BACKGROUND: After clinical trials end, continued follow-up of the assembled cohort often is desirable for additional research. Factors influencing participants' decisions to consent to additional follow-up and how these shape posttrial cohorts have not been broadly studied. PURPOSE: We examined how two re-enrollment campaigns and the passage of time altered features of the posttrial cohorts compared with the original Women's Health Initiative (WHI) Hormone Therapy clinical trials. METHODS: We examined associations that markers of sociodemography, health, lifestyle, and on-trial experiences had with re-enrollment and contrasted the characteristics of successive posttrial cohorts with those of the original enrollees. RESULTS: The posttrial enrollment campaigns re-enrolled 81.1% and 82.5% of available women, respectively. Women who re-enrolled tended to have better health characteristics than those not re-enrolled. Compared to women of comparable age in the original cohort, women retained for the second posttrial follow-up less often had a history of cardiovascular disease (odds ratio (OR) = 0.36), hypertension (OR = 0.57), diabetes (OR = 0.59), or measured cognitive deficit (OR = 0.40). These women more often had graduated from high school (OR = 1.72) and had participated in other WHI trials (OR = 1.76). LIMITATIONS: We have examined experience with creating follow-up cohorts from participants in a single study. Thus, our findings may not apply to other cohorts and protocols. CONCLUSIONS: Posttrial enrollment in follow-up studies can be successful; however, the characteristics of the resulting cohort may differ substantially from the originally assembled group of trial participants. Collection during the original trial of potential predictors of differential re-enrollment may strengthen interpretation of findings.
BACKGROUND: After clinical trials end, continued follow-up of the assembled cohort often is desirable for additional research. Factors influencing participants' decisions to consent to additional follow-up and how these shape posttrial cohorts have not been broadly studied. PURPOSE: We examined how two re-enrollment campaigns and the passage of time altered features of the posttrial cohorts compared with the original Women's Health Initiative (WHI) Hormone Therapy clinical trials. METHODS: We examined associations that markers of sociodemography, health, lifestyle, and on-trial experiences had with re-enrollment and contrasted the characteristics of successive posttrial cohorts with those of the original enrollees. RESULTS: The posttrial enrollment campaigns re-enrolled 81.1% and 82.5% of available women, respectively. Women who re-enrolled tended to have better health characteristics than those not re-enrolled. Compared to women of comparable age in the original cohort, women retained for the second posttrial follow-up less often had a history of cardiovascular disease (odds ratio (OR) = 0.36), hypertension (OR = 0.57), diabetes (OR = 0.59), or measured cognitive deficit (OR = 0.40). These women more often had graduated from high school (OR = 1.72) and had participated in other WHI trials (OR = 1.76). LIMITATIONS: We have examined experience with creating follow-up cohorts from participants in a single study. Thus, our findings may not apply to other cohorts and protocols. CONCLUSIONS: Posttrial enrollment in follow-up studies can be successful; however, the characteristics of the resulting cohort may differ substantially from the originally assembled group of trial participants. Collection during the original trial of potential predictors of differential re-enrollment may strengthen interpretation of findings.
Authors: Lawrence J Appel; Jackson T Wright; Tom Greene; Lawrence Y Agodoa; Brad C Astor; George L Bakris; William H Cleveland; Jeanne Charleston; Gabriel Contreras; Marquetta L Faulkner; Francis B Gabbai; Jennifer J Gassman; Lee A Hebert; Kenneth A Jamerson; Joel D Kopple; John W Kusek; James P Lash; Janice P Lea; Julia B Lewis; Michael S Lipkowitz; Shaul G Massry; Edgar R Miller; Keith Norris; Robert A Phillips; Velvie A Pogue; Otelio S Randall; Stephen G Rostand; Miroslaw J Smogorzewski; Robert D Toto; Xuelei Wang Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-09-02 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Marcia L Stefanick; Barbara B Cochrane; Judith Hsia; David H Barad; James H Liu; Susan R Johnson Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 3.797
Authors: S M Resnick; M A Espeland; S A Jaramillo; C Hirsch; M L Stefanick; A M Murray; J Ockene; C Davatzikos Journal: Neurology Date: 2009-01-13 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Alpesh B Patel; John B Kostis; Alan C Wilson; Michael L Shea; Sara L Pressel; Barry R Davis Journal: Stroke Date: 2008-02-28 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Sally A Shumaker; Claudine Legault; Lewis Kuller; Stephen R Rapp; Leon Thal; Dorothy S Lane; Howard Fillit; Marcia L Stefanick; Susan L Hendrix; Cora E Lewis; Kamal Masaki; Laura H Coker Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-06-23 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Daniel P Beavers; Mary Pettinger; Mark A Espeland; Beverly M Snively; Xiaoyan Leng; Julie R Hunt; Hilary A Tindle; Sally A Shumaker Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2015-04-28 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Mark A Espeland; Sally A Shumaker; Iris Leng; JoAnn E Manson; Candice M Brown; Erin S LeBlanc; Leslie Vaughan; Jennifer Robinson; Stephen R Rapp; Joseph S Goveas; Jean Wactawski-Wende; Marcia L Stefanick; Wenjun Li; Susan M Resnick Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2013-08-12 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Michelle J Naughton; Robert L Brunner; Patricia E Hogan; Suzanne C Danhauer; Gretchen A Brenes; Deborah J Bowen; Beverly M Snively; Joseph S Goveas; Nazmus Saquib; Oleg Zaslavsky; Sally A Shumaker Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Joseph S Goveas; Stephen R Rapp; Patricia E Hogan; Ira Driscoll; Hilary A Tindle; J Carson Smith; Shelli R Kesler; Oleg Zaslavsky; Rebecca C Rossom; Judith K Ockene; Kristine Yaffe; JoAnn E Manson; Susan M Resnick; Mark A Espeland Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Kathryn E Weaver; Corinne R Leach; Xiaoyan Leng; Suzanne C Danhauer; Heidi D Klepin; Leslie Vaughan; Michelle Naughton; Rowan T Chlebowski; Mara Z Vitolins; Electra Paskett Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Crystal W Cené; Peggye Dilworth-Anderson; Iris Leng; Lorena Garcia; Viola Benavente; Milagros Rosal; Leslie Vaughan; Laura H Coker; Giselle Corbie-Smith; Mimi Kim; Christina L Bell; Jennifer G Robinson; JoAnn E Manson; Barbara Cochrane Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Claudia B Padula; Julie C Weitlauf; Allyson C Rosen; Gayle Reiber; Barbara B Cochrane; Michelle J Naughton; Wenjun Li; Michelle Rissling; Kristine Yaffe; Julie R Hunt; Marcia L Stefanick; Mary K Goldstein; Mark A Espeland Journal: Gerontologist Date: 2015-11-27