Participation rate and yield of two home-based screening methods to detect increased albuminuria in the general population in the Netherlands (THOMAS): a prospective, randomised, open-label implementation study
Chronic kidney disease (CKD) has a rising global prevalence and is expected to become the fifth leading cause of death by 2030. Increased albuminuria defines the early stages of CKD and is among the strongest risk factors for progressive CKD and cardiovascular disease. The value of population screen...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | The Lancet (British edition) 2023-09, Vol.402 (10407), p.1052-1064 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 1064 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 10407 |
| container_start_page | 1052 |
| container_title | The Lancet (British edition) |
| container_volume | 402 |
| creator | van Mil, Dominique Kieneker, Lyanne M Evers-Roeten, Birgitte Thelen, Marc H M de Vries, Hanne Hemmelder, Marc H Dorgelo, Annemiek van Etten, Ronald W Heerspink, Hiddo J L Gansevoort, Ron T |
| description | Chronic kidney disease (CKD) has a rising global prevalence and is expected to become the fifth leading cause of death by 2030. Increased albuminuria defines the early stages of CKD and is among the strongest risk factors for progressive CKD and cardiovascular disease. The value of population screening for albuminuria to detect CKD in an early phase has yet to be studied. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of two home-based albuminuria population screening methods.
Towards Home-based Albuminuria Screening (THOMAS) was a prospective, randomised, open-label implementation study that invited Dutch adults aged 45–80 years for albuminuria screening. Individuals were randomly assigned (1:1) to screening by applying either a urine collection device (UCD) that was sent by post to a central laboratory for measurement of the albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR) by immunoturbidimetry or to screening via a smartphone application that measures the ACR with a dipstick method at home. Randomisation was done with a four-block method via a web-based system and was stratified by age, sex, and socioeconomic status. If two or more individuals per household were invited to participate, these individuals were randomly assigned to the same group. In case of confirmed increased albuminuria at home, participants were invited for an elaborate screening in a regional hospital (Amphia Hospital, Breda, Netherlands) for CKD and cardiovascular risk factors. When abnormalities were found, participants were referred to their general practitioner for treatment. The primary outcomes were the participation rate and yield of the home-based screening and elaborate screening. Participation rate was assessed in the intention-to-screen population (ie, all participants who were invited for the home-based screening or elaborate screening). Yield was assessed in the per-protocol population (ie, all individuals who participated in the home-based screening or elaborate screening). An exploratory analysis assessed the sensitivity and specificity of both home-based screening methods. To this end, an additional quantitative ACR test was performed among people participating in the elaborate screening, and a substudy was performed among participants with a first negative home-based screening test, who were invited for an additional test. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04295889.
15 074 participants were enrolled between Nov 14, 2019, and March 19, 2021. 7552 (50·1%) were randomly assig |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)00876-0 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2853943368</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0140673623008760</els_id><sourcerecordid>2853943368</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c370t-e989689e2fb84c2dd0a3333c07e68ce045a2faa55bca62813114bca7f1dbdea3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkcFu1DAQhiMEEkvhEZAscdlKDdix43i5oKoCilQoUvfAzXLsSddVYgfbKdrX5ImY7lYcuOCLLc_nf_7xX1WvGX3LKJPvbigTtJYdl-uGn1KqOlnTJ9WKiU7Ureh-PK1Wf5Hn1Yuc7yilQtJ2Vf3-blLx1s-m-BhIMgWICY7sPYyOxIGUX5Hs4gR1bzI4km0CCD7ckgnKLrpMSiQOCthCfMDigTJjv0w-LMkbvCVlB-QWAiQzkjnOy3hs9lj5hkKQRuyayXp7ef31_Ob0PTFkTjHPqOvv4QyNBRcnj-JnJM4Q6tH0MBI_zSNMEMpRMZfF7V9WzwYzZnj1uJ9U208ftxeX9dX15y8X51e15R0tNWzURqoNNEOvhG2co4bjsrQDqSxQ0ZpmMKZte2tkoxhnTOCxG5jrHRh-Uq2Psujz5wK5aLRnYcRBIC5ZN6rlG8G5VIi--Qe9i0sKaA4p2TFFheJItUfK4uA5waDn5CeT9ppR_RC0PgStH1LUDdeHoDXFdx-O7wCHvfeQdLYeggXnE36fdtH_R-EPU7u0tg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2867180483</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Participation rate and yield of two home-based screening methods to detect increased albuminuria in the general population in the Netherlands (THOMAS): a prospective, randomised, open-label implementation study</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>van Mil, Dominique ; Kieneker, Lyanne M ; Evers-Roeten, Birgitte ; Thelen, Marc H M ; de Vries, Hanne ; Hemmelder, Marc H ; Dorgelo, Annemiek ; van Etten, Ronald W ; Heerspink, Hiddo J L ; Gansevoort, Ron T</creator><creatorcontrib>van Mil, Dominique ; Kieneker, Lyanne M ; Evers-Roeten, Birgitte ; Thelen, Marc H M ; de Vries, Hanne ; Hemmelder, Marc H ; Dorgelo, Annemiek ; van Etten, Ronald W ; Heerspink, Hiddo J L ; Gansevoort, Ron T</creatorcontrib><description>Chronic kidney disease (CKD) has a rising global prevalence and is expected to become the fifth leading cause of death by 2030. Increased albuminuria defines the early stages of CKD and is among the strongest risk factors for progressive CKD and cardiovascular disease. The value of population screening for albuminuria to detect CKD in an early phase has yet to be studied. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of two home-based albuminuria population screening methods.
