2019 ACC/AHA Guideline on the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines

2019 ACC/AHA Guideline on the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease

2019 ACC/AHA Guideline on the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease: Executive Summary

Objectively measured light-intensity physical activity is independently associated with 2-h plasma glucose

Objective To determine the comparative effectiveness of exercise versus drug interventions on mortality outcomes. Design Metaepidemiological study. Eligibility criteria Meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials with mortality outcomes comparing the effectiveness of exercise and drug interventions with each other or with control (placebo or usual care). Data sources Medline and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, May 2013. Main outcome measure Mortality. Data synthesis We combined study level death outcomes from exercise and drug trials using random effects network meta-analysis. Results We included 16 (four exercise and 12 drug) meta-analyses. Incorporating an additional three recent exercise trials, our review collectively included 305 randomised controlled trials with 339 274 participants. Across all four conditions with evidence on the effectiveness of exercise on mortality outcomes (secondary prevention of coronary heart disease, rehabilitation of stroke, treatment of heart failure, prevention of diabetes), 14 716 participants were randomised to physical activity interventions in 57 trials. No statistically detectable differences were evident between exercise and drug interventions in the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease and prediabetes. Physical activity interventions were more effective than drug treatment among patients with stroke (odds ratios, exercise v anticoagulants 0.09, 95% credible intervals 0.01 to 0.70 and exercise v antiplatelets 0.10, 0.01 to 0.62). Diuretics were more effective than exercise in heart failure (exercise v diuretics 4.11, 1.17 to 24.76). Inconsistency between direct and indirect comparisons was not significant. Conclusions Although limited in quantity, existing randomised trial evidence on exercise interventions suggests that exercise and many drug interventions are often potentially similar in terms of their mortality benefits in the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease, rehabilitation after stroke, treatment of heart failure, and prevention of diabetes.

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/347/bmj.f5577.full.pdf

Comparative effectiveness of exercise and drug interventions on mortality outcomes: metaepidemiological study

Objectives To determine whether trials of physical activity promotion based in primary care show sustained effects on physical activity or fitness in sedentary adults, and whether exercise referral interventions are more effective than other interventions. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Data sources Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EMBASE, SPORTDiscus, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, the Cochrane Library, and article reference lists. Review methods Review of randomised controlled trials of physical activity promotion in sedentary adults recruited in primary care, with minimum follow-up of 12 months, reporting physical activity or fitness (or both) as outcomes, and using intention to treat analyses. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion, appraised risk of bias, and extracted data. Pooled effect sizes were calculated using a random effects model. Results We included 15 trials (n=8745). Most interventions took place in primary care, included health professionals in delivery, and involved advice or counselling given face to face or by phone (or both) on multiple occasions. Only three trials investigated exercise referral. In 13 trials presenting self reported physical activity, we saw small to medium positive intervention effects at 12 months (odds ratio 1.42, 95% confidence interval 1.17 to 1.73; standardised mean difference 0.25, 0.11 to 0.38). The number needed to treat with an intervention for one additional sedentary adult to meet internationally recommended levels of activity at 12 months was 12 (7 to 33). In four trials reporting cardiorespiratory fitness, a medium positive effect at 12 months was non-significant (standardised mean difference 0.51, −0.18 to 1.20). Three trials of exercise referral found small non-significant effects on self reported physical activity at 12 months (odds ratio 1.38; 0.98 to 1.95; standardised mean difference 0.20, −0.21 to 0.61). Conclusions Promotion of physical activity to sedentary adults recruited in primary care significantly increases physical activity levels at 12 months, as measured by self report. We found insufficient evidence to recommend exercise referral schemes over advice or counselling interventions. Primary care commissioners should consider these findings while awaiting further trial evaluation of exercise referral schemes and other primary care interventions, with longer follow-up and use of objective measures of outcome.

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/344/bmj.e1389.full.pdf

Effectiveness of physical activity promotion based in primary care: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

We aimed to quantify the associations between change in objectively measured sedentary and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) times and self-reported television viewing over 6 years and change in a clustered cardiometabolic risk score (CCMR), including and excluding waist circumference (CCMR without adiposity component, CCMR
 no adip
 ), and its individual components, among the adult children of people with type 2 diabetes. In 171 adults (mean ± SD age 42.52 ± 6.30 years; 46% men) with a parental history of diabetes (ProActive UK), physical activity accelerometer measures and self-reported television viewing were assessed at baseline and a mean ± SD of 6.27 ± 0.46 years later. Associations between change in sedentary time, MVPA time and television viewing and cardiometabolic risk and mediation by adiposity change were examined by multiple linear regression and the product of coefficients method, respectively. Greater increases in sedentary time (h/day) were associated with larger increases in clustered cardiometabolic risk (CCMR: 0.08 [95% CI 0.01, 0.15]; CCMR
 no adip
 : 0.08 [0.01, 0.16]) and triacylglycerol (0.15 [0.01, 0.29]), independent of baseline sedentary and MVPA times, change in MVPA time and other confounders. No evidence was found for mediation by change in waist circumference and BMI for the associations with CCMR
 no adip
 and triacylglycerol. Greater increases in MVPA time (h/day) were associated with larger decreases in waist circumference (−3.86 [−7.58, −0.14]), independently of baseline MVPA and sedentary times, change in sedentary time and other confounders. Television viewing was not independently associated with any of the cardiometabolic outcomes. Increasing sedentary time is independently related to increasing clustered cardiometabolic risk and triacylglycerol in adults at high risk of developing diabetes. Strategies to prevent diabetes might target reducing sedentary time. Trial registration ISRCTN61323766

/pdf/increasing-objectively-measured-sedentary-time-increases-8a9uiuffkb.pdf

Increasing objectively measured sedentary time increases clustered cardiometabolic risk: a 6 year analysis of the ProActive study.

▸ This article is an abridged version of a paper that was published on bmj.com. Cite this article as: BMJ 2011; 343 :e1389

Study question Do trials of physical activity promotion based in primary care show sustained effects on physical activity or fitness in sedentary adults, and are exercise referral interventions more effective than other interventions?

Summary answer Trials of physical activity promotion based in primary care show positive effects on physical activity levels, but not on fitness, over at least 12 months; however, not enough evidence exists to indicate whether exercise referral is more effective than other primary care interventions.

What is known and what this paper adds Physical activity promotion in primary care, …

https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/bjsports/47/1/27.full.pdf

Republished research: Effectiveness of physical activity promotion based in primary care: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/375/bmj.n2827.full.pdf

Gillian Orrow

Papers

Effectiveness of physical activity promotion based in primary care: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Increasing objectively measured sedentary time increases clustered cardiometabolic risk: a 6 year analysis of the ProActive study.

Republished research: Effectiveness of physical activity promotion based in primary care: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Designing an ecological approach to health