Dataset Information

Sitting Time Reduction and Blood Pressure in Older Adults: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Practical health promotion strategies for improving cardiometabolic health in older adults are needed.

Objective

To examine the efficacy of a sedentary behavior reduction intervention for reducing sitting time and improving blood pressure in older adults.

Design, setting, and participants

This parallel-group randomized clinical trial was conducted in adults aged 60 to 89 years with high sitting time and body mass index of 30 to 50 from January 1, 2019, to November 31, 2022, at a health care system in Washington State.

Intervention

Participants were randomized 1:1 to the sitting reduction intervention or a healthy living attention control condition for 6 months. Intervention participants received 10 health coaching contacts, sitting reduction goals, and a standing desk and fitness tracker to prompt sitting breaks. The attention control group received 10 health coaching contacts to set general healthy living goals, excluding physical activity or sedentary behavior.

Main outcomes and measures

The primary outcome, measured at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months, was sitting time assessed using accelerometers worn for 7 days at each time point. Coprimary outcomes were systolic and diastolic blood pressure measured at baseline and 6 months.

Results

A total of 283 participants (140 intervention and 143 control) were randomized (baseline mean [SD] age, 68.8 [6.2] years; 186 [65.7%] female; mean [SD] body mass index, 34.9 [4.7]). At baseline, 147 (51.9%) had a hypertension diagnosis and 97 (69.3%) took at least 1 antihypertensive medication. Sitting time was reduced, favoring the intervention arm, with a difference in the mean change of -31.44 min/d at 3 months (95% CI, -48.69 to -14.19 min/d; P < .001) and -31.85 min/d at 6 months (95% CI, -52.91 to -10.79 min/d; P = .003). Systolic blood pressure change was lower by 3.48 mm Hg, favoring the intervention arm at 6 months (95% CI, -6.68 to -0.28 mm Hg; P = .03). There were 6 serious adverse events in each arm and none were study related.

Conclusions and relevance

In this study of a 6-month sitting reduction intervention, older adults in the intervention reduced sedentary time by more than 30 min/d and reduced systolic blood pressure. Sitting reduction could be a promising approach to improve health in older adults.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03739762.

SUBMITTER: Rosenberg DE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10973891 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Sitting Time Reduction and Blood Pressure in Older Adults: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Rosenberg Dori E DE Zhu Weiwei W Greenwood-Hickman Mikael Anne MA Cook Andrea J AJ Florez Acevedo Stefani S McClure Jennifer B JB Arterburn David E DE Cooper Julie J Owen Neville N Dunstan David D Perry Stephen R SR Yarborough Laura L Mettert Kayne D KD Green Beverly B BB

JAMA network open 20240304 3

<h4>Importance</h4>Practical health promotion strategies for improving cardiometabolic health in older adults are needed.<h4>Objective</h4>To examine the efficacy of a sedentary behavior reduction intervention for reducing sitting time and improving blood pressure in older adults.<h4>Design, setting, and participants</h4>This parallel-group randomized clinical trial was conducted in adults aged 60 to 89 years with high sitting time and body mass index of 30 to 50 from January 1, 2019, to Novembe ...[more]

PMID: 38536177

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHypertension treatment in older adults can decrease mortality, cardiovascular events, including heart failure, cognitive impairment, and stroke risk, but may also lead to harms such as syncope and falls. Guidelines recommend targeting preventive interventions with immediate harms and delayed benefits to patients whose life expectancy exceeds the intervention's time to benefit (TTB). Our objective was to estimate a meta-analyzed TTB for stroke prevention after initiation of more intensive hypertension treatment in adults aged ≥65 years.MethodsStudies were identified from two Cochrane systematic reviews and a search of MEDLINE and Google Scholar for subsequent publications until August 31, 2021. We abstracted data from randomized controlled trials comparing standard (untreated, placebo, or less intensive treatment) to more intensive treatment groups in older adults (mean age ≥ 65 years). We fit Weibull survival curves and used a random-effects model to estimate the pooled annual absolute risk reduction (ARR) between control and intervention groups. We applied Markov chain Monte Carlo methods to determine the time to ARR thresholds (0.002, 0.005, and 0.01) for a first stroke.ResultsNine trials (n = 38,779) were identified. The mean age ranged from 66 to 84 years and study follow-up times ranged from 2.0 to 5.8 years. We determined that 1.7 (95%CI: 1.0-2.9) years were required to prevent 1 stroke for 200 persons (ARR = 0.005) receiving more intensive hypertensive treatment. Heterogeneity was found across studies, with those focusing on tighter systolic blood pressure control (SBP < 150 mmHg) showing longer TTB. For example, in the SPRINT study (baseline SBP = 140 mmHg, achieved SBP = 121 mmHg), the TTB to avoid 1 stroke for 200 patients treated was 5.9 years (95%CI: 2.2-13.0).ConclusionsMore intensive hypertension treatment in 200 older adults prevents 1 stroke after 1.7 years. Given the heterogeneity across studies, the TTB estimates from individual studies may be more relevant for clinical decision-making than our summary estimate.

