Study design and population
The rationale and design of the Rotterdam Study have previously been described [15, 16]. Briefly, from 1989 to 1993, inhabitants of the suburb of Ommoord in the city of Rotterdam, aged 55 years and older, were invited to participate. Of 10,275 invited subjects, 7983 participated (78%). A second cohort of 3011 persons, also aged 55 years and older, (response: 67%) was enrolled in the years 2000 and 2001. In 2006, the study was again extended with 3932 persons aged 45 years and older (response: 65%). This resulted in an overall study population of 14,926 individuals aged 45 years and above.
Baseline NLR values were calculated at the earliest study center visit at which a leukocyte differential count was available: the fourth visit of the first cohort (2002–2004; n = 3550), the second visit of the second cohort (2004–2005; n = 2468) and the first visit of the third cohort (2006–2008; n = 3932).
Individuals who had not proved consent for blood draw (N = 1038) were excluded as well as individuals with missing granulocyte, lymphocyte or platelet counts (N = 197).
The Rotterdam Study has been approved by the institutional review board (Medical Ethics Committee) of the Erasmus Medical Center and by the review board of The Netherlands Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports.
Assessment of the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio
Fasting blood samples were collected at the study center and full blood count measurements were performed immediately after blood draw. These measurements included absolute counts of granulocytes and lymphocytes and were performed using the COULTER® Ac·T diff2™ Hematology Analyzer (Beckman Coulter, San Diego, California, USA).
The neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) was calculated on the basis of absolute peripheral granulocyte (as a proxy for the absolute neutrophil count) (N; × 109/Liter) and lymphocyte (L; x109/Liter) blood counts, using the formula: NLR = N/L [14].
The NLR was non-normally distributed and therefore log-transformed prior to performing any of the analyses.
Assessment of other covariates
Data on the following known independent prognostic factors of mortality were collected at baseline: age, gender, socio-economic status (SES; based on education level [high/intermediate/low]), baseline body mass index (BMI; kg/m2), smoking status [never/former/current], prevalent type 2 diabetes status (DM; based on a fasting plasma glucose level of ≥ 7.0 mmol/L (≥ 126 mg/dL) or non-fasting plasma glucose level of ≥ 11 mmol/L (≥ 200 mg/dL) or use of blood glucose medication), history of cancer (based on pathology), and lastly, history of cardiovascular disease, including transient ischemic attacks (TIA), stroke (CVA), myocardial infarction (MI), and coronary revascularization (percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty or coronary artery bypass grafting) [17,18,19].
High-sensitivity CRP measurements (mg/ml; using a particle enhanced immunoturbidimetric assay, Roche Diagnostics, Mannheim, Germany) were available in a subgroup of the study.
Assessment of outcome
The main outcome of this study was time to all-cause mortality. Dates of death were obtained through the mortality registry of the municipality and the causes of death were obtained from general practitioners’ records or hospital discharge letters. The causes of death were coded independently by two physicians according to the ICD- 10 and the ICPC-2 [20, 21].
Statistical analysis
For each participant, follow-up started at the day of inclusion and ended at the date of death or end of the study period (1st of January 2014), whichever came first.
Participants were divided into five groups based on the level of the NLR calculated at baseline. Differences between the five groups were assessed with ANOVAs for normally distributed continuous variables and χ2-tests for categorical variables. Kaplan–Meier plots were calculated for quintiles and extreme quantiles of the NLR and compared with Log-Rank tests.
Proportional hazard models were used to assess the association between the NLR levels at baseline (continuously and in quartiles) and time to all-cause mortality. Subsequently we assessed the association for cardiovascular and cancer mortality, respectively.
For most variables the proportional hazard assumption did not hold. Therefore, follow-up time was divided into five strata (< 2 years, 2–4 years, 4–6 years, 6–8 years and > 8 years). For example: an individual with an event after 5.4 years follow-up, contributed follow-up time to the first (2 years), second (2 years) and third stratum (1.4 years). The risk of mortality in the last stratum is therefore conditional upon the survival up until that time [22]. We also performed a traditional proportional hazard regression, the results of which can be interpreted as the averaged risks over time [22].
For 5421 individuals we had a second measurement available, which we included in a multiple measurements analysis using a time-varying covariates in a Cox model [23].
All potential confounders, mentioned above, were assessed individually and were included in the multivariable model when they changed the point estimate by more than 10% or were considered as clinically relevant [24]. The results are reported as hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Effect modification was assessed for smoking by adding an interaction variable to the model and was considered statistically significant at a P value < 0.10. We tried to quantify the presence of any unknown and therefore unmeasured confounding through calculating the E-Value [25].
All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS software (Version 21.0) and R (Version 3.1.3); significance was accepted for two-sided P-values at < 0.05.