DLM and Physical Activity

Citation:
 
Study Design:
Class:
- Click here for explanation of classification scheme.
Quality Rating:
Research Purpose:

To assess the association between the amount, types, and intensity of exercise in relation to risk of CHD in a large cohort of men.

Inclusion Criteria:

Was not explicitly stated, but we can assume these:

*male gender

*Health professional (dentist, optometrist, pharmacist, podiatrist, osteopath, and veterinarian)

*40-75 years of age

*Free of:  cardiovascular dz (MI andgina, &/or coronary revascularization & stroke) & cancer other than nonmelanoma skin cancer prior to 1986

*Able to climb stairs and walk

Exclusion Criteria:

*Men with a diagnosis of cardiovascular dz (MI, angina, &/or revascularization & stroke) & cancer other than nonmelanoma skin cancer prior to 1986

*Men w/ a CHD event during the follow-up were excluded from analyses in the subsequent intervals.

*Men who reported difficulty climbing stairs or walking were excluded from analysis at each time point starting from 1988

*Men were excluded throughout the study if they drastically reduced their levels of activity (>20 MET-h/wk) from one questionnaire to the next.

Description of Study Protocol:

Recruitment:  Men enrolled in the Health Professionals' Follow-up Study.  This article did not explain how these men were recruited, nor did they give a reference for this process.  All that was stated was that they were health professionals. 

 

Design:  Prospective cohort of 44,452 men enrolled in the Health Professionals' Follow-up Study.  They were followed up at 2 year intervals from 1986-January 31, 1998.

*Follow-up questionnaires were sent in 1988, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1996, & 1998 to update information on potential risk factors & to identify newly Dx'ed cases of CHD & other illnesses.

*Leisure time physical activity was assessed every 2 years between 1986 and 1996, using the question: "During the past year what was your average time per week spent at each activity [walking (also walking pace), hiking, jogging, running, bicycling, lap swimming, tennis, squash or racquetball, calisthenics, or rowing]?"  Heavy outdoor work was added in 1988 and wt training in  1990. 

*Validity & reproducibility of the physical activity questionnaire was assessed in 1991 when 238 participants in the study completed a 1-week activity log at 4 periods corresponding to different seasons throughout the year.

 

Blinding used (if applicable):  N/A

 

Intervention (if applicable):  N/A

 

Statistical Analysis:  Main analyses- 1) used the cumulative avg of physical activity levels from all available questionnaires up to the start of each 2-year follow-up interval.  Additional analyses were performed using baseline levels of activity and simple updated levels of physical activity in which CHD was predicted only from the most recent questionnaire  2) Tests for trend were calculated by assigning the median values to increasing categories of activity  3) RR's were initially calculated adjusting for age  4) Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate RRs of CHD over each 2-year follow-up interval using the cumulative avg of the reported levels of activity on prior questionnaires, adjusting for other potential confounders  5) Analyzed cumulative, simple-updated, and baseline (1986) activity as categorical and continuous variables  6) Corrected RRs corresponding to increments of simple-updated and baseline physical activity using the method of Rosner et al (Rosner B, Willett WC, Spiegelman D.  Correction of logistic regression relative risk estimates and confidence intervals for systematic within-person measurement error.  Stat Med.  1989;8:1051-1069; discussion 1071-1073)  7) Multivariate models included alcohol intake, family history of MI, use of vitamin E supplement, hx of DM, hypertension, & hypercholesterolemia at baseline, and quintiles of dietary intake of trans fatty acids, polyunsaturated fat, fiber, & folate.  Secondary analyses- 1) additionally controlled for BMI to estimate how this potential intermediate factor would affect RRs  2) Interaction between physical activity and obesity was assessed by the difference in -2 log likelihood  b/w the model containing the interaction w/ obesity in 2 categories (BMI<30, BMI>30) and the main effects model  3) Performed a propensity analysis in which they used logistic regression modeling to predict the highest as opposed to the lowest quintile of physical activity.  Demographic, clinical, & dietary variables were included in this.  The resulting propensity scores were used to match men from the two groups

 

Data Collection Summary:

Timing of Measurements: Follow-up questionnaires were sent every 2 years after the initial start of the study (1986=baseline, 1988, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1996, & 1998

 

Dependent Variables

  • Occurrence of fatal CHD & nonfatal MI between the return of the 1986 questionnaire and January 31, 1998.  Self reported MI's were confirmed by a review of medical records based on criteria that included characteristic symptoms with either typical ECG changes or elevations of cardiac enzymes.  Probable cases of MI (no available records but confirmed by hospitalization & info from telephone interview/letter) were also included in the analysis after ensuring that results were not appreciably different from those including definite cases alone.  Deaths were reported by next of kin, work associates, and postal authorities.  In case of persistent nonresponse, the National Death Index was used to identify deceased cohort members.  Fatal CHD was confirmed by reviewing medical recoreds or autopsy reports.  Sudden deaths(ie, deaths w/in 1 hr of symptom onset in men w/out known dz that could explain death)  were included in the fatal CHD category. 

