Longer-term efficiency and safety of increasing the frequency of whole blood donation (INTERVAL): extension study of a randomised trial of 20 757 blood donors.

BACKGROUND: The INTERVAL trial showed that, over a 2-year period, inter-donation intervals for whole blood donation can be safely reduced to meet blood shortages. We extended the INTERVAL trial for a further 2 years to evaluate the longer-term risks and benefits of varying inter-donation intervals, and to compare routine versus more intensive reminders to help donors keep appointments. METHODS: The INTERVAL trial was a parallel group, pragmatic, randomised trial that recruited blood donors aged 18 years or older from 25 static donor centres of NHS Blood and Transplant across England, UK. Here we report on the prespecified analyses after 4 years of follow-up. Participants were whole blood donors who agreed to continue trial participation on their originally allocated inter-donation intervals (men: 12, 10, and 8 weeks; women: 16, 14, and 12 weeks). They were further block-randomised (1:1) to routine versus more intensive reminders using computer-generated random sequences. The prespecified primary outcome was units of blood collected per year analysed in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary outcomes related to safety were quality of life, self-reported symptoms potentially related to donation, haemoglobin and ferritin concentrations, and deferrals because of low haemoglobin and other factors. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN24760606, and has completed. FINDINGS: Between Oct 19, 2014, and May 3, 2016, 20 757 of the 38 035 invited blood donors (10 843 [58%] men, 9914 [51%] women) participated in the extension study. 10 378 (50%) were randomly assigned to routine reminders and 10 379 (50%) were randomly assigned to more intensive reminders. Median follow-up was 1·1 years (IQR 0·7-1·3). Compared with routine reminders, more intensive reminders increased blood collection by a mean of 0·11 units per year (95% CI 0·04-0·17; p=0·0003) in men and 0·06 units per year (0·01-0·11; p=0·0094) in women. During the extension study, each week shorter inter-donation interval increased blood collection by a mean of 0·23 units per year (0·21-0·25) in men and 0·14 units per year (0·12-0·15) in women (both p<0·0001). More frequent donation resulted in more deferrals for low haemoglobin (odds ratio per week shorter inter-donation interval 1·19 [95% CI 1·15-1·22] in men and 1·10 [1·06-1·14] in women), and lower mean haemoglobin (difference per week shorter inter-donation interval -0·84 g/L [95% CI -0·99 to -0·70] in men and -0·45 g/L [-0·59 to -0·31] in women) and ferritin concentrations (percentage difference per week shorter inter-donation interval -6·5% [95% CI -7·6 to -5·5] in men and -5·3% [-6·5 to -4·2] in women; all p<0·0001). No differences were observed in quality of life, serious adverse events, or self-reported symptoms (p>0.0001 for tests of linear trend by inter-donation intervals) other than a higher reported frequency of doctor-diagnosed low iron concentrations and prescription of iron supplements in men (p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: During a period of up to 4 years, shorter inter-donation intervals and more intensive reminders resulted in more blood being collected without a detectable effect on donors' mental and physical wellbeing. However, donors had decreased haemoglobin concentrations and more self-reported symptoms compared with the initial 2 years of the trial. Our findings suggest that blood collection services could safely use shorter donation intervals and more intensive reminders to meet shortages, for donors who maintain adequate haemoglobin concentrations and iron stores. FUNDING: NHS Blood and Transplant, UK National Institute for Health Research, UK Medical Research Council, and British Heart Foundation.

