Screening for primary aldosteronism in primary care: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Primary aldosteronism (PA) is the most common treatable and potentially curable cause of secondary hypertension. Prompt diagnosis and management by primary care physicians (PCPs) is important given the increased risk of cardiovascular complications however screening rates are low in primary care. Our aim was to identify factors that influence screening behaviour for PA among PCPs. METHOD: A rigorous scoping review of seven databases between 16/08/22 and 09/08/23 was used to investigate PA screening practices. Articles written in English from peer-reviewed literature within the last 20 years were eligible for inclusion if an aspect of their study was conducted in primary care. RESULTS: A total of 1380 titles and abstracts, and 61 full texts were screened, with 20 studies selected for data extraction. We identified three broad categories of factors influencing screening by PCPs-the patient, the clinician, and the healthcare system. Some studies targeted these factors to improve screening rates although there is little data on implementation and outcomes. CONCLUSION: Low awareness, inadequate guidelines, and poor access to testing were identified as key barriers to PA screening. Targeted education sessions for PCPs, clear guidelines, and closer proximity to diagnostic centres may be required to improve PA detection in primary care.

General practitioner perspectives and experiences when screening for primary aldosteronism in hypertensive patients.

Context: Primary aldosteronism (PA) is a common form of hypertension caused by excess production of the adrenal hormone aldosterone. Screening hypertensive patients with a simple blood test enables early detection and targeted treatment of PA, leading to fewer cardiovascular complications. Australian family physicians (FPs) rarely screen for PA, and screening rates are equally low among North American FPs. Limited awareness of PA is thought to explain the low screening rates in family practice. Objective: To understand the factors that influence an FP's decision to screen for PA in hypertensive patients. Study Design: Qualitative study using phenomenology to explore the experiences of FPs when screening for PA. Setting/Population: Set in South-East Melbourne, participating FPs had received an educational session on PA from an endocrinologist. We conducted semi-structured interviews with FPs who had screened at least one patient following the teaching session. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, entered into NVivo for coding, and analyzed for emerging themes. Results: The 16 participants varied by clinical experience (1-35 years), practice location (3 regional, 13 urban), and the number of patients screened for PA (1-44 patients). FPs overwhelmingly preferred screening newly diagnosed hypertensive patients over those already being managed with antihypertensive medications. Only a few FPs opted to screen all hypertensive patients, while the majority questioned the necessity of screening patients whom they thought fitted their clinical impression of essential hypertension. Many FPs found it challenging to both comply with testing requirements and interpret screening results within the existing organizational constraints of their practice. FPs that had diagnosed at least one patient with PA acknowledged the positive impact that targeted treatment had on patient wellbeing and this reinforced their role in assisting with the detection of PA. Knowledge and convenience of the screening process, the conceptualization of risk, and the perceived impacts of detecting PA were influencing factors that modified the FP screening experience. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that additional factors, other than limited awareness, influence a FP's decision to screen for PA. Our findings have the potential to inform future policy, practice, and training interventions to improve the detection of PA in family practice.

'I can't understand why others don't screen more': a qualitative study exploring why Australian general practitioners screen for primary aldosteronism.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to understand the factors that influence a general practitioner's (GP's) experience of screening for primary aldosteronism (PA) in hypertensive patients. DESIGN: A qualitative study, framed by phenomenology, using semistructured interviews that were audiorecorded, transcribed verbatim, entered into NVivo V.12.0 for coding and analysed for emerging themes. SETTING: Melbourne, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible GPs had received education on PA as part of a previous study. We recruited a purposive sample of 16 GPs (6 females, 10 males) who varied in practice location, clinical experience and the number of patients screened for PA. RESULTS: Although GPs had been educated about PA, they found it challenging to explain the condition to patients and were uncertain about how to screen patients who were already taking antihypertensive medications. Most viewed the screening process to be practical, inexpensive and, by and large, acceptable to their patients. However, they found it inconvenient to alter antihypertensive medications before screening to allow for easier interpretation of the aldosterone-renin ratio. They were also less enthused about screening patients whom they thought fitted a clinical picture of essential hypertension. Knowledge of the screening process, cost and convenience of performing the aldosterone-renin ratio, conceptualisation of risk related to PA, and a desire to improve clinical care were influencing factors that modified the GPs' screening experience. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that knowledge gaps, practical limitations of the aldosterone-renin ratio, and errors in diagnostic reasoning were challenges of routine PA screening. Most of these practical barriers could be addressed by relatively simple educational and practice modifications to increase PA screening rates and optimise detection for the most common cause of secondary hypertension in primary care.