Background: Marital status is associated with prognosis in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD). However, the influence of partners on successful modification of lifestyle-related risk factors (LRFs) in secondary CVD prevention is unclear. Therefore, we studied the association between the presence of a partner, partner participation in lifestyle interventions and LRF modification in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Methods: In a secondary analysis of the RESPONSE-2 trial (n = 711), which compared nurse-coordinated referral to community-based lifestyle programs (smoking cessation, weight reduction and/or physical activity) to usual care in patients with CAD, we investigated the association between the presence of a partner and the level of partner participation on improvement in >1 LRF (urinary cotinine <200 ng/l, ≥5% weight reduction, ≥10% increased 6-min walking distance) without deterioration in other LRFs at 12 months follow-up. Results: The proportion of patients with a partner was 80% (571/711); 19% women (108/571). In the intervention group, 48% (141/293) had a participating partner in ≥1 lifestyle program. Overall, the presence of a partner was associated with patients' successful LRF modification (adjusted risk ratio (aRR) 1.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.40-2.51). A participating partner was associated with successful weight reduction (aRR 1.73, 95% CI 1.15-2.35). Conclusion: The presence of a partner is associated with LRF improvement in patients with CAD. Moreover, patients with partners participating in lifestyle programs are more successful in reducing weight. Involving partners of CAD patients in weight reduction interventions should be considered in routine practice.
DOCUMENT
Background: Marital status is associated with prognosis in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD).However, the influence of partners on successful modification of lifestyle-related risk factors (LRFs) in secondaryCVD prevention is unclear. Therefore, we studied the association between the presence of a partner,partner participation in lifestyle interventions and LRF modification in patients with coronary arterydisease (CAD).Methods: In a secondary analysis of the RESPONSE-2 trial (n=711),which compared nurse-coordinated referralto community-based lifestyle programs (smoking cessation, weight reduction and/or physical activity) to usualcare in patients with CAD, we investigated the association between the presence of a partner and the level ofpartner participation on improvement in >1 LRF (urinary cotinine <200 ng/l, ≥5% weight reduction, ≥10% increased6-min walking distance) without deterioration in other LRFs at 12 months follow-up.Results: The proportion of patients with a partner was 80% (571/711); 19% women (108/571). In the interventiongroup, 48% (141/293) had a participating partner in ≥1 lifestyle program. Overall, the presence of apartner was associated with patients' successful LRF modification (adjusted risk ratio (aRR) 1.93, 95% confidenceinterval (CI) 1.40–2.51). A participating partner was associated with successful weight reduction(aRR 1.73, 95% CI 1.15–2.35).Conclusion: The presence of a partner is associated with LRF improvement in patients with CAD. Moreover, patientswithpartners participating in lifestyle programs aremore successful in reducingweight. Involving partnersof CAD patients in weight reduction interventions should be considered in routine practice.
DOCUMENT
Lifestyle management is the cornerstone of both primary and secondary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and the importance of lifestyle management is emphasised by all major guidelines. Despite this, actual implementation of lifestyle management is poor. Lifestyle modification includes smoking cessation, weight loss, dietary change, increasing physical inactivity, and stress management. This review summarises evidence-based opportunities and challenges for healthcare professionals to promote healthy lifestyles at an individual level for the prevention of ASCVD.
DOCUMENT
Background Having a partner is associated with better prognosis in patients with cardiovascular disease. However, the influence of partners on modification of patients’ lifestyle-related risk factors (LRFs) is unclear. Therefore, we studied the influence of partners and the level of partner participation on LRF modification in patients after an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or revascularization. Methods The RESPONSE-2 trial was a community-based lifestyle intervention trial comparing nurse-coordinated referral to a comprehensive set of lifestyle interventions (physical activity, weight reduction and/or smoking cessation) to usual care. In the current analysis, we investigated the association of having a partner on the improvement in >1 LRF without deterioration in other LRFs at 12 months follow-up. Secondary, the influence of the level of partner participation (participating partner, non-participating partner and no partner) in the intervention group was studied. Results In total 824 individuals (411 intervention, 413 control) were included in the analysis. The presence of a partner was comparable in both groups (intervention 74%, control 69%). In the intervention group, 48% of partners participated in the lifestyle interventions. Overall, having a partner was positively associated with improvement in LRFs (odds ratio (OR) 2.57 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.57 – 4.21), p<0.001). In the intervention group, having a participating partner was also positively associated with improvement in LRFs compared to patients without a partner (OR 2.45 95% CI 1.25 – 4.79, p=0.009). When analysed the influence of partners on LRFs separately, patients with a participating partner were most successful in reducing weight compared to patients without a partner (OR 2.71 95% CI 1.16 – 6.36, p=0.02). Conclusion Having a partner is associated with improvement on LRFs in patients after ACS or revascularization. Moreover, patients with participating partners in the lifestyle programs were most successful in LRF modification. Involvement of partners in lifestyle interventions should be considered in routine practice.
