Multiple-stage screening and mortality in the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial

Abstract

Background During the design phase of a clinical trial, sample size estimates should take into account medical screening criteria, the ‘healthy volunteer’ effect, consequences of run-in phases, and secular trends in the event rate of interest. All of these have been shown to relate to subsequent event rates, and hence trial power to detect intervention effects. The Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial (MRFIT) used three successive screenings of 361 662 men to enroll 12 866; observed coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality after a mean of 6.9 years was substantially lower than projected during design. We explore factors which may have contributed to these mortality differences and whether they persisted throughout follow-up.

Methods Proportional hazards models were used to compare 25-year mortality according to trial eligibility, self-exclusions, medical exclusions, and participation.

Results After adjustment for baseline risk factors and age, there was higher mortality among men excluded for presence of disease [hazard ratio (HR) 1.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.43–1.61, for total; HR 1.92, CI 1.75–2.11, for CHD] compared to those not excluded which persisted throughout follow-up. Volunteers had lower total (HR 0.82, CI 0.76–0.87) and CHD (HR 0.79, CI 0.70–0.88) mortality than those discontinuing participation. Men excluded with characteristics deemed likely to interfere with adherence had higher total (HR 1.19, CI 1.07–1.33) and noncardiovascular disease (CVD) (HR 1.32, CI 1.14–1.53) mortality but no higher CVD (HR 1.04, CI 0.88–1.23) or CHD (HR 0.98, CI 0.80–1.20) mortality compared to those not excluded. Differences in mortality were stronger during the first five years, but declined only slightly over 25 years.

Conclusions 25-year mortality was significantly higher for non-volunteers and exclusions. Differences between observed and predicted six-year total mortality for trial participants were largely attributable to volunteers and exclusions, but there were additional differences for CHD mortality, which were likely due to downward secular trends. These results emphasize the importance of anticipating these factors during clinical trial design, even for trials of short duration.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

1. Ederer F , Church TR , Mandel JS . Sample sizes for prevention trials have been too small. Am J Epidemiol 1993; 137(7): 787–796.

2. Garcia-Carbonero R , Hidalgo M , Paz-Ares L , et al. Patient selection in high-dose chemotherapy trials: Relevance in high-risk breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1997; 15(10): 3178–3184.

3. Smith P , Arnesen H . Mortality in non-consenters in a post-myocardial infarction trial. J Intern Med 1990; 228: 253–256.

4. Sesso HD , Gaziano JM , VanDenburgh M , et al. Comparison of baseline characteristics and mortality experience of participants and nonparticipants in a randomized clinical trial. Control Clin Trials 2002; 23: 686–702.

5. McGovern PG , Pankow JS , Shahar E , et al. Recent trends in acute coronary heart disease: Mortality, morbidity, medical care, risk factors. N Engl J Med 1996; 334(14): 884–890.

6. Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial Research Group . Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial: risk factor changes and mortality results. JAMA 1982; 248(12): 1465–1477.

7. Neaton JD , Grimm RH Jr. , Cutler JA , for the MRFIT Research Group. Recruitment of participants for the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial (MRFIT). Control Clin Trials 1987; 8(S): 41–53.

8. The Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial Research Group . Statistical design considerations in the NHLI Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial. J Chron Dis 1977; 30: 261–275.

9. Sherwin R , Kaelber CT , Kezdi P , Kjelsberg MO , Thomas HE Jr . The Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial (MRFIT): II. The development of the protocol. Prev Med 1981; 10(4): 426–442.

10.

10. Benfari RC. The Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial (MRFIT): III. The model for intervention. Prev Med 1981; 10(4): 426–442.

11.

11. Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial Research Group . Mortality after 16 years for participants randomized to the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial. Circ 1996; 94: 946–951.

12.

12. Wentworth D , Neaton JD , Rasmussen W .An evaluation of the Social Security Administration Master Beneficiary Record Index File and the National Death Index in the ascertainment of vital status. Am J Public Health 1983; 73: 1270–1274.

13.

13. Boyle CA , Decoufle P . National sources of vital status information: extent of coverage and possible selectivity in reporting. Am J Epidemiol 1990; 131(1): 160–168.

14.

14. Calle EE , Terrell DD . Utility of the National Death Index for ascertainment of mortality among Cancer Prevention Study II participants. Am J Epidemiol 1993; 137(2): 235–241.

15.

15. Horm J. Assignment of probabilistic scores to National Death Index Record matches. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics, 1996.

16.

16. Lash TL , Silliman RA . A comparison of the National Death Index and Social Security Administration databases to ascertain vital status. Epidemiol 2001; 12(2): 259–261.

17.

17. No author listed. International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, North American Clinical Modification, volume 1.Ann Arbor, MI: Edwards Brothers, Inc., 1981.

