Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
Advertisement
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Life & Times

Is the NHS ‘Heart Age Test’ too much medicine?

Carissa Bonner, Shannon McKinn, Kirsten McCaffrey, Paul Glasziou, Les Irwig, Jenny Doust, Jesse Jansen and Katy Bell
British Journal of General Practice 2019; 69 (688): 560-561. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp19X706349
Carissa Bonner
University of Sydney, School of Public Health, Sydney. Email:
Roles: Research Fellow
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: carissa.bonner@sydney.edu.au
Shannon McKinn
University of Sydney, School of Public Health, Sydney.
Roles: Research Fellow
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kirsten McCaffrey
University of Sydney, School of Public Health, Sydney.
Roles: NHMRC Professorial Research Fellow
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Paul Glasziou
Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Bond University, Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Robina, the Gold Coast.
Roles: Director
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Les Irwig
University of Sydney, School of Public Health, Sydney.
Roles: Emeritus Professor of Epidemiology
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jenny Doust
University of Sydney, School of Public Health, Sydney.
Roles: Professor of Clinical Epidemiology
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jesse Jansen
Associate Professor, University of Sydney, School of Public Health, Sydney.
Roles: NHMRC Career Development Fellow
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Katy Bell
University of Sydney, School of Public Health, Sydney.
Roles: Senior Lecturer in Clinical Epidemiology
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

INTRODUCTION

The NHS ‘Heart Age Test’ has expanded cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk assessment in the UK to include younger people (<40 years). Public Health England’s (PHE) Healthy Heart campaign, launched in September 2018, encourages all adults aged >30 years to do the test, stating: ‘Having a heart age older than your chronological age means that you are at a higher risk of having a heart attack or stroke.’ But does older heart age really mean high risk? The calculator will give you an older age if at least one CVD risk factor is higher than the level set as ‘optimal’; but this does not necessarily mean you are at high risk of a CVD event in the next 10 years. Is there evidence to support PHE’s promotion of the Heart Age Test? To find out, we evaluated the Heart Age Test according to PHE’s own UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC) criteria. This analysis suggests heart age is not a good screening test.

EVALUATING PHE’S HEART AGE TEST

1. The condition should be an important health problem as judged by its frequency and/or severity

CVD is an important health problem. The rate of death from CVD has declined throughout the UK in the last 3 decades,1 but CVD remains the leading cause of death in males and second leading cause of death in females, with around 160 000 people in the UK dying from CVD every year.

2. There should be a simple, safe, precise, and validated screening test

Though the Heart Age Test calculator is simple and physically safe to use, it is not precise or validated. Heart age is estimated from the lifetime risk of CVD, relative to people of the same age, sex, and ethnicity who have ‘optimal’ risk factor levels (for example, non-smoker, systolic blood pressure <120 mmHg).2 The authors of the last update of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines on CVD risk assessment in 2014 found insufficient evidence to recommend lifetime risk as a validated screening test. There is even less evidence for indirect measures of lifetime risk, such as heart age.

3. The distribution of test values in the target population should be known and a suitable cut-off level defined and agreed

The Heart Age Test targets everyone aged >30 years, and is disproportionately used by younger people <40 years.2 In contrast, formal CVD risk assessment as part of NHS Health Checks targets people ≥40 years. According to PHE, of 2 million Heart Age Test users, the majority (78%) had older heart age.3 All are prompted to visit a GP and described as having ‘increased risk of heart disease’, but there has been no assessment on the suitability of (heart age – chronological age) >0 as a cut-off level to prompt further testing.

4. The test, from sample collection to delivery of results, should be acceptable to the target population

The acceptability of heart age depends on whether it matches users’ expectations. A ‘think aloud’ study found that older heart age was confronting and discredited by users if it did not match prior risk perception, whereas younger heart age was viewed as positive but unrealistic.4 A randomised trial confirmed that heart age was perceived as less credible and elicited more negative emotions compared with absolute CVD risk.5 Further acceptability issues are highlighted by public responses.

5. There should be an agreed policy on the further diagnostic investigation of individuals with a positive test result and on the choices available to those individuals

There is no agreed policy on further investigation of individuals with older heart age results (that is, 78% of users). It prompts people to have an NHS Health Check, which is recommended for those >40 years and which itself is controversial. A Cochrane review found no evidence that these checks are beneficial, and they may even cause harm through the diagnosis and treatment of conditions unlikely to cause symptoms or death (that is, overdiagnosis and overtreatment).6 Encouraging large numbers of asymptomatic young people to have their blood pressure and cholesterol measured is not an agreed policy with the RCGP or the UK NSC.