Towards Home-based Albuminuria Screening (THOMAS) was a prospective, randomised, open-label implementation study that invited Dutch adults aged 45–80 years for albuminuria screening. Individuals were randomly assigned (1:1) to screening by applying either a urine collection device (UCD) that was sent by post to a central laboratory for measurement of the albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR) by immunoturbidimetry or to screening via a smartphone application that measures the ACR with a dipstick method at home. Randomisation was done with a four-block method via a web-based system and was stratified by age, sex, and socioeconomic status. If two or more individuals per household were invited to participate, these individuals were randomly assigned to the same group. In case of confirmed increased albuminuria at home, participants were invited for an elaborate screening in a regional hospital (Amphia Hospital, Breda, Netherlands) for CKD and cardiovascular risk factors. When abnormalities were found, participants were referred to their general practitioner for treatment. The primary outcomes were the participation rate and yield of the home-based screening and elaborate screening. Participation rate was assessed in the intention-to-screen population (ie, all participants who were invited for the home-based screening or elaborate screening). Yield was assessed in the per-protocol population (ie, all individuals who participated in the home-based screening or elaborate screening). An exploratory analysis assessed the sensitivity and specificity of both home-based screening methods. To this end, an additional quantitative ACR test was performed among people participating in the elaborate screening, and a substudy was performed among participants with a first negative home-based screening test, who were invited for an additional test. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04295889.
15 074 participants were enrolled between Nov 14, 2019, and March 19, 2021. 7552 (50·1%) were randomly assigned to home-based albuminuria screening by the UCD method and 7522 (49·9%) were assigned to albuminuria screening by the smartphone application method. The participation rate of the home-based screening was 4484 (59·4% [95% CI 58·3–60·5]) of the 7552 invited individuals for the UCD method and 3336 (44·3% [43·2–45·5]) of 7522 invited individuals for the smartphone application method (p<0·0001). Increased ACR was confirmed by home-based testing in 150 (3·3% [95% CI 2·9–3·9]) of 4484 individuals for the UCD method and 171 (5·1% [4·4–5·9]) of 3336 indivduals for the smartphone application method. 124 (82·7% [95% CI 75·8–87·9]) of 150 individuals assigned to the UCD method and 142 (83·0% [76·7–87·9]) of 171 participants assigned to the smartphone application method attended the elaborate screening. Sensitivity to detect increased ACR was 96·6% (95% CI 91·5–99·1) for the UCD method and 98·1% (89·9–99·9) for the smartphone application method, and specificity was 97·3% (94·7–98·8) for the UCD method and 67·9% (62·0–73·3) for the smartphone application method, indicating that the test characteristics of only the UCD method were sufficient for screening. Albuminuria, hypertension, hypercholesterolaemia, and decreased kidney function were newly diagnosed in 77 (62·1%), 44 (35·5%), 30 (24·2%), and 27 (21·8%) of 124 participants for the UCD method, respectively. Of the 124 participants assigned to the UCD method who completed elaborate screening, 111 (89·5%) were referred to their general practitioner for treatment because of newly diagnosed CKD or cardiovascular disease risk factors or known risk factors outside the target range.