Screening women aged 65 years or over for abdominal aortic aneurysm: a modelling study and health economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) screening programmes have been established for men in the UK to reduce deaths from AAA rupture. Whether or not screening should be extended to women is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of population screening for AAAs in women and compare a range of screening options. DESIGN: A discrete event simulation (DES) model was developed to provide a clinically realistic model of screening, surveillance, and elective and emergency AAA repair operations. Input parameters specifically for women were employed. The model was run for 10 million women, with parameter uncertainty addressed by probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses. SETTING: Population screening in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Women aged ≥ 65 years, followed up to the age of 95 years. INTERVENTIONS: Invitation to ultrasound screening, followed by surveillance for small AAAs and elective surgical repair for large AAAs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of operations undertaken, AAA-related mortality, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), NHS costs and cost-effectiveness with annual discounting. DATA SOURCES: AAA surveillance data, National Vascular Registry, Hospital Episode Statistics, trials of elective and emergency AAA surgery, and the NHS Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Screening Programme (NAAASP). REVIEW METHODS: Systematic reviews of AAA prevalence and, for elective operations, suitability for endovascular aneurysm repair, non-intervention rates, operative mortality and literature reviews for other parameters. RESULTS: The prevalence of AAAs (aortic diameter of ≥ 3.0 cm) was estimated as 0.43% in women aged 65 years and 1.15% at age 75 years. The corresponding attendance rates following invitation to screening were estimated as 73% and 62%, respectively. The base-case model adopted the same age at screening (65 years), definition of an AAA (diameter of ≥ 3.0 cm), surveillance intervals (1 year for AAAs with diameter of 3.0-4.4 cm, 3 months for AAAs with diameter of 4.5-5.4 cm) and AAA diameter for consideration of surgery (5.5 cm) as in NAAASP for men. Per woman invited to screening, the estimated gain in QALYs was 0.00110, and the incremental cost was £33.99. This gave an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £31,000 per QALY gained. The corresponding incremental net monetary benefit at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained was -£12.03 (95% uncertainty interval -£27.88 to £22.12). Almost no sensitivity analyses brought the ICER below £20,000 per QALY gained; an exception was doubling the AAA prevalence to 0.86%, which resulted in an ICER of £13,000. Alternative screening options (increasing the screening age to 70 years, lowering the threshold for considering surgery to diameters of 5.0 cm or 4.5 cm, lowering the diameter defining an AAA in women to 2.5 cm and lengthening the surveillance intervals for the smallest AAAs) did not bring the ICER below £20,000 per QALY gained when considered either singly or in combination. LIMITATIONS: The model for women was not directly validated against empirical data. Some parameters were poorly estimated, potentially lacking relevance or unavailable for women. CONCLUSION: The accepted criteria for a population-based AAA screening programme in women are not currently met. FUTURE WORK: A large-scale study is needed of the exact aortic size distribution for women screened at relevant ages. The DES model can be adapted to evaluate screening options in men. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015020444 and CRD42016043227. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Analysis of clinical benefit, harms, and cost-effectiveness of screening women for abdominal aortic aneurysm.

BACKGROUND: A third of deaths in the UK from ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) are in women. In men, national screening programmes reduce deaths from AAA and are cost-effective. The benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness in offering a similar programme to women have not been formally assessed, and this was the aim of this study. METHODS: We developed a decision model to assess predefined outcomes of death caused by AAA, life years, quality-adjusted life years, costs, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for a population of women invited to AAA screening versus a population who were not invited to screening. A discrete event simulation model was set up for AAA screening, surveillance, and intervention. Relevant women-specific parameters were obtained from sources including systematic literature reviews, national registry or administrative databases, major AAA surgery trials, and UK National Health Service reference costs. FINDINGS: AAA screening for women, as currently offered to UK men (at age 65 years, with an AAA diagnosis at an aortic diameter of ≥3·0 cm, and elective repair considered at ≥5·5cm) gave, over 30 years, an estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £30 000 (95% CI 12 000-87 000) per quality-adjusted life year gained, with 3900 invitations to screening required to prevent one AAA-related death and an overdiagnosis rate of 33%. A modified option for women (screening at age 70 years, diagnosis at 2·5 cm and repair at 5·0 cm) was estimated to have an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £23 000 (9500-71 000) per quality-adjusted life year and 1800 invitations to screening required to prevent one AAA-death, but an overdiagnosis rate of 55%. There was considerable uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness ratio, largely driven by uncertainty about AAA prevalence, the distribution of aortic sizes for women at different ages, and the effect of screening on quality of life. INTERPRETATION: By UK standards, an AAA screening programme for women, designed to be similar to that used to screen men, is unlikely to be cost-effective. Further research on the aortic diameter distribution in women and potential quality of life decrements associated with screening are needed to assess the full benefits and harms of modified options. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Strategy of endovascular versus open repair for patients with clinical diagnosis of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: the IMPROVE RCT.

