Within-Person Variation in Nutrient Intakes across Populations and Settings: Implications for the Use of External Estimates in Modeling Usual Nutrient Intake Distributions.

Determining the proportion of a population at risk of inadequate or excessive nutrient intake is a crucial step in planning and managing nutrition intervention programs. Multiple days of 24-h dietary intake data per subject allow for adjustment of modeled usual nutrient intake distributions for the proportion of total variance in intake attributable to within-individual variation (WIV:total). When only single-day dietary data are available, an external adjustment factor can be used; however, WIV:total may vary by population, and use of incorrect WIV:total ratios may influence the accuracy of prevalence estimates and subsequent program impacts. WIV:total values were compiled from publications and from reanalyses of existing datasets to describe variation in WIV:total across populations and settings. The potential impact of variation in external WIV:total on estimates of prevalence of inadequacy was assessed through simulation analyses using the National Cancer Institute 1-d method. WIV:total values were extracted from 40 publications from 24 countries, and additional values were calculated from 15 datasets from 12 nations. Wide variation in WIV:total (from 0.02 to 1.00) was observed in publications and reanalyses. Few patterns by population characteristics were apparent, but WIV:total varied by age in children (< vs. >1 y) and between rural and urban settings. Simulation analyses indicated that estimates of the prevalence of inadequate intake are sensitive to the selected ratio in some cases. Selection of an external WIV:total estimate should consider comparability between the reference and primary studies with regard to population characteristics, study design, and statistical methods. Given wide variation in observed ratios with few discernible patterns, the collection of ≥2 days of intake data in at least a representative subsample in population dietary studies is strongly encouraged. In the case of single-day dietary studies, sensitivity analyses are recommended to determine the robustness of prevalence estimates to changes in the variance ratio

Within-Person Variation in Nutrient Intakes across Populations and Settings: Implications for the Use of External Estimates in Modeling Usual Nutrient Intake Distributions

Determining the proportion of a population at risk of inadequate or excessive nutrient intake is a crucial step in planning and managing nutrition intervention programs. Multiple days of 24-h dietary intake data per subject allow for adjustment of modeled usual nutrient intake distributions for the proportion of total variance in intake attributable to within-individual variation (WIV:total). When only single-day dietary data are available, an external adjustment factor can be used; however, WIV:total may vary by population, and use of incorrect WIV:total ratios may influence the accuracy of prevalence estimates and subsequent program impacts. WIV:total values were compiled from publications and from reanalyses of existing datasets to describe variation in WIV:total across populations and settings. The potential impact of variation in external WIV:total on estimates of prevalence of inadequacy was assessed through simulation analyses using the National Cancer Institute 1-d method. WIV:total values were extracted from 40 publications from 24 countries, and additional values were calculated from 15 datasets from 12 nations. Wide variation in WIV:total (from 0.02 to 1.00) was observed in publications and reanalyses. Few patterns by population characteristics were apparent, but WIV:total varied by age in children (1 y) and between rural and urban settings. Simulation analyses indicated that estimates of the prevalence of inadequate intake are sensitive to the selected ratio in some cases. Selection of an external WIV:total estimate should consider comparability between the reference and primary studies with regard to population characteristics, study design, and statistical methods. Given wide variation in observed ratios with few discernible patterns, the collection of ≥2 days of intake data in at least a representative subsample in population dietary studies is strongly encouraged. In the case of single-day dietary studies, sensitivity analyses are recommended to determine the robustness of prevalence estimates to changes in the variance ratio

Variance Components of Nutrient Intakes (VCNI) Sub-Study of the Micronutrient Intervention Modeling (MINIMOD) Project

To determine the prevalence of inadequate or excessive nutrient intakes in a population, repeated 24-hour dietary intake measurements per subject allow for adjustment of modeled usual nutrient intake distributions for the proportion of total variance attributable to within-individual variation (WIV:total). When only single-day dietary data are available, an external adjustment factor can be used, but there is no formal guidance for selecting this value. We compiled estimates of WIV:total to describe variation in estimates across populations and settings and consider the effect of this variation on estimates of the prevalence of inadequate or excess intake. Reported ratios of within- to between-individual variance components of nutrient intake (and WIV:total) were compiled from the literature, and new values were calculated from analyses of existing data sets using a linear mixed model, adjusting for weekend (where available) and interview sequence. Nutrients assessed included total energy intake, total vitamin A, retinol, carotenoids/beta-carotene, folate, vitamin B12, thiamin, vitamin C, iron, and zinc

Database of Variance Ratios of Nutrient Intakes from Publications and Reanalyzed Datasets

Ratios of within- and between-individual variation in nutrient intakes were compiled from publications or reports and from reanalyses of existing datasets. These ratios can potentially be used as external adjustment factors in analyses of nutrient intake data from studies that only collected one 24-hour dietary recall or food record per individual, in order to account for the proportion of total variance in nutrient intakes attributable to within-individual variation in population usual intake distributions. Careful consideration of the comparability of study characteristics and analytical approaches between the study from which a candidate external ratio is derived and study it will be used for is advised. See provided references for additional information on the original studies

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used