Project description:ImportanceDelirium is common among older hospitalized adults. In addition to presenting immediate management issues, delirium can increase the long-term risk of dementia, institutionalization, and mortality. Delirium is associated with disrupted sleep, and prior studies suggest that some specific sleep-promoting agents may reduce delirium.ObjectiveTo evaluate the orexin receptor antagonist suvorexant for reducing delirium in older adults at high risk for delirium after hospitalization.Design, setting, and participantsThis double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 randomized clinical trial was conducted at 50 hospitals in Japan between October 22, 2020, and December 23, 2022. The study population included Japanese adults aged 65 to 90 years who were at high risk for delirium (mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia, history of delirium at prior hospitalization, or both) and had been hospitalized for acute disease or elective surgery. Data analysis was performed between January 23 and March 13, 2023.InterventionParticipants were randomized 1:1 to suvorexant (15 mg) or placebo taken at bedtime for up to 7 days while in the hospital.Main outcomes and measuresDelirium, the primary end point, was diagnosed according to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition criteria while participants were hospitalized. The treatment difference in the proportion of participants with delirium was analyzed.ResultsThis study included 203 participants: 101 were treated with suvorexant (mean [SD] age, 81.5 [4.5]; years; 52 men [51.5%] and 49 women [48.5%]) and 102 received placebo (mean [SD] age, 82.0 [4.9] years; 45 men [44.1%] and 57 women [55.9%]). There were 17 participants with delirium (16.8%) in the suvorexant group compared with 27 (26.5%) in the placebo group (difference, -8.7% [95% CI, -20.1% to 2.6%]; P = .13). Adverse events were similar between the 2 groups.Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial of suvorexant in older adults at high risk for delirium after hospitalization, fewer participants taking suvorexant had delirium compared with placebo, but the difference was not statistically significant. Further studies are needed to determine whether suvorexant may be useful for reducing delirium, particularly delirium with a hyperactive component, in this population.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04571944.

Project description:BackgroundOlder adults spend more time sitting than any other age group, contributing to poor health outcomes. Effective behavioral interventions are needed to encourage less sitting among older adults, specifically those with obesity, but these programs must be acceptable to the target population. We explored participant acceptance of a theory-based and technology-enhanced sitting reduction intervention designed for older adults (I-STAND).MethodsThe 12-week I-STAND intervention consisted of 6 health coaching contacts, a study workbook, a Jawbone UP band to remind participants to take breaks from sitting, and feedback on sitting behaviors (generated from wearing an activPAL device for 7 days at the beginning and mid-point of the study). Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 22 participants after they completed the intervention. Interview transcripts were iteratively coded by a team, and thematic analysis was used to identify and refine emerging themes.ResultsOverall, participants were satisfied with the I-STAND intervention, thought the sedentary behavior goals of the intervention were easy to incorporate, and found the technologies to be helpful additions to (but not substitutes for) health coaching. Barriers to standing more included poor health, ingrained sedentary habits, lack of motivation to change sedentary behavior, and social norms that dictate when it is appropriate to sit/stand. Facilitators to standing more included increased awareness of sitting, a sense of accountability, daily activities that involved standing, social support, and changing ways of interacting in the home environment. Participants reported that the intervention improved physical health, increased energy, increased readiness to engage in physical activity, improved mood, and reduced stress.ConclusionsThe technology-enhanced sedentary behavior reduction intervention was acceptable, easy to incorporate, and had a positive perceived health impact on older adults with obesity.Trial registrationThe I-STAND study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (ID: NCT02692560 ) February 2016.