BACKGROUND: Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a common vascular emergency. The mortality from emergency endovascular repair may be much lower than the 40-50% reported for open surgery. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether or not a strategy of endovascular repair compared with open repair reduces 30-day and mid-term mortality (including costs and cost-effectiveness) among patients with a suspected ruptured AAA. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial, with computer-generated telephone randomisation of participants in a 1 : 1 ratio, using variable block size, stratified by centre and without blinding. SETTING: Vascular centres in the UK (n = 29) and Canada (n = 1) between 2009 and 2013. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 613 eligible participants (480 men) with a ruptured aneurysm, clinically diagnosed at the trial centre. INTERVENTIONS: A total of 316 participants were randomised to the endovascular strategy group (immediate computerised tomography followed by endovascular repair if anatomically suitable or, if not suitable, open repair) and 297 were randomised to the open repair group (computerised tomography optional). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was 30-day mortality, with 30-day reinterventions, costs and disposal as early secondary outcome measures. Later outcome measures included 1- and 3-year mortality, reinterventions, quality of life (QoL) and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: The 30-day mortality was 35.4% in the endovascular strategy group and 37.4% in the open repair group [odds ratio (OR) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 1.28; p = 0.62, and, after adjustment for age, sex and Hardman index, OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.33]. The endovascular strategy appeared to be more effective in women than in men (interaction test p = 0.02). More discharges in the endovascular strategy group (94%) than in the open repair group (77%) were directly to home (p < 0.001). Average 30-day costs were similar between groups, with the mean difference in costs being -£1186 (95% CI -£2997 to £625), favouring the endovascular strategy group. After 1 year, survival and reintervention rates were similar in the two groups, QoL (at both 3 and 12 months) was higher in the endovascular strategy group and the mean cost difference was -£2329 (95% CI -£5489 to £922). At 3 years, mortality was 48% and 56% in the endovascular strategy group and open repair group, respectively (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.00; p = 0.053), with a stronger benefit for the endovascular strategy in the subgroup of 502 participants in whom repair was started for a proven rupture (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.89; p = 0.009), whereas aneurysm-related reintervention rates were non-significantly higher in this group. At 3 years, considering all participants, there was a mean difference of 0.174 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (95% CI 0.002 to 0.353 QALYs) and, among the endovascular strategy group, a cost difference of -£2605 (95% CI -£5966 to £702), leading to 88% of estimates in the cost-effectiveness plane being in the quadrant showing the endovascular strategy to be 'dominant'. LIMITATIONS: Because of the pragmatic design of this trial, 33 participants in the endovascular strategy group and 26 in the open repair group breached randomisation allocation. CONCLUSIONS: The endovascular strategy was not associated with a significant reduction in either 30-day mortality or cost but was associated with faster participant recovery. By 3 years, the endovascular strategy showed a survival and QALY gain and was highly likely to be cost-effective. Future research could include improving resuscitation for older persons with circulatory collapse, the impact of local anaesthesia and emergency consent procedures. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN48334791 and NCT00746122. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 31. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Discrete Event Simulation for Decision Modeling in Health Care: Lessons from Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Screening.

