistic risk assessment for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.

BACKGROUND: Screening programmes can potentially identify people at high cardiovascular risk and reduce cardiovascular disease (CVD) morbidity and mortality. However, there is currently not enough evidence showing clear clinical or economic benefits of systematic screening-like programmes over the widely practised opportunistic risk assessment of CVD in primary care settings. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this review was to assess the effectiveness, costs and adverse effects of systematic risk assessment compared to opportunistic risk assessment for the primary prevention of CVD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) on the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE on 30 January 2015, and Web of Science Core Collection and additional databases on the Cochrane Library on 4 December 2014. We also searched two clinical trial registers and checked reference lists of relevant articles. We applied no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the effects of systematic risk assessment, defined as a screening-like programme involving a predetermined selection process of people, compared with opportunistic risk assessment which ranged from no risk assessment at all to incentivised case finding of CVD and related risk factors. Participants included healthy adults from the general population, including those who are at risk of CVD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies. One review author extracted data and assessed them for risk of bias and a second checked them. We assessed evidence quality using the GRADE approach and present this in a 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS: Nine completed RCTs met the inclusion criteria, of which four were cluster-randomised. We also identified five ongoing trials. The included studies had a high or unclear risk of bias, and the GRADE ratings of overall quality were low or very low. The length of follow-up varied from one year in four studies, three years in one study, five or six years in two studies, and ten years in two studies. Eight studies recruited participants from the general population, although there were differences in the age ranges targeted. One study recruited family members of cardiac patients (high risk assessment). There were considerable differences between the studies in the interventions received by the intervention and control groups. There was insufficient evidence to stratify by the types of risk assessment approaches.Limited data were available on all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.02; 3 studies,103,571 participants, I² = 0%; low-quality evidence) and cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.11; 2 studies, 43,955 participants, I² = 0%), and suggest that screening has no effect on these outcomes. Data were also limited for combined non-fatal endpoints; overall, evidence indicates no difference in total coronary heart disease (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.07; 4 studies, 5 comparisons, 110,168 participants, I² = 0%; low-quality evidence), non-fatal coronary heart disease (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.09; 2 studies, 43,955 participants, I² = 39%), total stroke (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.10; 2 studies, 79,631 participants, I² = 0%, low-quality evidence), and non-fatal stroke (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.47; 1 study, 20,015 participants).Overall, systematic risk assessment appears to result in lower total cholesterol levels (mean difference (MD) -0.11 mmol/l, 95% CI -0.17 to -0.04, 6 studies, 7 comparisons, 12,591 participants, I² = 57%; very low-quality evidence), lower systolic blood pressure (MD -3.05 mmHg, 95% CI -4.84 to -1.25, 6 studies, 7 comparisons, 12,591 participants, I² = 82%; very low-quality evidence) and lower diastolic blood pressure (MD -1.34 mmHg, 95% CI -1.76 to -0.93, 6 studies, 7 comparisons, 12,591 participants, I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). One study assessed adverse effects and found no difference in psychological distress at five years (1126 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results are limited by the heterogeneity between trials in terms of participants recruited, interventions and duration of follow-up. Limited data suggest that systematic risk assessment for CVD has no statistically significant effects on clinical endpoints. There is limited evidence to suggest that CVD systematic risk assessment may have some favourable effects on cardiovascular risk factors. The completion of the five ongoing trials will add to the evidence base.

A novel nucleotide receptor in Xenopus activates the cAMP second messenger pathway.

We describe a Xenopus P2Y receptor that shares only weak homology with members of the mammalian P2Y family, being most similar to human P2Y(11). When activated by nucleotide analogs, it stimulates both calcium and cAMP mobilization pathways, a feature unique, among mammalian P2Y receptors, to P2Y(11). Activity can be blocked by compounds known to act as antagonists of mammalian P2Y(11). Genomic synteny between Xenopus and mammals suggests that the novel gene is a true ortholog of P2Y(11). Xenopus P2Y(11) is transcribed during embryonic development, beginning at gastrulation, and is enriched in the developing nervous system.

Preparation and medical outcomes of Nepalese staff and porters compared with foreign nationals on the Annapurna trekking circuit.

This cross-sectional study investigates preparedness and medical problems in Nepalese staff and porters compared with foreign nationals trekking at altitude in the Nepal Himalaya. 331 Nepalese and 338 foreign nationals in 61 trekking groups were surveyed over 4 weeks on the Annapurna trekking circuit. Foreign nationals reported that 92% of trekking groups received altitude illness information and carried a medical kit. However, fewer than 30% knew the evacuation insurance status of the Nepalese staff and porters on their trek, 39% would not pay for an ill Nepalese national's helicopter evacuation, and 41% reported insufficient resources to carry an individual. Medical problems occurred in 44% of groups. A significantly higher proportion of Nepalese staff and porters were evacuated compared with foreign nationals. No significant differences in Nepalese and foreign national preparation were found between groups with and without medical problems. Medical problems were commonly encountered, yet many groups lacked resources to evacuate someone dangerously ill. Foreign and Nepalese nationals have a duty of care towards each other; recognizing that preparedness relies not only on a first aid kit, but also on knowledge of acclimatization and individuals' insurance is an important part of health and safety for individuals trekking at altitude.