Zihe Zheng1, Casey M Rebholz2, Kunihiro Matsushita3, Judith Hoffman-Bolton4, Michael J Blaha5, Elizabeth Selvin3, Lisa Wruck6, A Richey Sharrett3, Josef Coresh3. 1. The Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. 2. Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD; Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology and Clinical Research, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD. Electronic address: crebhol1@jhu.edu. 3. Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD; Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology and Clinical Research, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD. 4. George W. Comstock Center for Public Health Research and Prevention, Johns Hopkins University, Hagerstown, MD. 5. Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD; Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD. 6. Center for Preventive Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Cohort participants usually have lower mortality rates than nonparticipants, but it is unclear if this survival advantage decreases or increases as cohort studies age. METHODS: We used a 1975 private census of Washington County, Maryland, to compare mortality among cohort participants to nonparticipants for three cohorts, Campaign Against Cancer and Stroke (CLUE I), Campaign Against Cancer and Heart Disease (CLUE II), and Atherosclerosis Risk In Communities (ARIC) initiated in 1974, 1989, and 1986, respectively. We analyzed mortality risk using time-truncated Cox regression models. RESULTS: Participants had lower mortality risk in the first 10 years of follow-up compared with nonparticipants (fully adjusted average hazard ratio [95% confidence intervals] were 0.72 [0.68, 0.77] in CLUE I, 0.69 [0.65, 0.73] in CLUE II, and 0.74 [0.63, 0.86] in ARIC), which persisted over 20 years of follow-up (0.81 [0.78, 0.84] in CLUE I, 0.87 [0.84, 0.91] in CLUE II, and 0.90 [0.83, 0.97] in ARIC). This lower average hazard for mortality among participants compared with nonparticipants attenuated with longer follow-up (0.99 [0.96, 1.01] after 30+ years in CLUE I, 1.02 [0.99, 1.05] after 30 years in CLUE II, and 0.95 [0.89, 1.00] after 30+ years in ARIC). In ARIC, participants who did not attend visits had higher mortality, but those who did attend visits had similar mortality to the community. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest the volunteer selection for mortality in long-standing epidemiologic cohort studies often diminishes as the cohort ages.
PURPOSE: Cohort participants usually have lower mortality rates than nonparticipants, but it is unclear if this survival advantage decreases or increases as cohort studies age. METHODS: We used a 1975 private census of Washington County, Maryland, to compare mortality among cohort participants to nonparticipants for three cohorts, Campaign Against Cancer and Stroke (CLUE I), Campaign Against Cancer and Heart Disease (CLUE II), and Atherosclerosis Risk In Communities (ARIC) initiated in 1974, 1989, and 1986, respectively. We analyzed mortality risk using time-truncated Cox regression models. RESULTS:Participants had lower mortality risk in the first 10 years of follow-up compared with nonparticipants (fully adjusted average hazard ratio [95% confidence intervals] were 0.72 [0.68, 0.77] in CLUE I, 0.69 [0.65, 0.73] in CLUE II, and 0.74 [0.63, 0.86] in ARIC), which persisted over 20 years of follow-up (0.81 [0.78, 0.84] in CLUE I, 0.87 [0.84, 0.91] in CLUE II, and 0.90 [0.83, 0.97] in ARIC). This lower average hazard for mortality among participants compared with nonparticipants attenuated with longer follow-up (0.99 [0.96, 1.01] after 30+ years in CLUE I, 1.02 [0.99, 1.05] after 30 years in CLUE II, and 0.95 [0.89, 1.00] after 30+ years in ARIC). In ARIC, participants who did not attend visits had higher mortality, but those who did attend visits had similar mortality to the community. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest the volunteer selection for mortality in long-standing epidemiologic cohort studies often diminishes as the cohort ages.
Authors: R Jackson; L E Chambless; K Yang; T Byrne; R Watson; A Folsom; E Shahar; W Kalsbeek Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 1996-12 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Martha P Montgomery; Freya Kamel; Jane A Hoppin; Laura E Beane Freeman; Michael C R Alavanja; Dale P Sandler Journal: Am J Ind Med Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 2.214
Authors: Jane E Ferrie; Mika Kivimäki; Archana Singh-Manoux; Alison Shortt; Pekka Martikainen; Jenny Head; Michael Marmot; David Gimeno; Roberto De Vogli; Marko Elovainio; Martin J Shipley Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2009-03-05 Impact factor: 7.196
Authors: Rebecca F Gottesman; Andrea L C Schneider; Yun Zhou; Josef Coresh; Edward Green; Naresh Gupta; David S Knopman; Akiva Mintz; Arman Rahmim; A Richey Sharrett; Lynne E Wagenknecht; Dean F Wong; Thomas H Mosley Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-04-11 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Colleen M Shannon; Shoshana H Ballew; Natalie Daya; Linda Zhou; Alex R Chang; Yingying Sang; Josef Coresh; Elizabeth Selvin; Morgan E Grams Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2021-07-23 Impact factor: 7.538