Markov models are often used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of new healthcare interventions but they are sometimes not flexible enough to allow accurate modeling or investigation of alternative scenarios and policies. A Markov model previously demonstrated that a one-off invitation to screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) for men aged 65 y in the UK and subsequent follow-up of identified AAAs was likely to be highly cost-effective at thresholds commonly adopted in the UK (£20,000 to £30,000 per quality adjusted life-year). However, new evidence has emerged and the decision problem has evolved to include exploration of the circumstances under which AAA screening may be cost-effective, which the Markov model is not easily able to address. A new model to handle this more complex decision problem was needed, and the case of AAA screening thus provides an illustration of the relative merits of Markov models and discrete event simulation (DES) models. An individual-level DES model was built using the R programming language to reflect possible events and pathways of individuals invited to screening v. those not invited. The model was validated against key events and cost-effectiveness, as observed in a large, randomized trial. Different screening protocol scenarios were investigated to demonstrate the flexibility of the DES. The case of AAA screening highlights the benefits of DES, particularly in the context of screening studies.

Efficiency and safety of varying the frequency of whole blood donation (INTERVAL): a randomised trial of 45 000 donors.

BACKGROUND: Limits on the frequency of whole blood donation exist primarily to safeguard donor health. However, there is substantial variation across blood services in the maximum frequency of donations allowed. We compared standard practice in the UK with shorter inter-donation intervals used in other countries. METHODS: In this parallel group, pragmatic, randomised trial, we recruited whole blood donors aged 18 years or older from 25 centres across England, UK. By use of a computer-based algorithm, men were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to 12-week (standard) versus 10-week versus 8-week inter-donation intervals, and women were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to 16-week (standard) versus 14-week versus 12-week intervals. Participants were not masked to their allocated intervention group. The primary outcome was the number of donations over 2 years. Secondary outcomes related to safety were quality of life, symptoms potentially related to donation, physical activity, cognitive function, haemoglobin and ferritin concentrations, and deferrals because of low haemoglobin. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN24760606, and is ongoing but no longer recruiting participants. FINDINGS: 45 263 whole blood donors (22 466 men, 22 797 women) were recruited between June 11, 2012, and June 15, 2014. Data were analysed for 45 042 (99·5%) participants. Men were randomly assigned to the 12-week (n=7452) versus 10-week (n=7449) versus 8-week (n=7456) groups; and women to the 16-week (n=7550) versus 14-week (n=7567) versus 12-week (n=7568) groups. In men, compared with the 12-week group, the mean amount of blood collected per donor over 2 years increased by 1·69 units (95% CI 1·59-1·80; approximately 795 mL) in the 8-week group and by 0·79 units (0·69-0·88; approximately 370 mL) in the 10-week group (p<0·0001 for both). In women, compared with the 16-week group, it increased by 0·84 units (95% CI 0·76-0·91; approximately 395 mL) in the 12-week group and by 0·46 units (0·39-0·53; approximately 215 mL) in the 14-week group (p<0·0001 for both). No significant differences were observed in quality of life, physical activity, or cognitive function across randomised groups. However, more frequent donation resulted in more donation-related symptoms (eg, tiredness, breathlessness, feeling faint, dizziness, and restless legs, especially among men [for all listed symptoms]), lower mean haemoglobin and ferritin concentrations, and more deferrals for low haemoglobin (p<0·0001 for each) than those observed in the standard frequency groups. INTERPRETATION: Over 2 years, more frequent donation than is standard practice in the UK collected substantially more blood without having a major effect on donors' quality of life, physical activity, or cognitive function, but resulted in more donation-related symptoms, deferrals, and iron deficiency. FUNDING: NHS Blood and Transplant, National Institute for Health Research, UK Medical Research Council, and British Heart Foundation.

Interpreting findings from Mendelian randomization using the MR-Egger method.

Mendelian randomization-Egger (MR-Egger) is an analysis method for Mendelian randomization using summarized genetic data. MR-Egger consists of three parts: (1) a test for directional pleiotropy, (2) a test for a causal effect, and (3) an estimate of the causal effect. While conventional analysis methods for Mendelian randomization assume that all genetic variants satisfy the instrumental variable assumptions, the MR-Egger method is able to assess whether genetic variants have pleiotropic effects on the outcome that differ on average from zero (directional pleiotropy), as well as to provide a consistent estimate of the causal effect, under a weaker assumption-the InSIDE (INstrument Strength Independent of Direct Effect) assumption. In this paper, we provide a critical assessment of the MR-Egger method with regard to its implementation and interpretation. While the MR-Egger method is a worthwhile sensitivity analysis for detecting violations of the instrumental variable assumptions, there are several reasons why causal estimates from the MR-Egger method may be biased and have inflated Type 1 error rates in practice, including violations of the InSIDE assumption and the influence of outlying variants. The issues raised in this paper have potentially serious consequences for causal inferences from the MR-Egger approach. We give examples of scenarios in which the estimates from conventional Mendelian randomization methods and MR-Egger differ, and discuss how to interpret findings in such cases.

