Kate Jolly

Bio: Kate Jolly is an academic researcher from University of Birmingham. The author has contributed to research in topics: Randomized controlled trial & Population. The author has an hindex of 43, co-authored 204 publications receiving 7598 citations. Previous affiliations of Kate Jolly include University of Southampton.

Effects of interventions in pregnancy on maternal weight and obstetric outcomes: meta-analysis of randomised evidence

Abstract: Objective To evaluate the effects of dietary and lifestyle interventions in pregnancy on maternal and fetal weight and to quantify the effects of these interventions on obstetric outcomes. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources Major databases from inception to January 2012 without language restrictions. Study selection Randomised controlled trials that evaluated any dietary or lifestyle interventions with potential to influence maternal weight during pregnancy and outcomes of pregnancy. Data synthesis Results summarised as relative risks for dichotomous data and mean differences for continuous data. Results We identified 44 relevant randomised controlled trials (7278 women) evaluating three categories of interventions: diet, physical activity, and a mixed approach. Overall, there was 1.42 kg reduction (95% confidence interval 0.95 to 1.89 kg) in gestational weight gain with any intervention compared with control. With all interventions combined, there were no significant differences in birth weight (mean difference −50 g, −100 to 0 g) and the incidence of large for gestational age (relative risk 0.85, 0.66 to 1.09) or small for gestational age (1.00, 0.78 to 1.28) babies between the groups, though by itself physical activity was associated with reduced birth weight (mean difference −60 g, −120 to −10 g). Interventions were associated with a reduced the risk of pre-eclampsia (0.74, 0.60 to 0.92) and shoulder dystocia (0.39, 0.22 to 0.70), with no significant effect on other critically important outcomes. Dietary intervention resulted in the largest reduction in maternal gestational weight gain (3.84 kg, 2.45 to 5.22 kg), with improved pregnancy outcomes compared with other interventions. The overall evidence rating was low to very low for important outcomes such as pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes, gestational hypertension, and preterm delivery. Conclusions Dietary and lifestyle interventions in pregnancy can reduce maternal gestational weight gain and improve outcomes for both mother and baby. Among the interventions, those based on diet are the most effective and are associated with reductions in maternal gestational weight gain and improved obstetric outcomes.

Home‐based versus centre‐based cardiac rehabilitation

Abstract: Background Cardiovascular disease is the most common cause of death globally. Traditionally, centre-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes are offered to individuals after cardiac events to aid recovery and prevent further cardiac illness. Home-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes have been introduced in an attempt to widen access and participation. This is an update of a review originally published in 2009. Objectives To compare the effect of home-based and supervised centre-based cardiac rehabilitation on mortality and morbidity, health-related quality of life, and modifiable cardiac risk factors in patients with heart disease. Search methods To update searches from the previous Cochrane review, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 9, 2014), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to October week 1 2014), EMBASE (Ovid, 1980 to 2014 week 41), PsycINFO (Ovid, 1806 to October week 2 2014), and CINAHL (EBSCO, to October 2014). We checked reference lists of included trials and recent systematic reviews. No language restrictions were applied. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared centre-based cardiac rehabilitation (e.g. hospital, gymnasium, sports centre) with home-based programmes in adults with myocardial infarction (MI), angina, heart failure or who had undergone revascularisation. Data collection and analysis Two authors independently assessed the eligibility of the identified trials and data were extracted by a single author and checked by a second. Authors were contacted where possible to obtain missing information. Main results Seventeen trials included a total of 2172 participants undergoing cardiac rehabilitation following an acute MI or revascularisation, or with heart failure. This update included an additional five trials on 345 patients with heart failure. Authors of a number of included trials failed to give sufficient detail to assess their potential risk of bias, and details of generation and concealment of random allocation sequence were particularly poorly reported. In the main, no difference was seen between home- and centre-based cardiac rehabilitation in outcomes up to 12 months of follow up: mortality (relative risk (RR) = 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43 to 1.47, P = 0.46, fixed-effect), cardiac events (data not poolable), exercise capacity (standardised mean difference (SMD) = -0.10, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.08, P = 0.29, random-effects), modifiable risk factors (total cholesterol: mean difference (MD) = 0.07 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.11, P = 0.47, random-effects; low density lipoprotein cholesterol: MD = -0.06 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.15, P = 0.55, random-effects; systolic blood pressure: mean difference (MD) = 0.19 mmHg, 95% CI -3.37 to 3.75, P = 0.92, random-effects; proportion of smokers at follow up (RR = 0.98, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.21, P = 0.83, fixed-effect), or health-related quality of life (not poolable). Small outcome differences in favour of centre-based participants were seen in high density lipoprotein cholesterol (MD = -0.07 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.11 to -0.03, P = 0.001, fixed-effect), and triglycerides (MD = -0.18 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.02, P = 0.03, fixed-effect, diastolic blood pressure (MD = -1.86 mmHg; 95% CI -0.76 to -2.95, P = 0.0009, fixed-effect). In contrast, in home-based participants, there was evidence of a marginally higher levels of programme completion (RR = 1.04, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.07, P = 0.009, fixed-effect) and adherence to the programme (not poolable). No consistent difference was seen in healthcare costs between the two forms of cardiac rehabilitation. Authors' conclusions This updated review supports the conclusions of the previous version of this review that home- and centre-based forms of cardiac rehabilitation seem to be equally effective for improving the clinical and health-related quality of life outcomes in low risk patients after MI or revascularisation, or with heart failure. This finding, together with the absence of evidence of important differences in healthcare costs between the two approaches, supports the continued expansion of evidence-based, home-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes. The choice of participating in a more traditional and supervised centre-based programme or a home-based programme should reflect the preference of the individual patient. Further data are needed to determine whether the effects of home- and centre-based cardiac rehabilitation reported in these short-term trials can be confirmed in the longer term. A number of studies failed to give sufficient detail to assess their risk of bias.

