TY - JOUR
T1 - Methods to estimate underlying blood pressure
T2 - The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) Study
AU - Balakrishnan, Poojitha
AU - Beaty, Terri
AU - Young, J. Hunter
AU - Colantuoni, Elizabeth
AU - Matsushita, Kunihiro
N1 - Funding Information:
The authors thank the staff and participants of the ARIC study for their important contributions. This study was supported by National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute training grant (T32 HL007024) and National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences training grant (T32 ES007141-32). The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study is carried out as a collaborative study supported by National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute contracts (HHSN268201100005C, HHSN268201100006C, HHSN268201100007C, HHSN268201100008C, HHSN268201100009C, HHSN268201100010C, HHSN268201100011C, and HHSN268201100012C).
Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 Balakrishnan et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
PY - 2017/7
Y1 - 2017/7
N2 - Antihypertensive medications complicate studies of blood pressure (BP) natural history; BP if untreated ("underlying BP") needs to be estimated. Our objectives were to compare validity of five missing data imputation methods to estimate underlying BP and longitudinal associations of underlying BP and age. We simulated BP treatment in untreated hypertensive participants from Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) in visits 1-5 (1987-2013) using matched treated hypertensive participants. The underlying BP was imputed: #1, set as missing; #2, add 10 mmHg for systolic, 5 mmHg for diastolic; #3, add medication classspecific constant; #4, truncated normal regression; and #5, truncated normal regression including prior visit data. Longitudinal associations were estimated using linear mixed models of imputed underlying BP for simulated treated and measured BP for untreated participants. Method 3 was the best-performing for systolic BP; lowest relative bias (5.3% for intercept at age 50, 0% for age coefficient) and average deviation from expected (0.04 to -1.79). Method 2 performed best for diastolic BP; lowest relative bias (0.6% intercept at age 50, 33.3% age <60, 9.1% age 60+) and average deviation (-1.25 to -1.68). Methods 4 and 5 were comparable or slightly inferior. In conclusion, constant addition methods yielded valid and precise underlying BP and longitudinal associations.
AB - Antihypertensive medications complicate studies of blood pressure (BP) natural history; BP if untreated ("underlying BP") needs to be estimated. Our objectives were to compare validity of five missing data imputation methods to estimate underlying BP and longitudinal associations of underlying BP and age. We simulated BP treatment in untreated hypertensive participants from Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) in visits 1-5 (1987-2013) using matched treated hypertensive participants. The underlying BP was imputed: #1, set as missing; #2, add 10 mmHg for systolic, 5 mmHg for diastolic; #3, add medication classspecific constant; #4, truncated normal regression; and #5, truncated normal regression including prior visit data. Longitudinal associations were estimated using linear mixed models of imputed underlying BP for simulated treated and measured BP for untreated participants. Method 3 was the best-performing for systolic BP; lowest relative bias (5.3% for intercept at age 50, 0% for age coefficient) and average deviation from expected (0.04 to -1.79). Method 2 performed best for diastolic BP; lowest relative bias (0.6% intercept at age 50, 33.3% age <60, 9.1% age 60+) and average deviation (-1.25 to -1.68). Methods 4 and 5 were comparable or slightly inferior. In conclusion, constant addition methods yielded valid and precise underlying BP and longitudinal associations.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85023165966&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85023165966&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0179234
DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0179234
M3 - Article
C2 - 28700596
AN - SCOPUS:85023165966
SN - 1932-6203
VL - 12
JO - PloS one
JF - PloS one
IS - 7
M1 - e0179234
ER -