Use of Repeated Blood Pressure and Cholesterol Measurements to Improve Cardiovascular Disease Risk Prediction: An Individual-Participant-Data Meta-Analysis.

The added value of incorporating information from repeated blood pressure and cholesterol measurements to predict cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk has not been rigorously assessed. We used data on 191,445 adults from the Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration (38 cohorts from 17 countries with data encompassing 1962-2014) with more than 1 million measurements of systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Over a median 12 years of follow-up, 21,170 CVD events occurred. Risk prediction models using cumulative mean values of repeated measurements and summary measures from longitudinal modeling of the repeated measurements were compared with models using measurements from a single time point. Risk discrimination (C-index) and net reclassification were calculated, and changes in C-indices were meta-analyzed across studies. Compared with the single-time-point model, the cumulative means and longitudinal models increased the C-index by 0.0040 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.0023, 0.0057) and 0.0023 (95% CI: 0.0005, 0.0042), respectively. Reclassification was also improved in both models; compared with the single-time-point model, overall net reclassification improvements were 0.0369 (95% CI: 0.0303, 0.0436) for the cumulative-means model and 0.0177 (95% CI: 0.0110, 0.0243) for the longitudinal model. In conclusion, incorporating repeated measurements of blood pressure and cholesterol into CVD risk prediction models slightly improves risk prediction.

Morphological suitability for endovascular repair, non-intervention rates, and operative mortality in women and men assessed for intact abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: systematic reviews with meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Prognosis for women with abdominal aortic aneurysm might be worse than the prognosis for men. We aimed to systematically quantify the differences in outcomes between men and women being assessed for repair of intact abdominal aortic aneurysm using data from study periods after the year 2000. METHODS: In these systematic reviews and meta-analysis, we identified studies (randomised, cohort, or cross-sectional) by searching MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and grey literature published between Jan 1, 2005, and Sept 2, 2016, for two systematic reviews and Jan 1, 2009, and Sept 2, 2016, for one systematic review. Studies were included if they were of both men and women, with data presented for each sex separately, with abdominal aortic aneurysms being assessed for aneurysm repair by either endovascular repair (EVAR) or open repair. We conducted three reviews based on whether studies reported the proportion morphologically suitable (within manufacturers' instructions for use) for EVAR (EVAR suitability review), non-intervention rates (non-intervention review), and 30-day mortality (operative mortality review) after intact aneurysm repair. Studies had to include at least 20 women (for the EVAR suitability review), 20 women (for the non-intervention review), and 50 women (for the operative mortality review). Studies were excluded if they were review articles, editorials, letters, or case reports. For the operative review, studies were also excluded if they only provided hazard ratios or only reported in-hospital mortality. We assessed the quality of the studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa scoring system, and contacted authors for the provision of additional data if needed. We combined results across studies by random-effects meta-analysis. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42016043227. FINDINGS: Five studies assessed the morphological eligibility for EVAR (1507 men, 400 women). The overall pooled proportion of women eligible (34%) for EVAR was lower than it was in men (54%; odds ratio [OR] 0·44, 95% CI 0·32-0·62). Four single-centre studies reported non-intervention rates (1365 men, 247 women). The overall pooled non-intervention rates were higher in women (34%) than men (19%; OR 2·27, 95% CI 1·21-4·23). The review of 30-day mortality included nine studies (52 018 men, 11 076 women). The overall pooled estimate for EVAR was higher in women (2·3%) than in men (1·4%; OR 1·67, 95% CI 1·38-2·04). The overall estimate for open repair also was higher in women (5·4%) than in men (2·8%; OR 1·76, 95% CI 1·35-2·30). INTERPRETATION: Compared with men, a smaller proportion of women are eligible for EVAR, a higher proportion of women are not offered intervention, and operative mortality is much higher in women for both EVAR and open repair. The management of abdominal aortic aneurysm in women needs improvement. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research (UK).