DOCUMENT
Objective: To compare the treatment effect on lifestyle-related risk factors (LRFs) in older (≥65 years) versus younger (<65 years) patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) in The Randomised Evaluation of Secondary Prevention by Outpatient Nurse SpEcialists 2 (RESPONSE-2) trial. Methods: The RESPONSE-2 trial was a community-based lifestyle intervention trial (n=824) comparing nurse-coordinated referral with a comprehensive set of three lifestyle interventions (physical activity, weight reduction and/or smoking cessation) to usual care. In the current analysis, our primary outcome was the proportion of patients with improvement at 12 months follow-up (n=711) in ≥1 LRF stratified by age. Results: At baseline, older patients (n=245, mean age 69.2±3.9 years) had more adverse cardiovascular risk profiles and comorbidities than younger patients (n=579, mean age 53.7±6.6 years). There was no significant variation on the treatment effect according to age (p value treatment by age=0.45, OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.31). However, older patients were more likely to achieve ≥5% weight loss (OR old 5.58, 95% CI 2.77 to 11.26 vs OR young 1.57, 95% CI 0.98 to 2.49, p=0.003) and younger patients were more likely to show non-improved LRFs (OR old 0.38, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.67 vs OR young 0.88, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.26, p=0.01). Conclusion: Despite more adverse cardiovascular risk profiles and comorbidities among older patients, nurse-coordinated referral to a community-based lifestyle intervention was at least as successful in improving LRFs in older as in younger patients. Higher age alone should not be a reason to withhold lifestyle interventions in patients with CAD.
DOCUMENT
Abstract Background: Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of the estimated 11–25 years reduced life expectancy for persons with serious mental illness (SMI). This excess cardiovascular mortality is primarily attributable to obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidaemia. Obesity is associated with a sedentary lifestyle, limited physical activity and an unhealthy diet. Lifestyle interventions for persons with SMI seem promising in reducing weight and cardiovascular risk. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a lifestyle intervention among persons with SMI in an outpatient treatment setting. Methods: The Serious Mental Illness Lifestyle Evaluation (SMILE) study is a cluster-randomized controlled trial including an economic evaluation in approximately 18 Flexible Assertive Community Treatment (FACT) teams in the Netherlands. The intervention aims at a healthy diet and increased physical activity. Randomisation takes place at the level of participating FACT-teams. We aim to include 260 outpatients with SMI and a body mass index of 27 or higher who will either receive the lifestyle intervention or usual care. The intervention will last 12 months and consists of weekly 2-h group meetings delivered over the first 6 months. The next 6 months will include monthly group meetings, supplemented with regular individual contacts. Primary outcome is weight loss. Secondary outcomes are metabolic parameters (waist circumference, lipids, blood pressure, glucose), quality of life and health related self-efficacy. Costs will be measured from a societal perspective and include costs of the lifestyle program, health care utilization, medication and lost productivity. Measurements will be performed at baseline and 3, 6 and 12 months. Discussion: The SMILE intervention for persons with SMI will provide important information on the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, feasibility and delivery of a group-based lifestyle intervention in a Dutch outpatient treatment setting. Trial registration: Dutch Trial Registration NL6660, registration date: 16 November 2017.
DOCUMENT
Abstract Background: Lifestyle interventions for severe mental illness (SMI) are known to have small to modest efect on physical health outcomes. Little attention has been given to patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Aim: To systematically review the use of PROs and their measures, and quantify the efects of lifestyle interventions in patients with SMI on these PROs. Methods: Five electronic databases were searched (PubMed/Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science) from inception until 12 November 2020 (PROSPERO: CRD42020212135). Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efcacy of lifestyle interventions focusing on healthy diet, physical activity, or both for patients with SMI were included. Outcomes of interest were PROs. Results: A total of 11.267 unique records were identifed from the database search, 66 full-text articles were assessed, and 36 RCTs were included, of which 21 were suitable for meta-analyses. In total, 5.907 participants were included across studies. Lifestyle interventions had no signifcant efect on quality of life (g=0.13; 95% CI=−0.02 to 0.27), with high heterogeneity (I2 =68.7%). We found a small efect on depression severity (g=0.30, 95% CI=0.00 to 0.58, I2 =65.2%) and a moderate efect on anxiety severity (g=0.56, 95% CI=0.16 to 0.95, I2 =0%). Discussion: This meta-analysis quantifes the efects of lifestyle interventions on PROs. Lifestyle interventions have no signifcant efect on quality of life, yet they could improve mental health outcomes such as depression and anxiety symptoms. Further use of patient-reported outcome measures in lifestyle research is recommended to fully capture the impact of lifestyle interventions.