 

Independent Variables:  age, gender, activity level, BMI, dietary intake, alcohol intake, smoking status, hx of DM/HTN/hypercholesterolemia, use of supplements, family Hx of MI, ethnicity, economic status, mental status

 

Control Variables:  N/A

 

Description of Actual Data Sample:

Initial N: 51,529 men, US health professionals

Attrition (final N):  44,452 men

Age: 40-75 years of age

Ethnicity: not available

Other relevant demographics: men who lived in the United States

Anthropometrics: Was not provided, however, the men were classified into three categories based on BMI (<25, 25-29.9, >30)

Location:  United States 

 

Summary of Results:

*Physically more active men tended to have lower BMIs, lower intakes of total fat and saturated fat, higher intakes of fiber and alcohol, a higher prevalence of vitamin E supplement use, and a lower prevalence of smoking & hypertension.

*During a 475,755 person-years follow-up, there were 1700 new documented cases of CHD. 

__________________________________________________________

                Cumulatively Updated Vol of Physical Activity by Quintile

Model                        1               2                3                   4                5

Age-adjusted            1.00           0.85           0.78              0.72           0.58

                                            (0.74-0.98)  (0.67-0.92)   (0.62-0.83) (0.49-0.68)

Multiv. Model 1*       1.00           0.90           0.84              0.80            0.65

                                            (0.78-1.03)  (0.73-0.98)   (0.68-0.92)  (0.56-0.77)

Multiv. Model 2**     1.00           0.90           0.87              0.83            0.70

                                            (0.78-1.04)  (0.75-1.00)   (0.71-0.96)  (0.59-0.82)

Multiv. Model 3^       1.00           0.93           0.90              0.87            0.74

                                            (0.80-1.06)  (0.78-1.05)  (0.71-1.01)   (0.63-0.87)

Multiv. Model 4^^     1.00           0.90           0.88              0.84            0.72

                                            (0.78-1.04)  (0.76-1.01)   (0.72-0.98)  (0.61-0.85)

*Adjusted for alcohol consumption, smoking, family hx of MI, & nutrient intake

**Adjusted for covariates in model 1 & for the presence of DM, high cholesterol levels, and HTN at baseline

^Adjusted for the covariates in model 2 and for BMI

^^Adjusted for the covariates in model 2, w/ physical activity volume in MET-hours per week and intensity in METS included in the same model

Side note:  All of the above had a P<0.001 for trend 

___________________________________________________________

1) Age-adjusted RRs across quintiles of total physical activity decreased monotonically and were modestly attenuated after adjustment for alcohol consumption, smoking, family history of MI before age 50, and nutrient intake.  The association was further attenuated by additionally adjusting for baseline presence of HTN, DM, and high cholesterol levels.  The RR comparing extreme quintiles was 0.70 (P<0.001 for trend).  Using simple updated and baseline physical activity, the corresponding RRs were 0.70 (P<0.001) and 0.77 (P<0.001).  Adjustment for BMI did not appreciably alter these results. 

2) Secondary analysis of propensity-matched men, showed that those who were at the highest quintile of activity still had a reduced CHD risk compared with those in the lowest quintile

3) When physical activity was modeled as a continuous variable, every 50 MET-h/wk increase of cumulatively updated physical activity was associated w/ a 26% reduction in risk of CHD.  The association was strengthened considerably after correction for measurement error.

4)  When analyzed separately, exercise intensity was related to reduced risk of CHD.  Multivariate analysis was used to assess if exercise intensity is related to CHD risk independent of exercise volume and the RRs corresponding to moderate and high exercise intensity were 0.94 and 0.83, respectively, compared w/ that for low exercise intensity (P=.02 for trend).  When assessed as a continuous variable, exercise intensity was related to a reduction in risk of 4% for each 1-MET increase independent of the total exercise volume.