A review of instrumental variable estimators for Mendelian randomization.

Instrumental variable analysis is an approach for obtaining causal inferences on the effect of an exposure (risk factor) on an outcome from observational data. It has gained in popularity over the past decade with the use of genetic variants as instrumental variables, known as Mendelian randomization. An instrumental variable is associated with the exposure, but not associated with any confounder of the exposure-outcome association, nor is there any causal pathway from the instrumental variable to the outcome other than via the exposure. Under the assumption that a single instrumental variable or a set of instrumental variables for the exposure is available, the causal effect of the exposure on the outcome can be estimated. There are several methods available for instrumental variable estimation; we consider the ratio method, two-stage methods, likelihood-based methods, and semi-parametric methods. Techniques for obtaining statistical inferences and confidence intervals are presented. The statistical properties of estimates from these methods are compared, and practical advice is given about choosing a suitable analysis method. In particular, bias and coverage properties of estimators are considered, especially with weak instruments. Settings particularly relevant to Mendelian randomization are prioritized in the paper, notably the scenario of a continuous exposure and a continuous or binary outcome.

Genetic invalidation of Lp-PLA2 as a therapeutic target: Large-scale study of five functional Lp-PLA2-lowering alleles.

Aims Darapladib, a potent inhibitor of lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2 (Lp-PLA2), has not reduced risk of cardiovascular disease outcomes in recent randomized trials. We aimed to test whether Lp-PLA2 enzyme activity is causally relevant to coronary heart disease. Methods In 72,657 patients with coronary heart disease and 110,218 controls in 23 epidemiological studies, we genotyped five functional variants: four rare loss-of-function mutations (c.109+2T > C (rs142974898), Arg82His (rs144983904), Val279Phe (rs76863441), Gln287Ter (rs140020965)) and one common modest-impact variant (Val379Ala (rs1051931)) in PLA2G7, the gene encoding Lp-PLA2. We supplemented de-novo genotyping with information on a further 45,823 coronary heart disease patients and 88,680 controls in publicly available databases and other previous studies. We conducted a systematic review of randomized trials to compare effects of darapladib treatment on soluble Lp-PLA2 activity, conventional cardiovascular risk factors, and coronary heart disease risk with corresponding effects of Lp-PLA2-lowering alleles. Results Lp-PLA2 activity was decreased by 64% ( p = 2.4 × 10-25) with carriage of any of the four loss-of-function variants, by 45% ( p < 10-300) for every allele inherited at Val279Phe, and by 2.7% ( p = 1.9 × 10-12) for every allele inherited at Val379Ala. Darapladib 160 mg once-daily reduced Lp-PLA2 activity by 65% ( p < 10-300). Causal risk ratios for coronary heart disease per 65% lower Lp-PLA2 activity were: 0.95 (0.88-1.03) with Val279Phe; 0.92 (0.74-1.16) with carriage of any loss-of-function variant; 1.01 (0.68-1.51) with Val379Ala; and 0.95 (0.89-1.02) with darapladib treatment. Conclusions In a large-scale human genetic study, none of a series of Lp-PLA2-lowering alleles was related to coronary heart disease risk, suggesting that Lp-PLA2 is unlikely to be a causal risk factor.

The use of repeated blood pressure measures for cardiovascular risk prediction: a comparison of statistical models in the ARIC study.