Home-based screening of the general population for increased ACR using a UCD had a high participation rate and correctly identified individuals with increased albuminuria and yet unknown or known but outside target range CKD and cardiovascular risk factors. By contrast, the smartphone application method had a lower at-home participation rate than the UCD method and the test specificity was too low to accurately assess individuals for risk factors during the elaborate screening. The UCD screening strategy could allow for an early start of treatment to prevent progressive kidney function loss and cardiovascular disease in patients with CKD.
Dutch Kidney Foundation, Top Sector Life Sciences & Health of the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0140-6736</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1474-547X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)00876-0</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Abnormalities ; Cardiovascular disease ; Cardiovascular diseases ; Cholesterol ; Cost analysis ; Creatinine ; Diabetes ; Disease prevention ; Health risks ; Health services ; Hospitals ; Hypercholesterolemia ; Hypertension ; Kidney diseases ; Kidneys ; Labels ; Methods ; Participation ; Randomization ; Risk factors ; Sensitivity analysis ; Smartphones ; Socioeconomic factors ; Socioeconomics ; Urine</subject><ispartof>The Lancet (British edition), 2023-09, Vol.402 (10407), p.1052-1064</ispartof><rights>2023 Elsevier Ltd</rights><rights>2023. Elsevier Ltd</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c370t-e989689e2fb84c2dd0a3333c07e68ce045a2faa55bca62813114bca7f1dbdea3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c370t-e989689e2fb84c2dd0a3333c07e68ce045a2faa55bca62813114bca7f1dbdea3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673623008760$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>van Mil, Dominique</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kieneker, Lyanne M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Evers-Roeten, Birgitte</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thelen, Marc H M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Vries, Hanne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hemmelder, Marc H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dorgelo, Annemiek</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Etten, Ronald W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Heerspink, Hiddo J L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gansevoort, Ron T</creatorcontrib><title>Participation rate and yield of two home-based screening methods to detect increased albuminuria in the general population in the Netherlands (THOMAS): a prospective, randomised, open-label implementation study</title><title>The Lancet (British edition)</title><description>Chronic kidney disease (CKD) has a rising global prevalence and is expected to become the fifth leading cause of death by 2030. Increased albuminuria defines the early stages of CKD and is among the strongest risk factors for progressive CKD and cardiovascular disease. The value of population screening for albuminuria to detect CKD in an early phase has yet to be studied. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of two home-based albuminuria population screening methods.
Towards Home-based Albuminuria Screening (THOMAS) was a prospective, randomised, open-label implementation study that invited Dutch adults aged 45–80 years for albuminuria screening. Individuals were randomly assigned (1:1) to screening by applying either a urine collection device (UCD) that was sent by post to a central laboratory for measurement of the albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR) by immunoturbidimetry or to screening via a smartphone application that measures the ACR with a dipstick method at home. Randomisation was done with a four-block method via a web-based system and was stratified by age, sex, and socioeconomic status. If two or more individuals per household were invited to participate, these individuals were randomly assigned to the same group. In case of confirmed increased albuminuria at home, participants were invited for an elaborate screening in a regional hospital (Amphia Hospital, Breda, Netherlands) for CKD and cardiovascular risk factors. When abnormalities were found, participants were referred to their general practitioner for treatment. The primary outcomes were the participation rate and yield of the home-based screening and elaborate screening. Participation rate was assessed in the intention-to-screen population (ie, all participants who were invited for the home-based screening or elaborate screening). Yield was assessed in the per-protocol population (ie, all individuals who participated in the home-based screening or elaborate screening). An exploratory analysis assessed the sensitivity and specificity of both home-based screening methods. To this end, an additional quantitative ACR test was performed among people participating in the elaborate screening, and a substudy was performed among participants with a first negative home-based screening test, who were invited for an additional test. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04295889.
