To assess retention in the National Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) lifestyle change program, which seeks to prevent type 2 diabetes in adults at high risk.
We analyzed retention among 41,203 ...individuals who enrolled in Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-recognized in-person lifestyle change programs at organizations that submitted data to CDC's Diabetes Prevention Recognition Program during January 2012-February 2017.
Weekly attrition rates were typically <1-2% but were between 3.5% and 5% at week 2 and at weeks 17 and 18, where session frequency typically transitions from weekly to monthly. The percentage of participants retained through 18 weeks varied by age (45.9% for 18-29 year olds, 53.4% for 30-44 year olds, 60.2% for 45-54 year olds, 66.7% for 55-64 year olds, and 67.6% for ≥65 year olds), race/ethnicity (70.5% for non-Hispanic whites, 60.5% for non-Hispanic blacks, 52.6% for Hispanics, and 50.6% for other), mean weekly percentage of body weight lost (41.0% for ≤0% lost, 66.2% for >0% to <0.25% lost, 72.9% for 0.25% to <0.5% lost, and 73.9% for ≥0.5% lost), and mean weekly physical activity minutes (12.8% for 0 min, 56.1% for >0 to <60 min, 74.8% for 60 to <150 min, and 82.8% for ≥150 min) but not by sex (63.0% for men and 63.1% for women).
Our results demonstrate the need to identify strategies to improve retention, especially among individuals who are younger or are members of racial/ethnic minority populations and among those who report less physical activity or less early weight loss. Strategies that address retention after the first session and during the transition from weekly to monthly sessions offer the greatest opportunity for impact.
This Cochrane Review has been superseded by a review entitled Vegan dietary pattern for the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular diseases ...(https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD013501.pub2/full) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33629376/
There is increasing evidence that high consumption of fruit and vegetables is beneficial for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention.
The primary objective is to determine the effectiveness of i) advice to increase fruit and vegetable consumption ii) the provision of fruit and vegetables to increase consumption, for the primary prevention of CVD.
We searched the following electronic databases: The Cochrane Library (2012, issue 9-CENTRAL, HTA, DARE, NEED), MEDLINE (1946 to week 3 September 2012); EMBASE (1980 to 2012 week 39) and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science on ISI Web of Science (5 October 2012). We searched trial registers, screened reference lists and contacted authors for additional information where necessary. No language restrictions were applied.
Randomised controlled trials with at least three months follow-up (follow-up was considered to be the time elapsed since the start of the intervention) involving healthy adults or those at high risk of CVD. Trials investigated either advice to increase fruit and vegetable intake (via any source or modality) or the provision of fruit and vegetables to increase intake. The comparison group was no intervention or minimal intervention. Outcomes of interest were CVD clinical events (mortality (CVD and all-cause), myocardial infarction (MI), coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA), angiographically-defined angina pectoris, stroke, carotid endarterectomy, peripheral arterial disease (PAD)) and major CVD risk factors (blood pressure, blood lipids, type 2 diabetes). Trials involving multifactorial lifestyle interventions (including different dietary patterns, exercise) or where the focus was weight loss were excluded to avoid confounding.
Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Trials of provision of fruit and vegetables were analysed separately from trials of dietary advice.
We identified 10 trials with a total of 1730 participants randomised, and one ongoing trial. Six trials investigated the provision of fruit and vegetables, and four trials examined advice to increase fruit and vegetable consumption.The ongoing trial is examining the provision of an avocado-rich diet.The number and type of intervention components for provision, and the dietary advice provided differed between trials.None of the trials reported clinical events as they were all relatively short term. There was no strong evidence for effects of individual trials of provision of fruit and vegetables on cardiovascular risk factors, but trials were heterogeneous and short term. Furthermore, five of the six trials only provided one fruit or vegetable. Dietary advice showed some favourable effects on blood pressure (systolic blood pressure (SBP): mean difference (MD) -3.0 mmHg (95% confidence interval (CI) -4.92 to -1.09), diastolic blood pressure (DBP): MD -0.90 mmHg (95% CI -2.03 to 0.24)) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol but analyses were based on only two trials. Three of the 10 included trials examined adverse effects, which included increased bowel movements, bad breath and body odour.
There are very few studies to date examining provision of, or advice to increase the consumption of, fruit and vegetables in the absence of additional dietary interventions or other lifestyle interventions for the primary prevention of CVD. The limited evidence suggests advice to increase fruit and vegetables as a single intervention has favourable effects on CVD risk factors but more trials are needed to confirm this.
The efficacy and safety of aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) remain debatable.
The purpose of this study was to examine the clinical outcomes with aspirin for primary ...prevention of CVD after the recent publication of large trials adding >45,000 individuals to the published data.
Randomized controlled trials comparing clinical outcomes with aspirin versus control for primary prevention with follow-up duration of ≥1 year were included. Efficacy outcomes included all-cause death, cardiovascular (CV) death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), and major adverse cardiovascular events. Safety outcomes included major bleeding, intracranial bleeding, fatal bleeding, and major gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. Random effects DerSimonian-Laird risk ratios (RRs) for outcomes were calculated.
A total of 15 randomized controlled trials including 165,502 participants (aspirin n = 83,529, control n = 81,973) were available for analysis. Compared with control, aspirin was associated with similar all-cause death (RR: 0.97; 95% confidence interval CI: 0.93 to 1.01), CV death (RR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.00), and non-CV death (RR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.92 to 1.05), but a lower risk of nonfatal MI (RR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.72 to 0.94), TIA (RR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.71 to 0.89), and ischemic stroke (RR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.79 to 0.95). Aspirin was associated with a higher risk of major bleeding (RR: 1.5; 95% CI: 1.33 to 1.69), intracranial bleeding (RR: 1.32; 95% CI: 1.12 to 1.55), and major GI bleeding (RR: 1.52; 95% CI: 1.34 to 1.73), with similar rates of fatal bleeding (RR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.78 to 1.55) compared with the control subjects. Total cancer and cancer-related deaths were similar in both groups within the follow-up period of the study.
Aspirin for primary prevention reduces nonfatal ischemic events but significantly increases nonfatal bleeding events.
Despite the availability of effective drug therapies that reduce low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol (LDL-C), cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains an important cause of mortality and morbidity. ...Therefore, additional LDL-C reduction may be warranted, especially for patients who are unresponsive to, or unable to take, existing LDL-C-reducing therapies. By inhibiting the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) enzyme, monoclonal antibodies (PCSK9 inhibitors) may further reduce LDL-C, potentially reducing CVD risk as well.
Primary To quantify short-term (24 weeks), medium-term (one year), and long-term (five years) effects of PCSK9 inhibitors on lipid parameters and on the incidence of CVD. Secondary To quantify the safety of PCSK9 inhibitors, with specific focus on the incidence of type 2 diabetes, cognitive function, and cancer. Additionally, to determine if specific patient subgroups were more or less likely to benefit from the use of PCSK9 inhibitors.
We identified studies by systematically searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science. We also searched Clinicaltrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and screened the reference lists of included studies. We identified the studies included in this review through electronic literature searches conducted up to May 2016, and added three large trials published in March 2017.
All parallel-group and factorial randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a follow-up time of at least 24 weeks were eligible.
Two review authors independently reviewed and extracted data. When data were available, we calculated pooled effect estimates.
We included 20 studies with data on 67,237 participants (median age 61 years; range 52 to 64 years). Twelve trials randomised participants to alirocumab, three trials to bococizumab, one to RG7652, and four to evolocumab. Owing to the small number of trials using agents other than alirocumab, we did not differentiate between types of PCSK9 inhibitors used. We compared PCSK9 inhibitors with placebo (thirteen RCTs), ezetimibe (two RCTs) or ezetimibe and statins (five RCTs).Compared with placebo, PCSK9 inhibitors decreased LDL-C by 53.86% (95% confidence interval (CI) 58.64 to 49.08; eight studies; 4782 participants; GRADE: moderate) at 24 weeks; compared with ezetimibe, PCSK9 inhibitors decreased LDL-C by 30.20% (95% CI 34.18 to 26.23; two studies; 823 participants; GRADE: moderate), and compared with ezetimibe and statins, PCSK9 inhibitors decreased LDL-C by 39.20% (95% CI 56.15 to 22.26; five studies; 5376 participants; GRADE: moderate).Compared with placebo, PCSK9 inhibitors decreased the risk of CVD events, with a risk difference (RD) of 0.91% (odds ratio (OR) of 0.86, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.92; eight studies; 59,294 participants; GRADE: moderate). Compared with ezetimibe and statins, PCSK9 inhibitors appeared to have a stronger protective effect on CVD risk, although with considerable uncertainty (RD 1.06%, OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.75; three studies; 4770 participants; GRADE: very low). No data were available for the ezetimibe only comparison. Compared with placebo, PCSK9 probably had little or no effect on mortality (RD 0.03%, OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.14; 12 studies; 60,684 participants; GRADE: moderate). Compared with placebo, PCSK9 inhibitors increased the risk of any adverse events (RD 1.54%, OR 1.08, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.12; 13 studies; 54,204 participants; GRADE: low). Similar effects were observed for the comparison of ezetimibe and statins: RD 3.70%, OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.34; four studies; 5376 participants; GRADE: low. Clinical event data were unavailable for the ezetimibe only comparison.
Over short-term to medium-term follow-up, PCSK9 inhibitors reduced LDL-C. Studies with medium-term follow-up time (longest median follow-up recorded was 26 months) reported that PCSK9 inhibitors (compared with placebo) decreased CVD risk but may have increased the risk of any adverse events (driven by SPIRE-1 and -2 trials). Available evidence suggests that PCSK9 inhibitor use probably leads to little or no difference in mortality. Evidence on relative efficacy and safety when PCSK9 inhibitors were compared with active treatments was of low to very low quality (GRADE); follow-up times were short and events were few. Large trials with longer follow-up are needed to evaluate PCSK9 inhibitors versus active treatments as well as placebo. Owing to the predominant inclusion of high-risk patients in these studies, applicability of results to primary prevention is limited. Finally, estimated risk differences indicate that PCSK9 inhibitors only modestly change absolute risks (often to less than 1%).
The COVID-19 pandemic triggered a surge in demand for facemasks to protect against disease transmission. In response to shortages, many public health authorities have recommended homemade masks as ...acceptable alternatives to surgical masks and N95 respirators. Although mask wearing is intended, in part, to protect others from exhaled, virus-containing particles, few studies have examined particle emission by mask-wearers into the surrounding air. Here, we measured outward emissions of micron-scale aerosol particles by healthy humans performing various expiratory activities while wearing different types of medical-grade or homemade masks. Both surgical masks and unvented KN95 respirators, even without fit-testing, reduce the outward particle emission rates by 90% and 74% on average during speaking and coughing, respectively, compared to wearing no mask, corroborating their effectiveness at reducing outward emission. These masks similarly decreased the outward particle emission of a coughing superemitter, who for unclear reasons emitted up to two orders of magnitude more expiratory particles via coughing than average. In contrast, shedding of non-expiratory micron-scale particulates from friable cellulosic fibers in homemade cotton-fabric masks confounded explicit determination of their efficacy at reducing expiratory particle emission. Audio analysis of the speech and coughing intensity confirmed that people speak more loudly, but do not cough more loudly, when wearing a mask. Further work is needed to establish the efficacy of cloth masks at blocking expiratory particles for speech and coughing at varied intensity and to assess whether virus-contaminated fabrics can generate aerosolized fomites, but the results strongly corroborate the efficacy of medical-grade masks and highlight the importance of regular washing of homemade masks.
The current paradigm for cardiovascular disease (CVD) emphasises absolute risk assessment to guide treatment decisions in primary prevention. Although the derivation and validation of multivariable ...risk assessment tools, or CVD risk scores, have attracted considerable attention, their effect on clinical outcomes is uncertain.
To assess the effects of evaluating and providing CVD risk scores in adults without prevalent CVD on cardiovascular outcomes, risk factor levels, preventive medication prescribing, and health behaviours.
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library (2016, Issue 2), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to March week 1 2016), Embase (embase.com) (1974 to 15 March 2016), and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S) (1990 to 15 March 2016). We imposed no language restrictions. We searched clinical trial registers in March 2016 and handsearched reference lists of primary studies to identify additional reports.
We included randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing the systematic provision of CVD risk scores by a clinician, healthcare professional, or healthcare system compared with usual care (i.e. no systematic provision of CVD risk scores) in adults without CVD.
Three review authors independently selected studies, extracted data, and evaluated study quality. We used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool to assess study limitations. The primary outcomes were: CVD events, change in CVD risk factor levels (total cholesterol, systolic blood pressure, and multivariable CVD risk), and adverse events. Secondary outcomes included: lipid-lowering and antihypertensive medication prescribing in higher-risk people. We calculated risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) for continuous data using 95% confidence intervals. We used a fixed-effects model when heterogeneity (I²) was at least 50% and a random-effects model for substantial heterogeneity (I² > 50%). We evaluated the quality of evidence using the GRADE framework.
We identified 41 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving 194,035 participants from 6422 reports. We assessed studies as having high or unclear risk of bias across multiple domains. Low-quality evidence evidence suggests that providing CVD risk scores may have little or no effect on CVD events compared with usual care (5.4% versus 5.3%; RR 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 1.08; I² = 25%; 3 trials, N = 99,070). Providing CVD risk scores may reduce CVD risk factor levels by a small amount compared with usual care. Providing CVD risk scores reduced total cholesterol (MD -0.10 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.00; I² = 94%; 12 trials, N = 20,437, low-quality evidence), systolic blood pressure (MD -2.77 mmHg, 95% CI -4.16 to -1.38; I² = 93%; 16 trials, N = 32,954, low-quality evidence), and multivariable CVD risk (SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.02; I² = 94%; 9 trials, N = 9549, low-quality evidence). Providing CVD risk scores may reduce adverse events compared with usual care, but results were imprecise (1.9% versus 2.7%; RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.04; I² = 0%; 4 trials, N = 4630, low-quality evidence). Compared with usual care, providing CVD risk scores may increase new or intensified lipid-lowering medications (15.7% versus 10.7%; RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.87; I² = 40%; 11 trials, N = 14,175, low-quality evidence) and increase new or increased antihypertensive medications (17.2% versus 11.4%; RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.11; I² = 53%; 8 trials, N = 13,255, low-quality evidence).
There is uncertainty whether current strategies for providing CVD risk scores affect CVD events. Providing CVD risk scores may slightly reduce CVD risk factor levels and may increase preventive medication prescribing in higher-risk people without evidence of harm. There were multiple study limitations in the identified studies and substantial heterogeneity in the interventions, outcomes, and analyses, so readers should interpret results with caution. New models for implementing and evaluating CVD risk scores in adequately powered studies are needed to define the role of applying CVD risk scores in primary CVD prevention.
Despite numerous advances in the prevention and treatment of atherosclerosis, cardiovascular disease remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. Novel and inexpensive interventions that can ...contribute to the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease are of interest. Numerous studies have reported on the benefits of meditation. Meditation instruction and practice is widely accessible and inexpensive and may thus be a potential attractive cost-effective adjunct to more traditional medical therapies. Accordingly, this American Heart Association scientific statement systematically reviewed the data on the potential benefits of meditation on cardiovascular risk. Neurophysiological and neuroanatomical studies demonstrate that meditation can have long-standing effects on the brain, which provide some biological plausibility for beneficial consequences on the physiological basal state and on cardiovascular risk. Studies of the effects of meditation on cardiovascular risk have included those investigating physiological response to stress, smoking cessation, blood pressure reduction, insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome, endothelial function, inducible myocardial ischemia, and primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Overall, studies of meditation suggest a possible benefit on cardiovascular risk, although the overall quality and, in some cases, quantity of study data are modest. Given the low costs and low risks of this intervention, meditation may be considered as an adjunct to guideline-directed cardiovascular risk reduction by those interested in this lifestyle modification, with the understanding that the benefits of such intervention remain to be better established. Further research on meditation and cardiovascular risk is warranted. Such studies, to the degree possible, should utilize randomized study design, be adequately powered to meet the primary study outcome, strive to achieve low drop-out rates, include long-term follow-up, and be performed by those without inherent bias in outcome.
Relative risk reduction with statin therapy has been consistent across nearly all subgroups studied to date. However, in analyses of 2 randomized controlled primary prevention trials (ASCOT ...Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-Lipid-Lowering Arm and JUPITER Justification for the Use of Statins in Prevention: An Intervention Trial Evaluating Rosuvastatin), statin therapy led to a greater relative risk reduction among a subgroup at high genetic risk. Here, we aimed to confirm this observation in a third primary prevention randomized controlled trial. In addition, we assessed whether those at high genetic risk had a greater burden of subclinical coronary atherosclerosis.
We studied participants from a randomized controlled trial of primary prevention with statin therapy (WOSCOPS West of Scotland Coronary Prevention Study; n=4910) and 2 observational cohort studies (CARDIA Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults and BioImage; n=1154 and 4392, respectively). For each participant, we calculated a polygenic risk score derived from up to 57 common DNA sequence variants previously associated with coronary heart disease. We compared the relative efficacy of statin therapy in those at high genetic risk (top quintile of polygenic risk score) versus all others (WOSCOPS), as well as the association between the polygenic risk score and coronary artery calcification (CARDIA) and carotid artery plaque burden (BioImage).
Among WOSCOPS trial participants at high genetic risk, statin therapy was associated with a relative risk reduction of 44% (95% confidence interval CI, 22-60;
<0.001), whereas in all others, the relative risk reduction was 24% (95% CI, 8-37;
=0.004) despite similar low-density lipoprotein cholesterol lowering. In a study-level meta-analysis across the WOSCOPS, ASCOT, and JUPITER primary prevention, relative risk reduction in those at high genetic risk was 46% versus 26% in all others (
for heterogeneity=0.05). Across all 3 studies, the absolute risk reduction with statin therapy was 3.6% (95% CI, 2.0-5.1) among those in the high genetic risk group and 1.3% (95% CI, 0.6-1.9) in all others. Each 1-SD increase in the polygenic risk score was associated with 1.32-fold (95% CI, 1.04-1.68) greater likelihood of having coronary artery calcification and 9.7% higher (95% CI, 2.2-17.8) burden of carotid plaque.
Those at high genetic risk have a greater burden of subclinical atherosclerosis and derive greater relative and absolute benefit from statin therapy to prevent a first coronary heart disease event.
URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifiers: NCT00738725 (BioImage) and NCT00005130 (CARDIA). WOSCOPS was carried out and completed before the requirement for clinical trial registration.
Fibrates are effective for modifying atherogenic dyslipidaemia, and particularly for lowering serum triglycerides. However, evidence that fibrates reduce mortality and morbidity associated with ...cardiovascular disease (CVD), or overall mortality and morbidity, in the primary prevention of CVD is lacking.
This Cochrane Review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the clinical benefits and harms of fibrates versus placebo or usual care or fibrates plus other lipid-modifying drugs versus other lipid-modifying drugs alone for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) morbidity and mortality.
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), and Web of Science (all from inception to 19 May 2016). We searched four clinical trial registers (last searched on 3 August 2016) with the help of an experienced professional librarian. We searched the databases to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the clinical effects of fibrate therapy in the primary prevention of CVD events. We did not impose any language restrictions.
We aimed to include all RCTs comparing the effects of fibrate monotherapy versus placebo or usual care, or fibrates plus other lipid-modifying drugs versus other lipid-modifying drugs alone. Included studies had a follow-up of at least six months for the primary prevention of CVD events. We excluded trials with clofibrate, because it was withdrawn from the market in 2002.
Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts for potential study inclusion. Two review authors independently retrieved the full-text papers and extracted data. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) and accompanying 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for aggregate data on primary and secondary outcomes. We tested for heterogeneity with the Cochrane Q-test and used the I
statistic to measure inconsistency of treatment effects across studies. Using the GRADE approach, we assessed the quality of the evidence and used the GRADE profiler software (GRADEpro GDT) to import data from Review Manager 5 to create 'Summary of findings' tables.
We identified six eligible trials including 16,135 individuals. The mean age of trial populations varied across trials; between 47.3 and 62.3 years. Four trials included individuals with diabetes mellitus type 2 only. The mean treatment duration and follow-up of participants across trials was 4.8 years. We judged the risks of selection and performance bias to be low; risks of detection bias, attrition bias, and reporting bias were unclear. Reporting of adverse effects by included trials was very limited; that is why we used discontinuation of therapy due to adverse effects as a proxy for adverse effects. Patients treated with fibrates had a reduced risk for the combined primary outcome of CVD death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or non-fatal stroke compared to patients on placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 0.96; participants = 16,135; studies = 6; moderate-quality of evidence). For secondary outcomes we found RRs for fibrate therapy compared with placebo of 0.79 for combined coronary heart disease death or non-fatal myocardial infarction (95% CI 0.68 to 0.92; participants = 16,135; studies = 6; moderate-quality of evidence); 1.01 for overall mortality (95% CI 0.81 to 1.26; participants = 8471; studies = 5; low-quality of evidence); 1.01 for non-CVD mortality (95% CI 0.76 to 1.35; participants = 8471; studies = 5; low-quality of evidence); and 1.38 for discontinuation of therapy due to adverse effects (95% CI 0.71 to 2.68; participants = 4805; studies = 3; I
= 74%; very low-quality of evidence). Data on quality of life were not available from any trial. Trials that evaluated fibrates in the background of statins (2 studies) showed no benefits in preventing cardiovascular events.
Moderate-quality evidence suggests that fibrates lower the risk for cardiovascular and coronary events in primary prevention, but the absolute treatment effects in the primary prevention setting are modest (absolute risk reductions < 1%). There is low-quality evidence that fibrates have no effect on overall or non-CVD mortality. Very low-quality evidence suggests that fibrates are not associated with increased risk for adverse effects.
PDF