Many prediction models have been developed for the risk assessment and the prevention of cardiovascular disease in primary care. Recent efforts have focused on improving the accuracy of these prediction models by adding novel biomarkers to a common set of baseline risk predictors. Few have considered incorporating repeated measures of the common risk predictors. Through application to the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study and simulations, we compare models that use simple summary measures of the repeat information on systolic blood pressure, such as (i) baseline only; (ii) last observation carried forward; and (iii) cumulative mean, against more complex methods that model the repeat information using (iv) ordinary regression calibration; (v) risk-set regression calibration; and (vi) joint longitudinal and survival models. In comparison with the baseline-only model, we observed modest improvements in discrimination and calibration using the cumulative mean of systolic blood pressure, but little further improvement from any of the complex methods. © 2016 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Sensitivity Analyses for Robust Causal Inference from Mendelian Randomization Analyses with Multiple Genetic Variants.

Mendelian randomization investigations are becoming more powerful and simpler to perform, due to the increasing size and coverage of genome-wide association studies and the increasing availability of summarized data on genetic associations with risk factors and disease outcomes. However, when using multiple genetic variants from different gene regions in a Mendelian randomization analysis, it is highly implausible that all the genetic variants satisfy the instrumental variable assumptions. This means that a simple instrumental variable analysis alone should not be relied on to give a causal conclusion. In this article, we discuss a range of sensitivity analyses that will either support or question the validity of causal inference from a Mendelian randomization analysis with multiple genetic variants. We focus on sensitivity analyses of greatest practical relevance for ensuring robust causal inferences, and those that can be undertaken using summarized data. Aside from cases in which the justification of the instrumental variable assumptions is supported by strong biological understanding, a Mendelian randomization analysis in which no assessment of the robustness of the findings to violations of the instrumental variable assumptions has been made should be viewed as speculative and incomplete. In particular, Mendelian randomization investigations with large numbers of genetic variants without such sensitivity analyses should be treated with skepticism.

Bias due to participant overlap in two-sample Mendelian randomization.

Mendelian randomization analyses are often performed using summarized data. The causal estimate from a one-sample analysis (in which data are taken from a single data source) with weak instrumental variables is biased in the direction of the observational association between the risk factor and outcome, whereas the estimate from a two-sample analysis (in which data on the risk factor and outcome are taken from non-overlapping datasets) is less biased and any bias is in the direction of the null. When using genetic consortia that have partially overlapping sets of participants, the direction and extent of bias are uncertain. In this paper, we perform simulation studies to investigate the magnitude of bias and Type 1 error rate inflation arising from sample overlap. We consider both a continuous outcome and a case-control setting with a binary outcome. For a continuous outcome, bias due to sample overlap is a linear function of the proportion of overlap between the samples. So, in the case of a null causal effect, if the relative bias of the one-sample instrumental variable estimate is 10% (corresponding to an F parameter of 10), then the relative bias with 50% sample overlap is 5%, and with 30% sample overlap is 3%. In a case-control setting, if risk factor measurements are only included for the control participants, unbiased estimates are obtained even in a one-sample setting. However, if risk factor data on both control and case participants are used, then bias is similar with a binary outcome as with a continuous outcome. Consortia releasing publicly available data on the associations of genetic variants with continuous risk factors should provide estimates that exclude case participants from case-control samples.

Recruitment and representativeness of blood donors in the INTERVAL randomised trial assessing varying inter-donation intervals.

