ABSTRACT
Background One-time atrial fibrillation (AF) screening trials have produced mixed results; however, it is unclear if there is a subset for whom screening is effective. Identifying such a subgroup would support targeted screening.
Methods We conducted a secondary analysis of VITAL-AF, a randomized trial of one-time, 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 effect. Second, we used a validated AF risk model to test for a heterogeneous screening effect. We used interaction testing to determine if observed AF diagnosis rates in the screening and usual care groups differed when stratified by decile of the predicted screening effect and predicted AF risk.
Results Baseline characteristics were similar between the screening (n=15187) and usual care (n=15078) groups (mean age 74 years, 59% female). In the effect-based analysis, in the highest decile of predicted screening effectiveness (n=3026), AF diagnosis rates were higher in the screening group (6.50 vs. 3.06 per 100 person-years, rate difference 3.45, 95%CI 1.62 to 5.28). In this group, the mean age was 84 years and 68% were female. The risk-based analysis did not identify a subgroup where screening was more effective. Predicted screening effectiveness and predicted baseline AF risk were poorly correlated (Spearman coefficient 0.13).
Conclusions In a secondary analysis of the VITAL-AF trial, we identified a small subgroup where one-time screening was associated with increased AF diagnoses using an effect-based approach. In this study, predicted AF risk was a poor proxy for predicted screening effectiveness. These data caution against the assumption that high AF risk is necessarily correlated with high screening effectiveness.
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
added survival sensitivity analysis; no changes to conclusions
Data Availability
Data are not publicly available.