6. There should be agreed evidence-based policies covering which individuals should be offered interventions and the appropriate intervention to be offered

Convincing patients with CVD risk factors to change their lifestyle is important at any age, and heart age could be used for this.7 A randomised controlled trial (RCT) found that online assessment of heart age can improve risk factor management compared with verbal counselling about absolute risk.8 However, direct experimental comparisons between heart age and absolute risk have found no effect on lifestyle intentions or behaviour.4 Where heart age has motivated lifestyle change, this has been within a clinical context. This is quite different from a pre-consultation screening test, where existing lifestyle and circumstances are not taken into account, resulting in implausible heart age estimates that discredit the results (for example, older heart age in very fit people, or younger heart age in people who are obese).3 Medication guidelines recommend assessing the absolute risk of a CVD event and prioritising treatment to those at highest risk who are most likely to benefit.9 Absolute risk is preferred for treatment decisions, rather than single risk factors such as blood pressure10 or cholesterol. Heart age is an ill-defined measure of risk, relative to others of the same age, sex, and ethnicity with optimal risk factor levels.4,11 As it is not a measure of absolute risk, it is not helpful for medication decisions.5,11

7. There should be evidence from high-quality RCTs that screening is effective in reducing mortality or morbidity

There is evidence for several interventions that might be prompted through heart age screening, including smoking advice and lowering blood pressure/cholesterol. However, the Cochrane review of health checks shows that promoting these checks in a non-targeted way has no impact on preventing clinical CVD,6 possibly because it attracts people at lower, rather than higher, risk. Because predominantly younger (<40 years) people use the Heart Age Test,2 it may exacerbate the problem of low-risk people attending health checks. There is no trial evidence that using heart age to screen for CVD risk or prompt absolute CVD risk assessment reduces mortality or morbidity.

8. The benefit gained by individuals from the screening programme should outweigh any harms

The Heart Age Test has no direct evidence of benefit, and there is potential for harm. Heart age results may lead high-risk people to disregard relevant risk information if they do not believe the results, and cause low-risk people to worry and seek unnecessary tests.4,5 Other potential harms include negative psychological and behavioural effects of disease labelling, physical harms and side effects of unnecessary tests or treatment for CVD, hassles (stress and inconvenience) and cost of unnecessary tests and treatments, wasted resources, and opportunity costs to the health system. These harms, which contribute to the overmedicalisation of society in general,12 should not be underestimated.

9. The opportunity cost of the screening programme (including testing, diagnosis, and treatment, administration, training, and quality assurance) should be economically balanced in relation to expenditure on medical care as a whole

The Heart Age Test tells anyone >30 years to make an appointment with their GP, nurse, or pharmacist to have their cholesterol level or blood pressure measured if this is unknown. This may add to GPs’ already overburdened workload, increase waiting times, and detract attention from necessary high-value care and/or treatments for patients who are unwell.

10. Evidence-based information, explaining the purpose and potential consequences of screening, investigation, and preventive intervention or treatment, should be made available to potential participants to assist them in making an informed choice

There is very little published information explaining what exactly heart age represents to enable an informed choice on whether or not to use it. As a GP wrote in BMJ Opinion: ‘I’ve looked at the supporting documents and can’t find any answers. Perhaps they’re there if you dig deep enough through the JBS3 website (which the tool points you towards), but that’s not the point. If I can’t find the answer after 20 minutes of looking, who else is going to bother? The public deserve to know how accurate these estimates are. Presenting uncertainty as fact is not what the public, or our patients, want or need.’13

The Heart Age Test provides no information about who should use it, recommends cholesterol and blood pressure testing for everyone who does not enter values for these, and provides no information about the potential benefits, harms, and costs of having these additional tests done and of taking any medication that might subsequently be offered.11 It is therefore not possible to make an informed choice about using it.14 Furthermore, the Heart Age Test may confuse people when heart age and absolute risk are contradicting (for example, low risk but heart age higher than own age), and convey conflicting messages about the person’s risk and the need for medication.3

CONCLUSION

The Heart Age Test is effectively a screening test that expands CVD risk assessment to include younger people (<40 years) without proper consultation or informed consent. It encourages almost 80% of — mostly young — users to see their GP for further medical interventions. Apart from being a test for an important condition (CVD), the Heart Age Test meets none of National Health England’s own assessment criteria for a potentially useful screening test. As stated in a recent article about the de-adoption of ineffective clinical practices: ‘We need to take a more cautious approach to technology adoption, and learn from mistakes of early adoption of health care technologies based on little or low-quality clinical evidence. This way we can prevent the need to “break up” with the practice when the high-quality evidence shows that it is ineffective.’15

The NHS might do well to take this advice before adopting and promoting online technologies such as heart age calculators. The results of heart age calculators should be limited to lifestyle advice, ideally within the setting of the clinical consultation, to avoid inadvertent population screening for CVD using an unvalidated screening test.

