DLM: Homocysteine, Folate, B-12 (2001)

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

To assess the risk of ischaemic stroke associated with total serum homocyst(e)ine (tHcy) concentration.

Inclusion Criteria:
  • Age 50 to 64 years.
  • Cardiovascular disease and related outcomes in men.
  • No prior history of stroke.
Exclusion Criteria:
  • Prevalent stroke
  • Unavailable serum tHcy concentration level
  • Both prevalent stroke and unavailable serum homocysteine levels
Description of Study Protocol:

The Caerphilly study is a community based prospective study of cardiovascular disease and related outcomes in men age 45 to 59 years who were recruited between 1979 and 1983 from the town of Caerphilly South Wales and the adjacent villages.

 All men in the eligible age group were identified from the electoral register (2818) and invited to participate with an 89% recruitment rate. In 1984, 2398 men aged 50 to 64 years participated in phase II of the study.

Serum homocyst(e)ine concentration levels were performed on phase II stored blood samples at a later date.

This analysis is based on 2254 men with no prior history of stroke.

 The phase II follow up collected the following measurements; medical history, smoking history, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine chest pain questionnaire, height, weight and blood pressure measured with a random zero sphygmomanometer and a 12 lead electrocardiogram (ECG).

A detailed food frequency questionnaire was self completed before attending the clinic and used to estimate the mean daily dietary intake of nutrients and vitamins.

Outcome Measure: Stroke

Risk factors for stroke in cases and non-cases were examined using the unpaired t test and z test in the comparison of means and proportions. Total homocyst(e)ine, vitamin B12 and alcohol were not normally distributed and all calculations were done on log transformed data. Associations between serum tHcy concentration and several potential confounding variables were examined using linear regression. Mean values of serum tHcy concentration were compared in cases and non-cases using the unpaired t test.

 

 

Data Collection Summary:
  • Risk factors for stroke in cases and non-cases were examined.
  • Associations between serum tHcy concentration and several potential confounding variables were examined.
  • The relation between ischaemic stroke and serum tHcy concentration was examined.Cox proportional hazard modelling was used to perform survival analysis and to adjust for confounders.
  • Date of entry was taken as the date the blood was taken for serum total homocyst(e)ine. Participants were censored at date of ischaemic stroke, date of death or date of end of follow up, which was 31 December 1997.
  • The risk set was defined using both the dates of entry and age at entry and there was no difference in the results when analysed separately.
  • The proportional hazard assumption for the goodness of fit of the Cox regression model was tested over three intervals of time each containing the same number of stroke events.
Description of Actual Data Sample:
2254 men, 50-64 years of age recruited between 1984-88 and followed for 10 years.
Summary of Results:

There is no significant relation between hcy and stroke in this cohort. However, its importance may be greater for premature strokes (<65 years) and in hypertensive men.

The adjusted hazard ratio for stroke when the top 5% of the serum tHcy concentration distribution was compared with the rest was 2.0 (95% CI 0.9 to 4.2) p=0.07.

There was a significant interaction between serum tHcy concentration and age in the fully adjusted Cox proportional hazard model (p=0.003) when both were treated as continuous variables.

The adjusted odds ratio of stroke when comparing the top quintile of the serum tHcy concentration distribution with the rest, stratified by age at stroke, was 2.5 (95% CI 1.0 to 6.2) p = 0.02 in men who were under 65 years of age, as compared with 0.5 (95% CI 0.2 to 1.2) p=0.16 for men aged 65 years or over.


Serum total homocyst(e)ine and potential confounding variables for ischaemic stroke in the non-cases

Linear regression

Β coefficient*

95% CI

 

p Value

Age (per 5 years)

0.04

0.021 to 0.05

<0.01

 

Systolic BP (per 10 mm Hg)

0.006

0.006 to 0.012

0.03

 

Diastolic BP (per 10 mm Hg)

−0.0002

−0.01 to 0.01

0.97

 

†Alcohol (per SD in ml/day)

−0.04

−0.05 to −0.03

<0.01

 

Body mass index (per SD in kg/m2)

−0.1

−0.14 to −0.07

<0.01

 

Creatinine (per SD in μmol/l)

0.06

0.04 to 0.07

<0.01

 

Total cholesterol (per SD in mmol/l)

−0.0006

−0.01 to 0.01

0.93

HDL cholesterol (per SD in mmol/l)

−0.02

−0.03 to −0.007

<0.01

 

†Triglycerides (per SD in mmol/l)

−0.01

−0.02 to 0.02

0.1

 

Folate (per SD in μg/day)

−0.05

−0.06 to −0.04

<0.01

 

†B12 (per SD in μg/day)

−0.04

−0.05 to −0.03

<0.01

 

B6 (per SD in mg/day)

−0.02

−0.04 to −0. 01

 

<0.01

 

‡Mean serum tHcy (μm/l)

SD

 

Never smoked

Ex smoker

Current smoker

11.3

11.5

12.1

1.3

1.3

1.4

p=<0.01

 

Hypertensive

Normotensive

12.1

11.6

1.3

1.3

p=0.01

 

Manual social class

Non-manual social class

11.8

11.5

1.4

1.3

p=0.09

 

Diabetic

Not diabetic

10.7

11.7

1.3

1.3

p=0.01

 

ECG ischaemia

Normal ECG

11.8

11.7

1.3

1.3

p=0.5

 

*Change in homocysteine (natural log) per unit change in risk factor. †Natural log transformed ‡Geometric mean.