18.

18. World Health Organization . International classification of diseases, tenth revision. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1992.

19.

19. Sathiakumar N , Delzell E , Abdalla O . Using the National Death Index to obtain underlying cause of death codes. J Occ Environ Med 1998; 40(9): 808–813.

20.

20. Doody MM , Hayes HM , Bilgrad R . Comparability of National Death Index Plus and standard procedures for determining causes of death in epidemiologic studies. Ann Epidemiol 2001; 11:46–50.

21.

21. Kaplan EL , Meier P . Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc 1958; 53: 457–481.

22.

22. Cox DR. Regression models and life tables with discussion. J R Stat Soc (Ser B) 1972; 34: 187–220.

23.

23. Liang K-Y , Zeger SL .Longitudinaldataanalysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika 1986; 73: 13–22.

24.

24. Rosengren A , Wilhelmsen L , Berglund G , Elmfeldt D . Non-participants in a general population study of men, with special reference to social and alcoholic problems. Acta Scan Med 1987; 221(3): 243–251.

25.

25. Fossa ° SD , Skovlund E . Selection of patients may limit the generalizability of results from cancer trials. Acta Oncologica 2002; 41(2): 131–137.

26.

26. Antman K , Amato D , Wood W , et al. Selection bias in clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 1985; 3: 1142–1147.

27.

27. Begg CB , Engstrom PF . Eligibility and extrapolation in cancer clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 1987; 5: 962–968.

28.

28. Bjørn M , Brendstrup C , Karlsen S , Carlsen JE . Consecutive screening and enrollment in clinical trials: the way to representative patient samples? J Cardiac Failure 1998; 4(3): 225–230.

29.

29. Rahman ZU , Frye DK , Buzdar AU , et al. Impact of selection process on response rate and long-term survival of potential high-dose doxorubicin-containing chemotherapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1997; 15(10): 3171–3177.

30.

30. Schor SS , Clark TW , Parkhurst LW , Baker JP , Elson KA .Anevaluationoftheperiodichealth examination. Ann of Intern Med 1964; 61(6): 999–1005.

31.

31. Roberts NJ , Ipsen J , Elson KO , Clark TW , Yanagawa H . Mortality among males in periodic-health-examination programs. New Engl J Med 1969; 281(1): 20–24.

32.

32. Friedman GD , Collen MF , Fireman BH . Multiphasic Health Checkup evaluation – A 16 year follow-up. J Chron Dis 1986; 39(6): 453–463.

33.

33. Seltzer CC , Jablon S . Effects of selection on mortality. Amer J Epid 1974; 100: 367–372.

34.

34. Pablos-Mendez A , Barr RG , Shea S . Run-in periods in randomized trials: implications for the application of results in clinical practice. JAMA 1998; 279: 222–225.

35.

35. Yusuf S , Thom T , Abbott RD . Changes in hypertension treatment and in congestive heart failure mortality in the United States. Hypertension 1989; 13(5 Suppl): I74–79.

36.

36. Sytkowski PA , Kannel WB , D'Agostino RB . Changes in risk factors and the decline in mortality from cardiovascular disease: The Framingham Heart Study. New Engl J Med 1990; 322(23): 1635–1641.

37.

37. Gillum RF. Trends in acute MI and coronary heart disease death in the United States. J Am Coll Cardiol 1994; 23: 1273–1277.

38.

38. Massie BM , Shah NB . Evolving trends in the epidemiologic factors of heart failure: Rationale for preventive strategies and comprehensive disease management. Am Heart J 1997; 133: 703–712.

39.

39. Centers for Disease Control, National Center for Health Statistics, Trends in Health and Aging, Mortality by underlying cause, age, sex. Accessed 01 Oct 2003 from: webappa.cdc.gov/wds/eng/ReportFolders/Rfview/explorerp.asp

40.

40. Gordon T and Kannel WB . Section 1: Introduction and general background. In Kannel WB , Gordon T eds. The Framingham Study, An epidemiological investigation of cardiovascular disease. Washington DC, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (National Institutes of Health); 1968, 1a–1j.

41.

41. Gordon T . Section 2: Follow-up to the eighth examination. In Kannel WB , Gordon T eds. The Framingham Study, An epidemiological investigation of cardiovascular disease. Washington DC, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (National Institutes of Health); 1968, 2a–2c.

42.

42. McGee D and Gordon T . Section 31: The results of the Framingham study applied to four other US-based epidemiologic studies of cardiovascular disease. In Kannel WE , Gordon T eds. The Framingham Study: an epidemiologic investigation of cardiovascular disease. Washington DC, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, (National Institute of Health); 1976, 1-15, publication No 76–1083.