15 074 participants were enrolled between Nov 14, 2019, and March 19, 2021. 7552 (50·1%) were randomly assigned to home-based albuminuria screening by the UCD method and 7522 (49·9%) were assigned to albuminuria screening by the smartphone application method. The participation rate of the home-based screening was 4484 (59·4% [95% CI 58·3–60·5]) of the 7552 invited individuals for the UCD method and 3336 (44·3% [43·2–45·5]) of 7522 invited individuals for the smartphone application method (p<0·0001). Increased ACR was confirmed by home-based testing in 150 (3·3% [95% CI 2·9–3·9]) of 4484 individuals for the UCD method and 171 (5·1% [4·4–5·9]) of 3336 indivduals for the smartphone application method. 124 (82·7% [95% CI 75·8–87·9]) of 150 individuals assigned to the UCD method and 142 (83·0% [76·7–87·9]) of 171 participants assigned to the smartphone application method attended the elaborate screening. Sensitivity to detect increased ACR was 96·6% (95% CI 91·5–99·1) for the UCD method and 98·1% (89·9–99·9) for the smartphone application method, and specificity was 97·3% (94·7–98·8) for the UCD method and 67·9% (62·0–73·3) for the smartphone application method, indicating that the test characteristics of only the UCD method were sufficient for screening. Albuminuria, hypertension, hypercholesterolaemia, and decreased kidney function were newly diagnosed in 77 (62·1%), 44 (35·5%), 30 (24·2%), and 27 (21·8%) of 124 participants for the UCD method, respectively. Of the 124 participants assigned to the UCD method who completed elaborate screening, 111 (89·5%) were referred to their general practitioner for treatment because of newly diagnosed CKD or cardiovascular disease risk factors or known risk factors outside the target range.
Home-based screening of the general population for increased ACR using a UCD had a high participation rate and correctly identified individuals with increased albuminuria and yet unknown or known but outside target range CKD and cardiovascular risk factors. By contrast, the smartphone application method had a lower at-home participation rate than the UCD method and the test specificity was too low to accurately assess individuals for risk factors during the elaborate screening. The UCD screening strategy could allow for an early start of treatment to prevent progressive kidney function loss and cardiovascular disease in patients with CKD.
Dutch Kidney Foundation, Top Sector Life Sciences & Health of the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs.</description><subject>Abnormalities</subject><subject>Cardiovascular disease</subject><subject>Cardiovascular diseases</subject><subject>Cholesterol</subject><subject>Cost analysis</subject><subject>Creatinine</subject><subject>Diabetes</subject><subject>Disease prevention</subject><subject>Health risks</subject><subject>Health services</subject><subject>Hospitals</subject><subject>Hypercholesterolemia</subject><subject>Hypertension</subject><subject>Kidney diseases</subject><subject>Kidneys</subject><subject>Labels</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Participation</subject><subject>Randomization</subject><subject>Risk factors</subject><subject>Sensitivity analysis</subject><subject>Smartphones</subject><subject>Socioeconomic factors</subject><subject>Socioeconomics</subject><subject>Urine</subject><issn>0140-6736</issn><issn>1474-547X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkcFu1DAQhiMEEkvhEZAscdlKDdix43i5oKoCilQoUvfAzXLsSddVYgfbKdrX5ImY7lYcuOCLLc_nf_7xX1WvGX3LKJPvbigTtJYdl-uGn1KqOlnTJ9WKiU7Ureh-PK1Wf5Hn1Yuc7yilQtJ2Vf3-blLx1s-m-BhIMgWICY7sPYyOxIGUX5Hs4gR1bzI4km0CCD7ckgnKLrpMSiQOCthCfMDigTJjv0w-LMkbvCVlB-QWAiQzkjnOy3hs9lj5hkKQRuyayXp7ef31_Ob0PTFkTjHPqOvv4QyNBRcnj-JnJM4Q6tH0MBI_zSNMEMpRMZfF7V9WzwYzZnj1uJ9U208ftxeX9dX15y8X51e15R0tNWzURqoNNEOvhG2co4bjsrQDqSxQ0ZpmMKZte2tkoxhnTOCxG5jrHRh-Uq2Psujz5wK5aLRnYcRBIC5ZN6rlG8G5VIi--Qe9i0sKaA4p2TFFheJItUfK4uA5waDn5CeT9ppR_RC0PgStH1LUDdeHoDXFdx-O7wCHvfeQdLYeggXnE36fdtH_R-EPU7u0tg</recordid><startdate>20230923</startdate><enddate>20230923</enddate><creator>van Mil, Dominique</creator><creator>Kieneker, Lyanne M</creator><creator>Evers-Roeten, Birgitte</creator><creator>Thelen, Marc H M</creator><creator>de Vries, Hanne</creator><creator>Hemmelder, Marc H</creator><creator>Dorgelo, Annemiek</creator><creator>van Etten, Ronald W</creator><creator>Heerspink, Hiddo J L</creator><creator>Gansevoort, Ron T</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><general>Elsevier Limited</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0TT</scope><scope>0TZ</scope><scope>0U~</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88A</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8C2</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AN0</scope><scope>ASE</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FPQ</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K6X</scope><scope>K9-</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KB~</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0R</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20230923</creationdate><title>Participation rate and yield of two home-based screening methods to detect increased albuminuria in the general population in the Netherlands (THOMAS): a prospective, randomised, open-label implementation study</title><author>van Mil, Dominique ; Kieneker, Lyanne M ; Evers-Roeten, Birgitte ; Thelen, Marc H M ; de Vries, Hanne ; Hemmelder, Marc H ; Dorgelo, Annemiek ; van Etten, Ronald W ; Heerspink, Hiddo J L ; Gansevoort, Ron