Shekelle R B, Hulley S B, Neaton J D, Billings J H, Borhani N O, Gerace T A, Jacobs D R, Lasser N L, Mittlemark M B, Stamler J
Am J Epidemiol. 1985 Oct;122(4):559-70. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a114135.
Behavior pattern was assessed by interview for 3,110 men at eight centers in the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial (1973-1976). The Type A pattern was not significantly associated with risk of first major coronary events (coronary death and definite nonfatal myocardial infarction) after a mean follow-up of 7.1 years. Crude relative risks for Types A1-A2 versus X-B were 1.08 in usual care, 0.82 in special intervention, and 0.92 overall. Adjustment for age, blood pressure, cigarette smoking, serum cholesterol, consumption of alcohol, and educational attainment yielded relative risks of 0.99 in usual care, 0.81 in special intervention, and 0.87 overall (95% confidence interval = 0.59-1.28). The Jenkins Activity Survey Type A score, obtained for 12,772 men at all 22 centers, was also not significantly associated with risk of first major coronary events. Overall, crude risks in the lowest (Type B) through highest (Type A) quintiles of the score's distribution were 5.0%, 4.4%, 4.0%, 4.3%, and 4.1%, respectively. The proportional hazards regression coefficient, adjusted for the variables listed above, was -0.006 (95% confidence interval = -0.015-0.003). These results raise questions regarding the robustness of the Type A hypothesis in its present form. Further studies are needed to investigate these questions and to evaluate the validity of procedures used to assess behavior patterns.
在多重危险因素干预试验(1973 - 1976年)中,通过访谈对8个中心的3110名男性的行为模式进行了评估。在平均随访7.1年后,A型行为模式与首次发生主要冠状动脉事件(冠状动脉死亡和明确的非致命性心肌梗死)的风险无显著关联。在常规护理中,A1 - A2型与X - B型的粗相对风险为1.08,在特殊干预中为0.82,总体为0.92。对年龄、血压、吸烟、血清胆固醇、饮酒量和教育程度进行调整后,常规护理中的相对风险为0.99,特殊干预中为0.81,总体为0.87(95%置信区间 = 0.59 - 1.28)。在所有22个中心对12772名男性获得的詹金斯活动调查A型得分,也与首次发生主要冠状动脉事件的风险无显著关联。总体而言,得分分布最低(B型)至最高(A型)五分位数的粗风险分别为5.0%、4.4%、4.0%、4.3%和4.1%。经上述变量调整后的比例风险回归系数为 - 0.006(95%置信区间 = - 0.015 - 0.003)。这些结果对当前形式的A型假说的稳健性提出了疑问。需要进一步的研究来调查这些问题,并评估用于评估行为模式的程序的有效性。