Weight change and the incidence of cardiovascular diseases in adults with normal weight, overweight and obesity without chronic diseases; emulating trials using electronic health records

Data sources

We analysed data from individuals who were identified from the CALIBER programme in England between 1/1/1998 and 30/6/2016. CALIBER links anonymized coded electronic health records from three national data sources of patients across primary care (Clinical Practice Research Datalink), hospital care (Hospital Episode Statistics) and death registry (Office of National Statistics), from a large sample, representative of the population of England [22]. Methods for development of reproducible phenotypes and metadata have been described previously [23] and are available online (www.caliberresearch.org/portal). The study was approved by the Independent Scientific Advisory Committee (ISAC) of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency.

Covariates

Height and weight measurements were based on primary care records and measured as part of routine care. We obtained all height and weight measurements available for the study population and calculated BMI as weight/ height² (in kg/m²). In some cases, BMI was recorded, even if height or weight measurements were not. Our sample was divided into three groups based on standard clinical BMI cut-offs: individuals with i. normal weight (≥18.5 & <25 kg/m²), ii. overweight (≥25 & <30 kg/ m²) and iii. obesity (≥30 & <40 kg/m²).

We also used information on the following variables; age at baseline, sex, region, index of multiple deprivation (IMD), ethnicity, smoking status, physical activity, diabetes, cancer (apart from non-melanoma skin cancer), dementia, severe mental diseases (acute stress, phobia, anxiety, depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and affective disorder), chronic kidney disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, HIV, major inflammatory diseases (systemic lupus erythematosus, rheumatoid arthritis, gout, and inflammatory bowel disease), Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis and renal failure (or initiation of dialysis). prevalence of hypertension, antihypertensive medication, number of weight measurements and number of clinical consultations every year.

Target trials specification and emulation

We used electronic health records (EHR) to mimic target trials of weight change and cardiovascular outcomes in the English population. We first explicitly specified the target trials of interest and then used our observational data to emulate them [9-12]. We present the specification of the protocol of the target trial, along with the emulation of this protocol using EHR data in table 1 and we explain this procedure in detail in the Appendix.

Statistical analysis of the emulated trials

The analysis involved several components linked to the trial emulation steps, as outlined below.

1. Data structure: Follow-up was divided into one-year periods in which the weight change intervention per year was recorded, along with information on confounders, CVD outcome (1:yes, 0:no), death (1:yes, 0:no) and loss to follow-up (1:yes, 0:no) recorded during each year. We classified each individual into one of the following groups, corresponding to their observed weight trajectories during the first year of follow-up: (1) weight loss (−20% to −3% change in bodyweight per year or bariatric surgery), (2) weight maintenance (−3% to +3% change in bodyweight per year), or (3) weight gain (+3% to +20% change in bodyweight per year)

2. Outcome regression: Pooled logistic regression model was used to estimate the hazard ratios of the hypothetical interventions and the cumulative incidence risk curves of each intervention[9].

3. Emulating randomisation at baseline: Time of entry in the emulated trials was considered the date of the first BMI and weight observations, when all eligibility criteria were met (see table 2 and Appendix, section 1). In our case, it is important to mention that each time point corresponds to one-year duration of our (hypothetical) interventions. For this reason, to emulate randomisation at baseline, we adjusted for: age (in years), sex (men/ women), BMI (in kg/m²), prevalence of hypertension (before baseline; yes/no), record of high LDL levels (before baseline; yes/no), use of diuretics (before baseline; yes/no); family history of CVD (yes/no); hypertension (during the 1st year, yes/no); high LDL levels (during the 1st year; yes/no), use of diuretics (during the 1st year); smoking status (during the 1st year; three categories: never, former and current), number of weight measurements (during the 1st year; three categories: 1, 2 and 3-5 meas.), number of clinical consultations (during the 1st year; four categories: 1-2, 3-5, 6-8 and 9-11 consultations) and region (in categories; London, South West, South Central, South East, East, West Midlands, Central North and North West). This means that we are assuming randomisation was conditional on these baseline covariates (equivalent to no unobserved confounding given these).