5) Based on supplementary analyses, compared w/ men who maintained a low intensity of exercise, men who maintained a high level of intensity had an RR of 0.72, and those who increased intensity from low to high over time had an RR of 0.88

6) The RRs across quintiles of physical activity, adjusted for alcohol consumption, smoking, family hx of MI before age 50 years of age, nutrient intake, and baseline presence of HTN, high cholesterol, and DM were 1.0, 0.91, 0.87, 0.81, and 0.66 (P<0.001) 

7) When they evaluated the effect of physical activity across different subgroups defined by established risk factors for CHD (smoking, alcohol, obesity, HTN, family hx of MI, age, and presence of high cholesterol) an inverse association was observed in all groups.  However, the interaction b/w obesity status and physical activity was not statistically sig (P=0.09) 

Other Findings

*Running, jogging, rowing, and racquet sports were associated w/ reduced risk in age-adjusted analyses.  In multivariate analyses including previously mentioned covariates plus all activities, running and rowing remained significant predictors of CHD.  Running for one or more hours per week was associated w/ a 42% risk reduction and rowing for one or more hours per week was associated w/ an 18%risk reduction compared with men who didn't engage in these activities.  Cycling and swimming weren't associated w/ risk.

*Compared with men who didn't perform resistance training, the RRs for men who performed resistance training for less than 30 mins or for 30 or more mins per week were 0.83 and 0.65, respectively (P<0.001).  In multivariate analyses that also controlled for other types of physical activity, wt training for 30 minutes or more per week was associated w/ a significant 23% risk reduction (P=0.03 for trend)

*Total walking volume was associated w/ reduced risk of CHD in age-adjusted analysis.  In multivariate analysis, risk of CHD was reduced only for men in the highest quintile, corresponding to 14.75 MET-h/wk or more, w/ an 18% reduction in risk of CHD (P=0.04 for trend)

*Walking pace was significantly associated w/ reduced risk in age-adjusted and multivariate models.

*When analyzed in the same multivariate model w/ walking MET-hours and compared w/ walking at an easy pace, the RRs corresponding to normal pace, brisk pace, and very brisk pace were 0.72, 0.61, and 0.51, respectively (P<0.001 for trend).  Thus, walking pace is relatd to reduced CHD risk over and above the effect of walking volume.  

 

Author Conclusion:

*Increased total physical activity was associated w/ reduced risk of CHD in a dose-dependent manner.  This inverse association was not explained by other known coronary risk factors, including BMI.  Exercise intensity was associated w/ an additional risk reduction.  Running, wt training, and rowing were each associated with reduced risk.  Walking pace was strongly related to reduced risk independent of walking MET-hours.  Thus, increasing intensity of aerobic exercise from low to moderate and from moderate to high, and adding wt training to the exercise program are among the most effective strategies to reduce the risk of CHD in men.

Funding Source:
Government: NIH
Reviewer Comments:

*The authors stated the strengths of the study (prospective design, large size of cohort, detailed info on exposure and covariates, extensive follow-up time, strict and uniform criteria for coronary events and relative homogeneity of socioeconomic status among subjects).

*They also indicated the limitations of the study (self-report of physical activity, cannot completely rule out the possibility of residual & unmeasured confoundings and cannot draw a causal relationship simply based on these data due to the observational nature of this study; when specific activities were analyzed, such as swimming and cycling, the findings were limited by their low range of exposure and some participants who performed these activities may have done them at lower intensities or spent less than reported time in actual exercise).

*One has to be cautious as to why these men chose to be in the study.  This could be a confounding factor.

*Inclusion criteria was not explicity stated.

Quality Criteria Checklist: Primary Research
Relevance Questions
  1. Would implementing the studied intervention or procedure (if found successful) result in improved outcomes for the patients/clients/population group? (Not Applicable for some epidemiological studies) Yes
  2. Did the authors study an outcome (dependent variable) or topic that the patients/clients/population group would care about? Yes
  3. Is the focus of the intervention or procedure (independent variable) or topic of study a common issue of concern to dieteticspractice? Yes
  4. Is the intervention or procedure feasible? (NA for some epidemiological studies) Yes
 
