RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 The UK Biobank submaximal cycle ergometer test for assessment of cardiorespiratory fitness: Validity, reliability, and association with disease outcomes
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.09.29.20203828
DO 10.1101/2020.09.29.20203828
A1 Gonzales, Tomas I.
A1 Westgate, Kate
A1 Strain, Tessa
A1 Hollidge, Stefanie
A1 Jeon, Justin
A1 Christensen, Dirk L.
A1 Jensen, Jorgen
A1 Wareham, Nicholas J.
A1 Brage, Søren
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/09/29/2020.09.29.20203828.abstract
AB Background Cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) was assessed in UK Biobank (UKB) using heart rate response to a submaximal ramped cycle ergometer test that was individualised for participant characteristics including cardiovascular disease risk. Studies have since explored health associations with CRF by estimating maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max) from UKB test data using interpretation methods that have not accounted for this individualisation procedure. Thus, dose-response relationships reported in these studies may be inaccurate. We developed and validated a novel VO2max estimation approach that accounts for the UKB test individualisation procedure and compared dose-response relationships with health outcomes between the novel and previous methods.Methods In a cross-over study (n=189), participants completed several UKB tests and VO2max was measured. A multilevel modelling framework was developed that combines heart rate response features from the UKB test to estimate VO2max. Estimates were compared within participants across UKB test protocols, and with directly measured VO2max. Short-term test-retest reliability was assessed in a subsample of participants (n=87). In UKB, we examined associations between estimated CRF and disease endpoints (n=80,259) and compared associations obtained with an unvalidated method. Long-term test-retest reliability was examined (n = 2877).Results Estimated and directly measured VO2max were strongly correlated (Pearson’s r range: 0.68 to 0.74) with no mean bias (women bias: −0.8 to 0.4; men bias range: −0.3 to 0.3), outperforming a previous approach for interpreting UKB test data. Agreement between estimated VO2max across different test protocols was strong (Pearson’s r range: 0.94 to 0.99). Short- and long-term reliability was also high (lambda=0.91 and 0.80, respectively). All-cause mortality was 7% (95%CI 4-10%, 2686 deaths) lower and CVD mortality 9% (95%CI 3-14%, 858 deaths) lower for every 1-MET difference in fitness, associations twice as strong as determined by previous methods.Conclusions We present a valid and reliable method for estimating CRF in UKB and demonstrate its utility in characterising dose-response relationships with health outcomes. Accounting for the individualisation procedure strengthens observed relationships between CRF and disease and enhances the case for promoting improved fitness in the general population.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis work was funded by the UK Medical Research Council (MC_UU_12015/3) and the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre in Cambridge (IS-BRC-1215-20014). UK Biobank is acknowledged for contributing to the costs of the fieldwork. The funders had no role in the design, conduct, analysis, and decision to publish results from this study.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:University of Cambridge Human Biology Research Ethics Committee (Ref: HBREC/2015.16)All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesThe data analysed during the current study are not publicly available because we have not obtained consent for public data sharing from the study participants.