BACKGROUND: The interpretation of trial results can be helped by understanding how generalisable they are to the target population for which inferences are intended. INTERVAL, a large pragmatic randomised trial of blood donors in England, is assessing the effectiveness and safety of reducing inter-donation intervals. The trial recruited mainly from the blood service's static centres, which collect only about 10 % of whole-blood donations. Hence, the extent to which the trial's participants are representative of the general blood donor population is uncertain. We compare these groups in detail. METHODS: We present the CONSORT flowchart from participant invitation to randomisation in INTERVAL. We compare the characteristics of those eligible and consenting to participate in INTERVAL with the general donor population, using the national blood supply 'PULSE' database for the period of recruitment. We compare the characteristics of specific groups of trial participants recruited from different sources, as well as those who were randomised versus those not randomised. RESULTS: From a total of 540,459 invitations, 48,725 donors were eligible and consented to participate in INTERVAL. The proportion of such donors varied from 1-22 % depending on the source of recruitment. The characteristics of those consenting were similar to those of the general population of 1.3 million donors in terms of ethnicity, blood group distribution and recent deferral rates from blood donation due to low haemoglobin. However, INTERVAL participants included more men (50 % versus 44 %), were slightly older (mean age 43.1 versus 42.3 years), included fewer new donors (3 % versus 22 %) and had given more donations over the previous 2 years (mean 3.3 versus 2.2) than the general donor population. Of the consenting participants, 45,263 (93 %) donors were randomised. Compared to those not randomised, the randomised donors showed qualitatively similar differences to those described above. CONCLUSIONS: There was broad similarity of participants in INTERVAL with the general blood donor population of England, notwithstanding some differences in age, sex and donation history. Any heterogeneity of the trial's results according to these characteristics will need to be studied to ensure its generalisability to the general donor population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN24760606 . Registered on 25 January 2012.

Parity, breastfeeding and risk of coronary heart disease: A pan-European case-cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: There is uncertainty about the direction and magnitude of the associations between parity, breastfeeding and the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD). We examined the separate and combined associations of parity and breastfeeding practices with the incidence of CHD later in life among women in a large, pan-European cohort study. METHODS: Data were used from European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC)-CVD, a case-cohort study nested within the EPIC prospective study of 520,000 participants from 10 countries. Information on reproductive history was available for 14,917 women, including 5138 incident cases of CHD. Using Prentice-weighted Cox regression separately for each country followed by a random-effects meta-analysis, we calculated hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for CHD, after adjustment for age, study centre and several socioeconomic and biological risk factors. RESULTS: Compared with nulliparous women, the adjusted HR was 1.19 (95% CI: 1.01-1.41) among parous women; HRs were higher among women with more children (e.g., adjusted HR: 1.95 (95% CI: 1.19-3.20) for women with five or more children). Compared with women who did not breastfeed, the adjusted HR was 0.71 (95% CI: 0.52-0.98) among women who breastfed. For childbearing women who never breastfed, the adjusted HR was 1.58 (95% CI: 1.09-2.30) compared with nulliparous women, whereas for childbearing women who breastfed, the adjusted HR was 1.19 (95% CI: 0.99-1.43). CONCLUSION: Having more children was associated with a higher risk of CHD later in life, whereas breastfeeding was associated with a lower CHD risk. Women who both had children and breastfed did have a non-significantly higher risk of CHD.

Normative values for carotid intima media thickness and its progression: Are they transferrable outside of their cohort of origin?

BACKGROUND: The clinical use of carotid intima media thickness (cIMT) requires normal values, which may be subject to variation of geographical factors, ethnicity or measurement details. The influence of these factors has rarely been studied. The aim of this study was to determine whether normative cIMT values and their association with event risk are generalizable across populations. DESIGN: Meta-analysis of individual participant data. METHOD: From 22 general population cohorts from Europe, North America and Asia we selected subjects free of cardiovascular disease. Percentiles of cIMT and cIMT progression were assessed separately for every cohort. Cox proportional hazards models for vascular events were used to estimate hazard ratios for cIMT in each cohort. The estimates were pooled across Europe, North America and Asia, with random effects meta-analysis. The influence of geography, ethnicity and ultrasound protocols on cIMT values and on the hazard ratios was examined by meta-regression. RESULTS: Geographical factors, ethnicity and the ultrasound protocol had influence neither on the percentiles of cIMT and its progression, nor on the hazard ratios of cIMT for vascular events. Heterogeneity for percentiles of cIMT and cIMT progression was too large to create meaningful normative values. CONCLUSIONS: The distribution of cIMT values is too heterogeneous to define universal or regional population reference values. CIMT values vary widely between different studies regardless of ethnicity, geographic location and ultrasound protocol. Prediction of vascular events with cIMT values was more consistent across all cohorts, ethnicities and regions.