4. Dealing with non-adherence to intervention: Non-adherence occurred when individuals were allocated (i.e. observed) to a particular weight change group in the first year but deviated from this group in second. Inverse probability of treatment weights (IPTW) were used to adjust for time-fixed and time-dependent confounders[9,12]. In IPTW, we weight each observation by the inverse of the probability of an individual having received his/her observed weight change intervention during the 2^nd year, given his/her past intervention and prognostic factors history. To calculate the denominator of the IPTW, we used multinomial logistic regression models for the observed weight change intervention (i.e. weight loss, maintenance and gain) during the 2^nd year, in which we included the determinants of the observed intervention at the 2^nd year, i.e. prognostic factors measured before baseline, during the 1^st year (as described above) and during the 2^nd year of these interventions, along with the observed weight change intervention during the 1^st year. The IPTW remained constant after the second year, because we were interested in the effect of a weight change intervention sustained over 2 years only. After calculating the IPTW for the received intervention in the second year, individuals were then censored during the 2^nd year, if they deviate from their assigned intervention. For those individuals who develop a chronic disease other than CVD during the 2^nd year (and thus were free to deviate in the 2^nd year as well from their assigned intervention), they were assigned the weight of 1 across all time points. We remark that we used the non-stabilised weights, because the regime of the trials was dynamic [12] (i.e. we had specified clinically allowable reasons after which individuals were free to deviate from their initial intervention)

5. Dealing with loss to follow-up: Additional adjustment for pre- and post-randomisation prognostic factors of loss to follow-up was also used through inverse probability of censoring weighting (IPCW), to estimate the effect of the interventions, had the participants remained uncensored during the follow-up[12]. These analyses were thus valid under missing at random, given the covariates used to model the censoring mechanism. For more information, see Appendix (Section 3).

6. Final calculation of IP weights: IPTW and IPCW were multiplied at each time point. The final weight for each individual for a specific time was taken as the product of his/her weights up until that time point. We truncated weights >15 (which were higher than the 99^th percentile of weights) and set it to 15.

7. Risk curves: We additionally estimated absolute risks for CVD, CHD and diabetes by fitting the pooled logistic models that were mentioned above, including product terms between treatment and follow-up time (time, squared time and cubic time) to allow for time varying effects. The estimated parameters were then used to calculate the cumulative incidence of CVD, CHD and diabetes (see details in the Appendix – section 3).

8. Variance estimators: We used robust variance estimators to calculate 95% CI for the hazard ratio estimates, and we used non-parametric bootstrapping from 500 samples to obtain percentile-based 95% CI for the cumulative incidence estimates. For more details, see Appendix (Sections 2 and 3)

Positive and negative control outcomes

In the analysis of the positive control outcome, we expect to observe a (well established from the literature) non-null relationship between the exposure and the outcome, while in the analysis of the negative control outcome we anticipate to estimate no association, as there in no link between the exposure and the outcome. We used positive and negative control outcomes, because any deviation from the expected associations would help us detect potential biases due to unmeasured confounding in our emulated trials. We applied the hypothetical interventions as described in table 1 and the Appendix (Section 2), using as endpoints a) diabetes (positive control outcome) and b) non-melanoma skin cancer (negative control outcome). We chose to use diabetes as a positive control outcome, as we expected that compared to weight maintenance, weight loss would be related to lower diabetes risk and weight gain to higher diabetes risk [24]. We additionally chose non-melanoma skin cancer as a negative control outcome, because there is no established connection between weight change and non-melanoma skin cancer.

Sensitivity analysis

We applied the eligibility criteria to individuals in the CALIBER database, plus we required that the individuals have measurements of index of multiple deprivation (IMD), ethnicity and physical activity (assuming that last observation carries forward for at most four years). We took these variables into account when adjusting the pooled logistic regression (to emulate randomisation) and when estimating the IP weights. We also applied subgroup analysis by age and sex.