T</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c370t-e989689e2fb84c2dd0a3333c07e68ce045a2faa55bca62813114bca7f1dbdea3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Abnormalities</topic><topic>Cardiovascular disease</topic><topic>Cardiovascular diseases</topic><topic>Cholesterol</topic><topic>Cost analysis</topic><topic>Creatinine</topic><topic>Diabetes</topic><topic>Disease prevention</topic><topic>Health risks</topic><topic>Health services</topic><topic>Hospitals</topic><topic>Hypercholesterolemia</topic><topic>Hypertension</topic><topic>Kidney diseases</topic><topic>Kidneys</topic><topic>Labels</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Participation</topic><topic>Randomization</topic><topic>Risk factors</topic><topic>Sensitivity analysis</topic><topic>Smartphones</topic><topic>Socioeconomic factors</topic><topic>Socioeconomics</topic><topic>Urine</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>van Mil, Dominique</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kieneker, Lyanne M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Evers-Roeten, Birgitte</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thelen, Marc H M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Vries, Hanne</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hemmelder, Marc H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dorgelo, Annemiek</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Etten, Ronald W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Heerspink, Hiddo J L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gansevoort, Ron T</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>News PRO</collection><collection>Pharma and Biotech Premium PRO</collection><collection>Global News & ABI/Inform Professional</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Biology Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Lancet Titles</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>British Nursing Database</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>eLibrary</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>British Nursing Index (BNI) (1985 to Present)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Newsstand Professional</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Psychology</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The Lancet (British edition)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>van Mil, Dominique</au><au>Kieneker, Lyanne M</au><au>Evers-Roeten, Birgitte</au><au>Thelen, Marc H M</au><au>de Vries, Hanne</au><au>Hemmelder, Marc H</au><au>Dorgelo, Annemiek</au><au>van Etten, Ronald W</au><au>Heerspink, Hiddo J L</au><au>Gansevoort, Ron T</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Participation rate and yield of two home-based screening methods to detect increased albuminuria in the general population in the Netherlands (THOMAS): a prospective, randomised, open-label implementation study</atitle><jtitle>The Lancet (British edition)</jtitle><date>2023-09-23</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>402</volume><issue>10407</issue><spage>1052</spage><epage>1064</epage><pages>1052-1064</pages><issn>0140-6736</issn><eissn>1474-547X</eissn><abstract>Chronic kidney disease (CKD) has a rising global prevalence and is expected to become the fifth leading cause of death by 2030. Increased albuminuria defines the early stages of CKD and is among the strongest risk factors for progressive CKD and cardiovascular disease. The value of population screening for albuminuria to detect CKD in an early phase has yet to be studied. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of two home-based albuminuria population screening methods.
Towards Home-based Albuminuria Screening (THOMAS) was a prospective, randomised, open-label implementation study that invited Dutch adults aged 45–80 years for albuminuria screening. Individuals were randomly assigned (1:1) to screening by applying either a urine collection device (UCD) that was sent by post to a central laboratory for measurement of the albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR) by immunoturbidimetry or to screening via a smartphone application that measures the ACR with a dipstick method at home. Randomisation was done with a four-block method via a web-based system and was stratified by age, sex, and socioeconomic status. If two or more individuals per household were invited to participate, these individuals were randomly assigned to the same group. In case of confirmed increased albuminuria at home, participants were invited for an elaborate screening in a regional hospital (Amphia Hospital, Breda, Netherlands) for CKD and cardiovascular risk factors. When abnormalities were found, participants were referred to their general practitioner for treatment. The primary outcomes were the participation rate and yield of the home-based screening and elaborate screening. Participation rate was assessed in the intention-to-screen population (ie, all participants who were invited for the home-based screening or elaborate screening). Yield was assessed in the per-protocol population (ie, all individuals who participated in the home-based screening or elaborate screening). An exploratory analysis assessed the sensitivity and specificity of both home-based screening methods. To this end, an additional quantitative ACR test was performed among people participating in the elaborate screening, and a substudy was performed among participants with a first negative home-based screening test, who were invited for an additional test. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04295889.