Project description:ImportanceIntensive blood pressure (BP) control confers a benefit on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality; whether it affects physical function outcomes is unknown.ObjectiveTo examine the effect of intensive BP control on changes in gait speed and mobility status.Design, setting, and participantsThis randomized, clinical trial included 2636 individuals 75 years or older with hypertension and no history of type 2 diabetes or stroke who participated in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT). Data were collected from November 8, 2010, to December 1, 2015. Analysis was based on intention to treat.InterventionsParticipants were randomized to intensive treatment with a systolic BP target of less than 120 mm Hg (n = 1317) vs standard treatment with a BP target of less than 140 mm Hg (n = 1319).Main outcomes and measuresGait speed was measured using a 4-m walk test. Self-reported information concerning mobility was obtained from items on the Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey and the EQ-5D. Mobility limitation was defined as a gait speed less than 0.6 meters per second (m/s) or self-reported limitations in walking and climbing stairs.ResultsAmong the 2629 participants in whom mobility status could be defined (996 women [37.9%]; 1633 men [62.1%]; mean [SD] age, 79.9 [4.0] years), median (interquartile range) follow-up was 3 (2-3) years. No difference in mean gait speed decline was noted between the intensive- and standard-treatment groups (mean difference, 0.0004 m/s per year; 95% CI, -0.005 to 0.005; P = .88). No evidence of any treatment group differences in subgroups defined by age, sex, race or ethnicity, baseline systolic BP, chronic kidney disease, or a history of cardiovascular disease were found. A modest interaction was found for the Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey Physical Component Summary score, although the effect did not reach statistical significance in either subgroup, with mean differences of 0.004 (95% CI, -0.002 to 0.010) m/s per year among those with scores of at least 40 and -0.008 (95% CI, -0.016 to 0.001) m/s per year among those with scores less than 40 (P = .03 for interaction). Multistate models allowing for the competing risk of death demonstrated no effect of intensive treatment on transitions to mobility limitation (hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.92-1.22).Conclusions and relevanceAmong adults 75 years or older in SPRINT, treating to a systolic BP target of less than 120 mm Hg compared with a target of less than 140 mm Hg had no effect on changes in gait speed and was not associated with changes in mobility limitation.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01206062.

Project description:ImportanceThe computed tomographic angiography (CTA) spot sign is associated with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) expansion and may mark those patients most likely to benefit from intensive blood pressure (BP) reduction.ObjectiveTo investigate whether the spot sign is associated with ICH expansion across a wide range of centers and whether intensive BP reduction decreases hematoma expansion and improves outcome in patients with ICH and a spot sign.Design, setting, and participantsSCORE-IT (Spot Sign Score in Restricting ICH Growth) is a preplanned prospective observational study nested in the Antihypertensive Treatment of Acute Cerebral Hemorrhage II (ATACH-II) randomized clinical trial. Participants included consecutive patients with primary ICH who underwent a CTA within 8 hours from onset at 59 sites from May 15, 2011, through December 19, 2015. Data were analyzed for the present study from July 1 to August 31, 2016.Main outcomes and measuresPatients in ATACH-II were randomized to intensive (systolic BP target, <140 mm Hg) vs standard (systolic BP target, <180 mm Hg) BP reduction within 4.5 hours from onset. Expansion of ICH was defined as hematoma growth of greater than 33%, and an unfavorable outcome was defined as a 90-day modified Rankin Scale score of 4 or greater (range, 0-6). The association among BP reduction, ICH expansion, and outcome was investigated with multivariable logistic regression.ResultsA total of 133 patients (83 men [62.4%] and 50 women [37.6%]; mean [SD] age, 61.9 [13.1] years) were included. Of these, 53 (39.8%) had a spot sign, and 24 of 123 without missing data (19.5%) experienced ICH expansion. The spot sign was associated with expansion with sensitivity of 0.54 (95% CI, 0.34-0.74) and specificity of 0.63 (95% CI, 0.53-0.72). After adjustment for potential confounders, intensive BP treatment was not associated with a significant reduction of ICH expansion (relative risk, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.27-2.51; P = .74) or improved outcome (relative risk of 90-day modified Rankin Scale score ≥4, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.53-2.91; P = .62) in spot sign-positive patients.Conclusions and relevanceThe predictive performance of the spot sign for ICH expansion was lower than in prior reports from single-center studies. No evidence suggested that patients with ICH and a spot sign specifically benefit from intensive BP reduction.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01176565.

Dataset Information

Sitting Time Reduction and Blood Pressure in Older Adults: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance

Objective

Design, setting, and participants

Intervention

Main outcomes and measures

Results

Conclusions and relevance

Trial registration

Publications

Sitting Time Reduction and Blood Pressure in Older Adults: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets