Search results

Lifestyle management to prevent atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: evidence and challenges

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.

The influence of partners on lifestyle-related risk factors in patients after an acute coronary syndrome

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.

Successful lifestyle modification in older patients with coronary artery disease

Needs analysis report

For the needs analysis, an assessment of the national (and local) status quo in the area of Healthy Ageing, specifically towards Active and Healthy Lifestyles. This status quo will serve as important starting point for the exploration of a potential shared goal of the local community of practice. This needs analysis report includes generic sections towards definitions and methodologies, and an introduction towards the topics assessed. Secondly, national/ local chapters will outline the situation in the communities of Groningen (the Netherlands), Odense (Denmark), Malaga (Spain), Kaunas (Lithuania) and Cascais (Portugal). Within each local COP chapter the partners taking part of the COP are described and the shared goals illustrated. These shared goals are: COP Groningen: “stimulating a Healthy environment (physical & social) with focus on physical activity”. COP Odense: “further develop and educate professionals who work on stimulating physical activity in community dwelling older adult”’. COP Malaga: “developing, implementing and evaluating outdoor fitness” COP Kaunas: “to provide opportunities for primary school children and Kaunas district community members older than 50 more opportunities for exercising and physical activity” COP Cascais: “develop, organize for and together with the stakeholders and end users (youngsters from 12-24 years old) activities focused on healthy lifestyle (e.g., healthy cooking workshops, parent-child physical activities etc.) embedded in approach GERAÇÃO S+ “.

Cost-effectiveness of a lifestyle intervention for people with a serious mental illness (SMILE)

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.

Patient-reported outcomes of lifestyle interventions in patients with severe mental illness

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.