Moreover, to take into consideration potential pre-clinical diseases, we assumed that a chronic disease occurred one, two or three years before it was recorded during the follow-up and we assessed whether our estimates were robust to this decision. The set of chronic diseases considered for this sensitivity analysis was: diabetes, cancer (apart from non-melanoma skin cancer), dementia, severe mental diseases (acute stress, phobia, anxiety, depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and affective disorder), chronic kidney disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, HIV infection, major inflammatory diseases (systemic lupus erythematosus, rheumatoid arthritis, gout, and inflammatory bowel disease), Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis and renal failure (or initiation of dialysis).

Diabetes and non-melanoma skin cancer as positive and negative control outcomes

In analyses of diabetes as a positive control outcome, the cumulative risk was higher in the weight loss group than in weight maintenance group during the first 2-3 years, in all BMI groups (see figure 2). The corresponding hazard ratios of weight loss (vs weight maintenance) were, across BMI groups, greater than 1 up to the first 3 years [HR=1.39 (0.96, 2.00), HR=1.53 (1.27, 1.93) and HR=1.32 (1.13, 1.54) in the normal weight, overweight and individuals with obesity respectively], and lower than 1 after the 3^rd year [HR=0.76 (0.38, 1.53), HR=0.88 (0.60, 1.28) and HR=0.64 (0.46, 0.88) in the normal weight, overweight and individuals with obesity respectively]. In analyses of non-melanoma skin cancer as a negative outcome control, the hazard ratios of both weight gain and weight loss were close to one (Figure S1).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2:

Estimated hazard ratios (upper panel) and cumulative incidence curves^¶ (lower panel) for diabetes (i.e. positive control outcome) under hypothetical weight change interventions, by BMI group

Occurrence of chronic diseases (other than CVD) during follow-up

In all the emulated trials, we found that the incidence of chronic diseases during the first four years was higher in the weight loss and weight gain arm, compared to the weight maintenance arm, across BMI groups (Figure S2). More specifically, during the 2^nd year, the incidence of chronic diseases was 24% in the normal weight, 21% in the overweight and 23% in people with obesity in the weight loss arm. The corresponding incidence was 7% (normal weight), 8% (overweight) and 10% (obese) in the weight maintenance group and 13% (normal weight), 18% (overweight) and 20% (obese) in the weight gain arm. The same pattern was observed in the 3^rd and 4^th year as well.

Emulated trials in the normal weight

Among normal weight individuals, those in the weight loss and weight gain groups had a higher risk for the composite CVD outcome (Figure 2). Compared to weight maintenance, the hazard ratios for weight loss were 1.53 (1.18 – 1.98) and for weight gain 1.43 (1.19 - 1.71) (Figure 3). A similar pattern was observed for most of the secondary outcomes. Of note, the most pronounced increased risks for weight loss was for heart failure [figure 4, HR=2.72 (1.54-4.81)] and CVD deaths [HR=2.55 (1.37-4.77)]. Estimates were similar in subgroups of individuals defined at baseline according to age, but different for females compared with males (HR= 1.72 (1.22-2.41) for men, HR=1.28 (0.84 −1.96) for women, comparing weight loss to weight maintenance) (see Appendix. Figure S3). In sensitivity analyses, estimates were similar with additional adjustment for Index of Multiple Deprivation, ethnicity or physical activity (see Appendix Figure S4). Estimates were also similar when we assumed that a set of chronic diseases occurred one, two or three years before they were recorded in the database (see Figure 3 and Appendix Figure S5).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3;

Estimated hazard ratios for cardiovascular diseases comparing hypothetical weight change interventions, by BMI group. Results from initial analysis as well from the sensitivity analysis, in which a set of chronic diseases¹ was assumed to occur one, two or three years prior to the recorded date