 

107 men (4.7%) developed stroke There was no significant difference in mean serum t-hcy levels between stroke cases (12.2 m mol/L, 95% CI, 11.6-13.1) and non-cases (11.7 m mol/L, 95% CI, 11.5-11.9) (P=0.14). The adjusted odds ratio comparing the top quintile of t-hcy with the rest was 2.5 (95% CI, 1.0-6.2) for strokes in those <65 years and 0.5 (95% CI, 0.2-1.3) >65 years (P for interaction =0.02). The adjusted hazard ratio for a standard deviation increase in t-hcy was 0.8 (95% CI, 0.6-1.2 for normotensive men and 1.3 (95% CI, 1.1-1.7) for hypertensive men. (P for interaction=0.01).

Hazard ratio of stroke comparing each quintile of serum total homocyst(e)ine concentration with the first

 

Quintile of

tHcy

n

Cases

 

Mean

tHcy

 

Rate /1000

person years

 

Age adjusted

hazard ratio

(95% CI) (n=2112)

 

 

Hazard ratio

adjusted* (95%

CI) (n=2112)

 

1

455

21

8. 2

4.4

1.0

1.0

2

454

21

10.0

4.5

1.2 (0.6 to 2.2)

1.3 (0.7 to 2.4)

 

3

444

23

11.4

5.0

1.3

 (0.7 to 2.4)

1.3 (0.7 to 2.4)

4

453

14

13.2

3.0

 

0.8 (0.4 to 1.6)

0.8 (0.4 to 1.6)

5

448

28

19.0

 

Author Conclusion:
  • The authors found a greater risk of ischaemic stroke associated with tHcy in hypertensive men. Overall, there is no significant relation between homocyst(e)ine and ischaemic stroke in this cohort.
  • Our study supports the hypothesis that any true effect is weak or non-existent and may be only important in certain subgroups. Future randomised controlled trials of folic acid supplementation may provide more robust evidence as to whether interventions that lower tHcy can prevent atherosclerosis and future risk of stroke.
  • In view of our results, such trials would either require very large numbers of participants or recruit subjects at high risk. However, its aetiological importance may be greater for premature ischaemic strokes (<65 years) and in hypertensive men.
Funding Source:
Not-for-profit
0
Foundation associated with industry:
Reviewer Comments:

The data provided in this study is very interesting and helpful. Once again it is observed the relationship of stroke and hypertension. It is necessary to conduct further studies to see the effect of homocysteine and stroke relationship in different population and also necessary for intervention trials. This study is not a representative sample. The data reflects only for men. A comparison study with and without stroke is also necessary to make further conclusions. This paper will open a new avenue of research to focus on stroke and its relationship with homocysteine. Future studies should focus on vitamin B12 and folic acid in relation to inflammatory markers and homocysteine in stroke .

 

 

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? ???
  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? ???
  2.3. Were health, demographics, and other characteristics of subjects described? Yes
  2.4. Were the subjects/patients a representative sample of the relevant population? ???
3. Were study groups comparable? ???
  3.1. Was the method of assigning subjects/patients to groups described and unbiased? (Method of randomization identified if RCT) Yes
  3.2. Were distribution of disease status, prognostic factors, and other factors (e.g., demographics) similar across study groups at baseline? N/A
  3.3. Were concurrent controls or comparisons used? (Concurrent preferred over historical control or comparison groups.) ???
  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? ???
  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.) ???
  3.6. If diagnostic test, was there an independent blind comparison with an appropriate reference standard (e.g., "gold standard")? ???
4. Was method of handling withdrawals described? Yes
  4.1. Were follow-up methods described and the same for all groups? ???
  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%.) Yes
  4.3. Were all enrolled subjects/patients (in the original sample) accounted for? Yes
  4.4. Were reasons for withdrawals similar across groups? ???
  4.5. If diagnostic test, was decision to perform reference test not dependent on results of test under study? ???
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? ???
  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.) ???
  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? ???
  5.5. In diagnostic study, were test results blinded to patient history and other test results? ???
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? Yes
  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? ???
  6.6. Were extra or unplanned treatments described? ???
  6.7. Was the information for 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6 assessed the same way for all groups? ???
  6.8. In diagnostic study, were details of test administration and replication sufficient? ???
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)? ???
  8.5. Were adequate adjustments made for effects of confounding factors that might have affected the outcomes (e.g., multivariate analyses)? ???
  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? ???
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? ???