Validity Questions
1. Was the research question clearly stated? Yes
  1.1. Was (were) the specific intervention(s) or procedure(s) [independent variable(s)] identified? Yes
  1.2. Was (were) the outcome(s) [dependent variable(s)] clearly indicated? Yes
  1.3. Were the target population and setting specified? Yes
2. Was the selection of study subjects/patients free from bias? Yes
  2.1. Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified (e.g., risk, point in disease progression, diagnostic or prognosis criteria), and with sufficient detail and without omitting criteria critical to the study? Yes
  2.2. Were criteria applied equally to all study groups? Yes
  2.3. Were health, demographics, and other characteristics of subjects described? No
  2.4. Were the subjects/patients a representative sample of the relevant population? Yes
3. Were study groups comparable? Yes
  3.1. Was the method of assigning subjects/patients to groups described and unbiased? (Method of randomization identified if RCT) N/A
  3.2. Were distribution of disease status, prognostic factors, and other factors (e.g., demographics) similar across study groups at baseline? Yes
  3.3. Were concurrent controls or comparisons used? (Concurrent preferred over historical control or comparison groups.) N/A
  3.4. If cohort study or cross-sectional study, were groups comparable on important confounding factors and/or were preexisting differences accounted for by using appropriate adjustments in statistical analysis? Yes
  3.5. If case control study, were potential confounding factors comparable for cases and controls? (If case series or trial with subjects serving as own control, this criterion is not applicable.) N/A
  3.6. If diagnostic test, was there an independent blind comparison with an appropriate reference standard (e.g., "gold standard")? N/A
4. Was method of handling withdrawals described? Yes
  4.1. Were follow-up methods described and the same for all groups? Yes
  4.2. Was the number, characteristics of withdrawals (i.e., dropouts, lost to follow up, attrition rate) and/or response rate (cross-sectional studies) described for each group? (Follow up goal for a strong study is 80%.) No
  4.3. Were all enrolled subjects/patients (in the original sample) accounted for? Yes
  4.4. Were reasons for withdrawals similar across groups? Yes
  4.5. If diagnostic test, was decision to perform reference test not dependent on results of test under study? N/A
5. Was blinding used to prevent introduction of bias? ???
  5.1. In intervention study, were subjects, clinicians/practitioners, and investigators blinded to treatment group, as appropriate? N/A
  5.2. Were data collectors blinded for outcomes assessment? (If outcome is measured using an objective test, such as a lab value, this criterion is assumed to be met.) N/A
  5.3. In cohort study or cross-sectional study, were measurements of outcomes and risk factors blinded? ???
  5.4. In case control study, was case definition explicit and case ascertainment not influenced by exposure status? N/A
  5.5. In diagnostic study, were test results blinded to patient history and other test results? N/A
6. Were intervention/therapeutic regimens/exposure factor or procedure and any comparison(s) described in detail? Were interveningfactors described? Yes
  6.1. In RCT or other intervention trial, were protocols described for all regimens studied? N/A
  6.2. In observational study, were interventions, study settings, and clinicians/provider described? Yes
  6.3. Was the intensity and duration of the intervention or exposure factor sufficient to produce a meaningful effect? Yes
  6.4. Was the amount of exposure and, if relevant, subject/patient compliance measured? Yes
  6.5. Were co-interventions (e.g., ancillary treatments, other therapies) described? No
  6.6. Were extra or unplanned treatments described? No
  6.7. Was the information for 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6 assessed the same way for all groups? Yes
  6.8. In diagnostic study, were details of test administration and replication sufficient? N/A
7. Were outcomes clearly defined and the measurements valid and reliable? Yes
  7.1. Were primary and secondary endpoints described and relevant to the question? Yes
  7.2. Were nutrition measures appropriate to question and outcomes of concern? Yes
  7.3. Was the period of follow-up long enough for important outcome(s) to occur? Yes
  7.4. Were the observations and measurements based on standard, valid, and reliable data collection instruments/tests/procedures? Yes
  7.5. Was the measurement of effect at an appropriate level of precision? Yes
  7.6. Were other factors accounted for (measured) that could affect outcomes? Yes
  7.7. Were the measurements conducted consistently across groups? Yes
8. Was the statistical analysis appropriate for the study design and type of outcome indicators? Yes
  8.1. Were statistical analyses adequately described and the results reported appropriately? Yes
  8.2. Were correct statistical tests used and assumptions of test not violated? Yes
  8.3. Were statistics reported with levels of significance and/or confidence intervals? Yes
  8.4. Was "intent to treat" analysis of outcomes done (and as appropriate, was there an analysis of outcomes for those maximally exposed or a dose-response analysis)? N/A
  8.5. Were adequate adjustments made for effects of confounding factors that might have affected the outcomes (e.g., multivariate analyses)? Yes
  8.6. Was clinical significance as well as statistical significance reported? Yes
  8.7. If negative findings, was a power calculation reported to address type 2 error? N/A
9. Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? Yes
  9.1. Is there a discussion of findings? Yes
  9.2. Are biases and study limitations identified and discussed? Yes
10. Is bias due to study's funding or sponsorship unlikely? Yes
  10.1. Were sources of funding and investigators' affiliations described? Yes
  10.2. Was the study free from apparent conflict of interest? Yes