15 074 participants were enrolled between Nov 14, 2019, and March 19, 2021. 7552 (50·1%) were randomly assigned to home-based albuminuria screening by the UCD method and 7522 (49·9%) were assigned to albuminuria screening by the smartphone application method. The participation rate of the home-based screening was 4484 (59·4% [95% CI 58·3–60·5]) of the 7552 invited individuals for the UCD method and 3336 (44·3% [43·2–45·5]) of 7522 invited individuals for the smartphone application method (p<0·0001). Increased ACR was confirmed by home-based testing in 150 (3·3% [95% CI 2·9–3·9]) of 4484 individuals for the UCD method and 171 (5·1% [4·4–5·9]) of 3336 indivduals for the smartphone application method. 124 (82·7% [95% CI 75·8–87·9]) of 150 individuals assigned to the UCD method and 142 (83·0% [76·7–87·9]) of 171 participants assigned to the smartphone application method attended the elaborate screening. Sensitivity to detect increased ACR was 96·6% (95% CI 91·5–99·1) for the UCD method and 98·1% (89·9–99·9) for the smartphone application method, and specificity was 97·3% (94·7–98·8) for the UCD method and 67·9% (62·0–73·3) for the smartphone application method, indicating that the test characteristics of only the UCD method were sufficient for screening. Albuminuria, hypertension, hypercholesterolaemia, and decreased kidney function were newly diagnosed in 77 (62·1%), 44 (35·5%), 30 (24·2%), and 27 (21·8%) of 124 participants for the UCD method, respectively. Of the 124 participants assigned to the UCD method who completed elaborate screening, 111 (89·5%) were referred to their general practitioner for treatment because of newly diagnosed CKD or cardiovascular disease risk factors or known risk factors outside the target range.
Home-based screening of the general population for increased ACR using a UCD had a high participation rate and correctly identified individuals with increased albuminuria and yet unknown or known but outside target range CKD and cardiovascular risk factors. By contrast, the smartphone application method had a lower at-home participation rate than the UCD method and the test specificity was too low to accurately assess individuals for risk factors during the elaborate screening. The UCD screening strategy could allow for an early start of treatment to prevent progressive kidney function loss and cardiovascular disease in patients with CKD.
Dutch Kidney Foundation, Top Sector Life Sciences & Health of the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs.</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><doi>10.1016/S0140-6736(23)00876-0</doi><tpages>13</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0140-6736 |
| ispartof | The Lancet (British edition), 2023-09, Vol.402 (10407), p.1052-1064 |
| issn | 0140-6736 1474-547X |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2853943368 |
| source | Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals |
| subjects | Abnormalities Cardiovascular disease Cardiovascular diseases Cholesterol Cost analysis Creatinine Diabetes Disease prevention Health risks Health services Hospitals Hypercholesterolemia Hypertension Kidney diseases Kidneys Labels Methods Participation Randomization Risk factors Sensitivity analysis Smartphones Socioeconomic factors Socioeconomics Urine |
| title | Participation rate and yield of two home-based screening methods to detect increased albuminuria in the general population in the Netherlands (THOMAS): a prospective, randomised, open-label implementation study |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-05T07%3A28%3A20IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Participation%20rate%20and%20yield%20of%20two%20home-based%20screening%20methods%20to%20detect%20increased%20albuminuria%20in%20the%20general%20population%20in%20the%20Netherlands%20(THOMAS):%20a%20prospective,%20randomised,%20open-label%20implementation%20study&rft.jtitle=The%20Lancet%20(British%20edition)&rft.au=van%20Mil,%20Dominique&rft.date=2023-09-23&rft.volume=402&rft.issue=10407&rft.spage=1052&rft.epage=1064&rft.pages=1052-1064&rft.issn=0140-6736&rft.eissn=1474-547X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/S0140-6736(23)00876-0&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2853943368%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2867180483&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S0140673623008760&rfr_iscdi=true |