Incidental findings in research: A focus group study about the perspective of the research participant.

PURPOSE: To explore the experiences and preferences of population-based research participants to whom an incidental finding was communicated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Of the 2580 participants of the Netherlands Epidemiology of Obesity (NEO) study who underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanning of the abdomen, heart, and/or brain, an incidental finding with presumed health importance was disclosed to 56 (2%) participants. These participants were invited to discuss their experiences regarding the communication of the finding by the NEO research team in a focus group discussion. Transcripts of the discussions were analyzed using thematic content analysis with an open coding system. RESULTS: Twenty-three persons participated in four discussions: 57% male; mean age 58 years; 74% findings were suspect for a malignancy. Overall, the participants were grateful for the disclosure of the incidental finding. They had assumed that any finding would be disclosed, and this was an important reason to participate in research. None regretted their informed consent to be notified about incidental findings. Disclosure of the finding had great impact on the lives of most participants. Difficulties with the transition from research participant to patient were frequently mentioned. CONCLUSION: This study provides information to improve the communication of incidental findings by 1) giving clear information about which findings will be disclosed, and 2) demarcating the transition from research participant to patient, by making clear arrangements with medical specialists to guarantee careful follow-up of the finding. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Technical Efficacy: Stage 5 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;47:230-237.

Overweight can be used as a tool to guide case-finding for cardiovascular risk assessment.

BACKGROUND: In general practice, it is too time-consuming to invite all patients for cardiovascular risk assessment. OBJECTIVE: To examine how many patients with an indication for treatment with cardiovascular medication can be identified by ad hoc case-finding when all patients with overweight/obesity are invited for risk assessment. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of the baseline measurements of the Netherlands Epidemiology of Obesity study, a population-based prospective cohort study in 6673 persons aged 45-65 years. We calculated the proportion of participants with a treatment indication using the risk prediction Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE-NL 2011), for lean, overweight and obese participants. Participants with a history of cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus or rheumatoid arthritis or using cardiovascular medication were not eligible for ad hoc case-finding because they were already identified as being at risk and/or had been treated. RESULTS: Of the study population, 30% had already been identified and/or treated with cardiovascular medication and were therefore not eligible for ad hoc case-finding. Of the eligible participants, 47% were lean, 41% overweight and 12% obese. Of the participants with overweight, 12% had a treatment indication and of the participants with obesity, 19% had a treatment indication. Of all participants with a treatment indication 24% were not yet treated. Of all participants with a new treatment indication, 70% had overweight or obesity. CONCLUSIONS: Of the participants with a treatment indication, 24% were not yet treated. Inviting patients with overweight/obesity for cardiovascular risk assessment may help to detect 70% of these residual patients with a treatment indication.

A deprescribing programme aimed to optimise blood glucose-lowering medication in older people with type 2 diabetes mellitus, the OMED2-study: the study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Older patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) have an increased risk of hypoglycaemic episodes when using sulphonylureas or insulin. In the Netherlands, guidelines exist for reducing glucose-lowering medication in older patients. However, evidence is lacking that a medication reduction in older patients can be safely pursued. Here, we will examine if promoting the deprescribing of insulin/sulphonylureas with a deprescribing programme (DPP) in general practice affects T2D-complications in older overtreated patients. METHODS: We will perform a 1:1 cluster randomised controlled trial in 86 general practices in the Netherlands. The DPP will consist of education sessions with general practitioners and practice nurses about reducing glucose-lowering medication in older patients (≥ 70 years). Topics of the sessions include the necessity of deprescribing, tools to initiate deprescribing and strategies to discuss deprescribing with patients (shared decision making). The DPP further includes a support programme with practice visits. The study will employ a selection tool to identify possibly overtreated older patients from the electronic medical records of the general practitioner. Eligibility for enrolment in the study will be based on HbA1c targets indicated by the Dutch guidelines, which depend on age, diabetes duration, presence of frailty, and life expectancy. The control group will provide usual care. We aim to include 406 patients. The follow-up period will be 2 years. For the primary outcome, the effect of the DPP on T2D-complications will be assessed by counting the cumulative incidence of events related to under- and overtreatment in T2D as registered in the electronic medical records. We shall perform an intention-to-treat analysis and an analysis including only patients for whom deprescribing was initiated. The implementation of the DPP in general practice will be evaluated quantitatively and qualitatively using the Extended Normalisation Process Theory (ENPT) and the Reach, Efficacy - Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance (RE-AIM) model. Other secondary outcomes include quality of life, cognitive functioning, events related to overtreatment or undertreatment, biomarkers of health, amount of blood glucose-lowering medication prescriptions, and cost-effectiveness. DISCUSSION: This study will provide insight into the safety and feasibility of a programme aimed at deprescribing sulphonylureas/insulin in older people with T2D who are treated in general practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN50008265 , registered 09 March, 2023.

Advantages and disadvantages of unstructured cardiovascular risk factor screening for follow-up in primary care.

BACKGROUND: In contrast to structured, integrated risk assessment in primary care, unstructured risk factor screening outside primary care and corresponding recommendations to consult a general practitioner (GP) are often based on one abnormal value of a single risk factor. This study investigates the advantages and disadvantages of unstructured screening of blood pressure and cholesterol outside primary care. METHODS: After the baseline visit of the Netherlands Epidemiology of Obesity study (population-based prospective cohort study in persons aged 45-65 years, recruited 2008-2012) all participants received a letter with results of blood pressure and cholesterol, and a recommendation to consult a GP if results were abnormal. Four years after the start of the study, participants received a questionnaire about the follow-up of their results. RESULTS: The study population consisted of 6343 participants, 48% men, mean age 56 years, mean body mass index 30 kg/m(2). Of all participants 66% had an abnormal result and, of these, 49% had a treatment indication based on the risk estimation system SCORE-NL 2006. Of the 25% of the participants who did not consult a GP, 40% had a treatment indication. Of the participants with an abnormal result 19% were worried, of whom 60% had no treatment indication. CONCLUSIONS: In this population 51% of the participants with an abnormal result had unnecessarily received a recommendation to consult a GP, and 10% were unnecessarily worried. GPs should be informed about the complete risk assessment, and only participants at intermediate or high risk should receive a recommendation to consult a GP.