  • © British Journal of General Practice 2019

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Bhatnagar P,
    2. Wickramasinghe K,
    3. Wilkins E,
    4. Townsend N
    (2016) Trends in the epidemiology of cardiovascular disease in the UK. Heart 102(24):1945–1952.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Patel RS,
    2. Lagord C,
    3. Waterall J,
    4. et al.
    (2016) Online self-assessment of cardiovascular risk using the Joint British Societies (JBS3)-derived heart age tool: a descriptive study. BMJ Open 6:e011511.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Public Health England
    (2018) Heart Age Test gives early warning of heart attack and stroke. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/heart-age-test-gives-early-warning-of-heart-attack-and-stroke (accessed 7 Oct 2019).
  4. 4.↵
    1. Bonner C,
    2. Jansen J,
    3. Newell BR,
    4. et al.
    (2014) I don’t believe it, but I’d better do something about it: patient experiences of online heart age risk calculators. J Med Internet Res 16(5):e120.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Bonner C,
    2. Jansen J,
    3. Newell BR,
    4. et al.
    (2015) Is the ‘Heart Age’ concept helpful or harmful compared to absolute cardiovascular disease risk? An experimental study. Med Decis Making 35(8):967–978.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Krogsbøll LT,
    2. Jørgensen KJ,
    3. Gøtzsche PC
    (2019) General health checks in adults for reducing morbidity and mortality from disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1:CD009009.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Wells S,
    2. Kerr A,
    3. Eadie S,
    4. et al.
    (2010) ‘Your heart forecast’: a new approach for describing and communicating cardiovascular risk? Heart 96:708–713.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Lopez-Gonzalez AA,
    2. Aguilo A,
    3. Frontera M,
    4. et al.
    (2015) Effectiveness of the Heart Age tool for improving modifiable cardiovascular risk factors in a Southern European population: a randomized trial. Eur J Prev Cardiol 22(3):389–396.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Jackson R,
    2. Lawes CM,
    3. Bennett DA,
    4. et al.
    (2005) Treatment with drugs to lower blood pressure and blood cholesterol based on an individual’s absolute cardiovascular risk. Lancet 365(9457):434–441.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Bell KJL,
    2. Doust J,
    3. Glasziou P
    (2018) Incremental benefits and harms of the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association High Blood Pressure Guideline. JAMA Intern Med 178(6):755–757.
    OpenUrl
  11. 11.↵
    1. Bonner C,
    2. Bell K,
    3. Jansen J,
    4. et al.
    (2018) Should heart age calculators be used alongside absolute cardiovascular disease risk assessment? BMC Cardiovasc Disord 18(1):19.
    OpenUrl
  12. 12.↵
    1. McCaffery KJ,
    2. Jansen J,
    3. Scherer LD,
    4. et al.
    (2016) Walking the tightrope: communicating overdiagnosis in modern healthcare. BMJ 352:i348.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. Nolan T
    (Sep 12, 2018) BMJ Opinion, The NHS heart age test will overload GPs who are already under huge pressure. https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2018/09/12/the-nhs-heart-age-test-will-overload-gps-who-are-already-under-huge-pressure/ (accessed 1 Oct 2019).
  14. 14.↵
    1. Montori VM,
    2. Brito JP,
    3. Ting HH
    (2014) Patient-centered and practical application of new high cholesterol guidelines to prevent cardiovascular disease. JAMA 311:465–466.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Carroll AE
    (Sep 10, 2018) New York Times, It’s hard for doctors to unlearn things. That’s costly for all of us. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/10/upshot/its-hard-for-doctors-to-unlearn-things-thats-costly-for-all-of-us.html (accessed 1 Oct 2019).
View Abstract
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 69 (688)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 69, Issue 688
November 2019
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Is the NHS ‘Heart Age Test’ too much medicine?
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Is the NHS ‘Heart Age Test’ too much medicine?
Carissa Bonner, Shannon McKinn, Kirsten McCaffrey, Paul Glasziou, Les Irwig, Jenny Doust, Jesse Jansen, Katy Bell
British Journal of General Practice 2019; 69 (688): 560-561. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp19X706349

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Is the NHS ‘Heart Age Test’ too much medicine?
Carissa Bonner, Shannon McKinn, Kirsten McCaffrey, Paul Glasziou, Les Irwig, Jenny Doust, Jesse Jansen, Katy Bell
British Journal of General Practice 2019; 69 (688): 560-561. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp19X706349
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • INTRODUCTION
    • EVALUATING PHE’S HEART AGE TEST
    • CONCLUSION
    • REFERENCES
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Books: A Bite of the Apple. A Life with Books, Writers and Virago
  • Books: Blinded by Corona. How the Pandemic Ruined Britain’s Health and Wealth and What to do About it
  • How and why have we so hazardously misconceived our NHS staff?
Show more Life & Times

Related Articles

Cited By...

Advertisement

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers
  • RCGP e-Portfolio

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7679
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2021 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242