Emulated trials in the overweight

Among individuals with overweight, those in the weight loss and weight gain groups had a higher risk for CVD, compared to those in the weight maintenance groups (HR= 1.20 (0.99 – 1.44) for weight loss and 1.17 (0.99 – 1.38) for weight gain] (Figure 3). Estimates were similar with additional adjustment for Index of Multiple Deprivation, ethnicity or physical activity (see Appendix Figures S4) and in subgroup analyses by age and sex (see Appendix Figure S6). However, we did observe some differences, when considering that chronic diseases occurred one, two or three years before the recorded diagnosis date. Estimates for weight loss and weight gain (vs weight maintenance) were attenuated with increasing lags for chronic disease records [Figure 3, Figure S5 (Appendix)], which was particularly pronounced for weight loss (HR: 1.12 (0.91−1.36), 1.06 (0.85−1.33) and 1.03 (0.80−1.33), under lags of one, two, and three years, respectively).

Emulated trials in individuals with obesity

Among individuals with obesity, those in the weight gain group had a higher risk for CVD [HR =1.31 (1.07-1.60)], compared to those in the maintenance group (Figure 3). Individuals in the weight loss group had a moderately lower risk for CVDs [HR vs weight maintenance=0.90 (0.72-1.13)]. However, in the analysis of secondary outcomes, those in the weight loss group had a much lower risk of CHD [HR =0.66 (0.49-0.89)] and myocardial infarction [HR =0.50 (0.31-0,81)]. The estimated 7-year risk of CHD was 2.7% (2.0% to 3.6%), 4.2% (3.9% to 4.6%) and 5.4% (4.3% to 6.5%) for the weight loss, maintenance, and gain groups, respectively (Figure 5). On the contrary, individuals in the weight loss group had higher risk for stroke [Figure 4, HR=1.51 (1.00-2.27)]. Estimates were similar with additional adjustment for Index of Multiple Deprivation, ethnicity or physical activity (Appendix Figures S4). However, hazard ratios for CVD comparing weight loss to weight maintenance differed by sex [in Figure S7, HR= 1.03 (0.79-1.34) in men and HR=0.65 (0.43-1.01) in women] and age [HR= 0.83 (0.61-1.14) in individuals aged 45-59 and HR=1.03 (0.73-1.46) in individuals aged 60-69]. Moreover, estimated hazard ratios comparing weight loss to weight maintenance decreased with increasing lags for chronic disease records (HR= 0.93 (0.73 – 1.18), 0.84 (0.63 – 1.11) and 0.74 (0.52 – 1.05) under lags of one, two or three years, respectively) (Figure 3).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4;

Estimated hazard ratios for cardiovascular diseases (secondary outcomes) comparing hypothetical weight change interventions, using pooled logistic regression

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 5:

Cumulative incidence curves^¶ for composite CVD and coronary diseases under hypothetical weight change interventions, by BMI group

Strengths and limitations

Key strengths of this study include the use of large-scale, linked-electronic health records and the application of cutting-edge causal inference methods [9-12], the combination of which gave us the opportunity to emulate weight change trials in 138,567 otherwise healthy individuals, who were followed for up to seven years. These target trials would be impossible to conduct, as most of the real-world trials usually recruit people with chronic disease and do not follow them up for sufficient time to measure “hard” outcomes, like CVD [3]. The large sample size gave as a unique opportunity to investigate the relationship between weight change and CVD among different population groups, by BMI group, as well as by age and sex. Individuals with normal weight, overweight and obesity have different underlying risk for CVD[7], hence it is more appropriate to study them separately. Most observational studies cannot focus on this relationship in this resolution, mainly due to restrictions posed by their sample size. Another strength of this study was the utilisation of clinically relevant measurements of weight and height, along with records for various comorbidities in the EHR data.