DOCUMENT
IMPORTANCE People with a severe mental illness (SMI) have a life expectancy reduced by 10 to 20 years compared with the general population, primarily attributable to cardiometabolic disorders. Lifestyle interventions for people with SMI can improve health and reduce cardiometabolic risk. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effectiveness of a group-based lifestyle intervention among people with SMI in outpatient treatment settings compared with treatment as usual (TAU). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS The Severe Mental Illness Lifestyle Evaluation (SMILE) study is a pragmatic cluster randomized clinical trial performed in 8 mental health care centers with 21 flexible assertive community treatment teams in the Netherlands. Inclusion criteria were SMI, age of 18 years or older, and body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared) of 27 or greater. Data were collected from January 2018 to February 2020, and data were analyzed from September 2020 to February 2023. INTERVENTIONS Weekly 2-hour group sessions for 6 months followed by monthly 2-hour group sessions for another 6 months, delivered by trained mental health care workers. The intervention targeted overall lifestyle changes, emphasizing establishing a healthy diet and promoting physical activity. TAU (control) did not include structured interventions or advice on lifestyle. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Crude and adjusted linear mixed models and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed. The main outcome was body weight change. Secondary outcomes included changes in body mass index, blood pressure, lipid profiles, fasting glucose level, quality of life, self-management ability, and lifestyle behaviors (physical activity and health, mental health, nutrition, and sleep). RESULTS The study population included 11 lifestyle intervention teams (126 participants) and 10 TAU teams (98 participants). Of 224 included patients, 137 (61.2%) were female, and the mean (SD) age was 47.6 (11.1) years. From baseline to 12 months, participants in the lifestyle intervention group lost 3.3 kg (95%CI, −6.2 to −0.4) more than those in the control group. In the lifestyle intervention group, people with high attendance rates lost more weight than participants with medium and low rates (mean [SD] weight loss: high, −4.9 [8.1] kg; medium, −0.2 [7.8] kg; low, 0.8 [8.3] kg). Only small or no changes were found for secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, the lifestyle intervention significantly reduced weight from baseline to 12 months in overweight and obese adults with SMI. Tailoring lifestyle interventions and increasing attendance rates might be beneficial for people with SMI. TRIAL REGISTRATION Netherlands Trial Register Identifier: NTR6837
DOCUMENT
Background: Insufficient amounts of physical activity is a risk factor for (recurrent) stroke. People with a stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) have a high risk of recurrent stroke and have lower levels of physical activity than their healthy peers. Though several reviews have looked at the effects of lifestyle interventions on a number of risk factors of recurrent stroke, the effectiveness of these interventions to increase the amounts of physical activity performed by people with stroke or TIA are still unclear. Therefore, the research question of this study was: what is the effect of lifestyle interventions on the level of physical activity performed by people with stroke or TIA? Method: A systematic review was conducted following the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. Pubmed, Embase and Cumulative Index for Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), were searched up to August 2018. Randomised controlled trials that compared lifestyle interventions, aimed to increase the amount of physical activity completed by participants with a stroke or TIA, with controls were included. The Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) score was used to assess the quality of the articles, and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) method for the best evidence synthesis. Results: Eleven trials (n = 2403) met the inclusion criteria. The quality of the trials was mostly high, with 8 (73%) of trials scoring ≥6 on the PEDro scale. The overall best evidence syntheses showed moderate quality evidence that lifestyle interventions do not lead to significant improvements in the physical activity level of people with stroke or TIA. There is low quality evidence that lifestyle interventions that specifically target physical activity are effective at improving the levels of physical activity of people with stroke or TIA. Conclusion: Based on the results of this review, general lifestyle interventions on their own seem insufficient in improving physical activity levels after stroke or TIA. Lifestyle interventions that specifically encourage increasing physical activity may be more effective. Further properly powered trials using objective physical activity measures are needed to determine the effectiveness of such interventions.
LINK