Several limitations should be noted. The observational study design of this research, despite our use of causal inference methods is still prone to unmeasured confounding. We tried to observe to what extent the bias due to preclinical diseases would affect our results by emulating the same interventions using positive and negative control outcomes. We observed that weight loss was related to higher risk for diabetes, compared to weight maintenance, during the first 2-3 years. This unexpected result may be due to unmeasured confounding by subclinical disease (i.e. reverse causation). We also noticed this potential violation of “recruiting” healthy individuals, when we observed that the percentage of individuals who developed a chronic disease during the 2^nd year was much higher in the weight loss compared to the weight maintenance intervention. To address this problem, we considered that the actual date of the occurrence of a chronic condition was one, two or three years before the recorded date and observed whether there was any specific trend in our findings from this sensitivity analysis. Moreover, it is important to mention that under these hypothetical interventions, we could not identify the way different people lost, maintained or gained weight (i.e. whether it was through lower caloric intake or higher levels of physical activity or because of a non-recorded disease). Different methods of modifying bodyweight may have different effects on CVD risk [25,26]. Moreover, we utilised EHR data, so we had to make additional assumptions in comparison to other studies that used cohort data[17,18]. These included the assumptions that a) the last observation carried forward for at most 4 years for smoking status (and physical activity in the sensitivity analysis) and b) there was a linear trend for weight change between 2 bodyweight measurements recorded less than 4 years apart. The assumption for smoking status is more likely to hold, as most people do not change lifestyle habits very frequently. Moreover, we were unable to account for different patterns of weight change over the course of a year that may lead to the same measure of annual weight change. Finally, we could not identify whether weight change was intentional or not in our study. It is plausible to assume unintentional weight change, especially for those interventions that are not clinically relevant (i.e. weight loss in the normal weight).

Meaning of the study: possible explanations and implications

First, we observed that weight maintenance, compared to weight loss or gain, was linked with lower risk for all the CVD endpoints, in normal weight individuals. These results were in line with the cohort studies that have shown that normal weight individuals have less risk for developing CVD [7] compared to the other BMI group and thus infer that these individuals should not gain or lose weight.

Among individuals with overweight, we initially found evidence that both weight gain and loss may moderately increase CVD risk; however, estimates were attenuated (especially for weight loss) in sensitivity analyses when we assumed that a chronic disease might have occurred before the recorded date. These findings are similar to those of two previous studies [18,19]. Danaei et al[18] previously emulated a target trial of weight loss and CHD and found no relationship among participants with BMI≥25kg/m² (overweight and obese together). In the 2^nd study by Wannamethee et al, which was not within the trial emulation framework, the authors’ inability to capture a protective association might have been due to the moderate sample size (~3K overweight individuals among whom only ~400 lost weight [19].

In people with obesity, weight gain was related to a higher risk for CVD, which is in line with the numerous reports that have linked high BMI to the onset of CVD [7]. Weight loss was not related to a clear CVD risk reduction, even though in the sensitivity analysis we observed that the more years we assumed the set of chronic diseases happened before the recorded date, the lower the hazard ratio for CVD of the weight loss was. When we stratified the analysis by age and sex, we found that lower risk of CVD for women and younger individuals. Furthermore, weight loss was related to lower risk for CHD and especially to fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction. Individuals with obesity should reduce their bodyweight to lower their risk for coronary heart diseases. US Preventive Services Task Force currently recommends behavioural weight loss interventions for individuals with obesity (BMI ≥30 kg/m²)[27]. Nevertheless, the expected beneficial effect from weight reduction was only detectable for CHD, but not for stroke in our study. The effect of weight loss might not be homogeneous across pathologically diverse CVD outcomes. Although the American Stroke Association recommends weight loss for people with overweight or obesity for the primary prevention of ischaemic stroke [28] we did not observe any benefit with weight reduction. This may be due to the fact that BMI is an imprecise measure of body fat and does not distinguish between fat and muscle mass. We were not able to measure central adiposity which has been shown to be the adiposity measure more associated with stroke risk than BMI [29], as weight loss may reflect loss in muscle mass [18].

Unanswered questions and future research

Our study could not clarify how individuals lost, maintained or gained weight. This unanswered question needs to be addressed by future research in the field. More studies should focus on how to emulate trials from observational data to investigate how adherence to different diets or physical activity levels that result in weight change, could affect a range of CVD outcomes. Finally, future studies in different population groups, stratified by age, sex and BMI group should be undertaken to maximize the benefits of stratified approaches to cardiovascular health.