Home based versus centre based cardiac rehabilitation: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract: Objective To compare the effect of home based and supervised centre based cardiac rehabilitation on mortality and morbidity, health related quality of life, and modifiable cardiac risk factors in patients with coronary heart disease. Design Systematic review. Data sources Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO, without language restriction, searched from 2001 to January 2008. Review methods Reference lists checked and advice sought from authors. Included randomised controlled trials that compared centre based cardiac rehabilitation with home based programmes in adults with acute myocardial infarction, angina, or heart failure or who had undergone coronary revascularisation. Two reviewers independently assessed the eligibility of the identified trials and extracted data independently. Authors were contacted when possible to obtain missing information. Results 12 studies (1938 participants) were included. Most studies recruited patients with a low risk of further events after myocardial infarction or revascularisation. No difference was seen between home based and centre based cardiac rehabilitation in terms of mortality (relative risk 1.31, 95% confidence interval 0.65 to 2.66), cardiac events, exercise capacity (standardised mean difference −0.11, −0.35 to 0.13), modifiable risk factors (weighted mean difference systolic blood pressure (0.58 mm Hg, −3.29 mm Hg to 4.44 mm Hg), total cholesterol (−0.13 mmol/l, −0.31 mmol/l to 0.05 mmol/l), low density lipoprotein cholesterol (−0.15 mmol/l, −0.31 mmol/l to 0.01 mmol/l), or relative risk for proportion of smokers at follow-up (0.98, 0.73 to 1.31)), or health related quality of life, with the exception of high density lipoprotein cholesterol (−0.06, −0.11 to −0.02) mmol/l). In the home based participants, there was evidence of superior adherence. No consistent difference was seen in the healthcare costs of the two forms of cardiac rehabilitation. Conclusions Home and centre based forms of cardiac rehabilitation seem to be equally effective in improving clinical and health related quality of life outcomes in patients with a low risk of further events after myocardial infarction or revascularisation. This finding, together with the absence of evidence of differences in patients’ adherence and healthcare costs between the two approaches, supports the further provision of evidence based, home based cardiac rehabilitation programmes such as the “Heart Manual.” The choice of participating in a more traditional supervised centre based or evidence based home based programme should reflect the preference of the individual patient.

Comparison of range of commercial or primary care led weight reduction programmes with minimal intervention control for weight loss in obesity: Lighten Up randomised controlled trial

Abstract: Objective To assess the effectiveness of a range of weight management programmes in terms of weight loss. Design Eight arm randomised controlled trial. Setting Primary care trust in Birmingham, England. Participants 740 obese or overweight men and women with a comorbid disorder identified from general practice records. Interventions Weight loss programmes of 12 weeks’ duration: Weight Watchers; Slimming World; Rosemary Conley; group based, dietetics led programme; general practice one to one counselling; pharmacy led one to one counselling; choice of any of the six programmes. The comparator group was provided with 12 vouchers enabling free entrance to a local leisure (fitness) centre. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was weight loss at programme end (12 weeks). Secondary outcomes were weight loss at one year, self reported physical activity, and percentage weight loss at programme end and one year. Results Follow-up data were available for 658 (88.9%) participants at programme end and 522 (70.5%) at one year. All programmes achieved significant weight loss from baseline to programme end (range 1.37 kg (general practice) to 4.43 kg (Weight Watchers)), and all except general practice and pharmacy provision resulted in significant weight loss at one year. At one year, only the Weight Watchers group had significantly greater weight loss than did the comparator group (2.5 (95% confidence interval 0.8 to 4.2) kg greater loss,). The commercial programmes achieved significantly greater weight loss than did the primary care programmes at programme end (mean difference 2.3 (1.3 to 3.4) kg). The primary care programmes were the most costly to provide. Participants allocated to the choice arm did not have better outcomes than those randomly allocated to a programme. Conclusions Commercially provided weight management services are more effective and cheaper than primary care based services led by specially trained staff, which are ineffective. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN25072883.

Interventions to Reduce or Prevent Obesity in Pregnant Women: A Systematic Review

Abstract: Background Around 50% of women of childbearing age are either overweight [body mass index (BMI) 25–29.9 kg/m2] or obese (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2). The antenatal period provides an opportunity to manage weight in pregnancy. This has the potential to reduce maternal and fetal complications associated with excess weight gain and obesity. Objectives To evaluate the effectiveness of dietary and lifestyle interventions in reducing or preventing obesity in pregnancy and to assess the beneficial and adverse effects of the interventions on obstetric, fetal and neonatal outcomes. Data sources Major electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS and Science Citation Index were searched (1950 until March 2011) to identify relevant citations. Language restrictions were not applied. Review methods Systematic reviews of the effectiveness and harm of the interventions were carried out using a methodology in line with current recommendations. Studies that evaluated any dietary, physical activity or mixed approach intervention with the potential to influence weight change in pregnancy were included. The quality of the studies was assessed using accepted contemporary standards. Results were summarised as pooled relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous data. Continuous data were summarised as mean difference (MD) with standard deviation. The quality of the overall evidence synthesised for each outcome was summarised using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) methodology and reported graphically as a two-dimensional chart. Results A total of 88 studies (40 randomised and 48 non-randomised and observational studies, involving 182,139 women) evaluated the effect of weight management interventions in pregnancy on maternal and fetal outcomes. Twenty-six studies involving 468,858 women reported the adverse effect of the interventions. Meta-analysis of 30 RCTs (4503 women) showed a reduction in weight gain in the intervention group of 0.97 kg compared with the control group (95% CI –1.60 kg to –0.34 kg; p = 0.003). Weight management interventions overall in pregnancy resulted in a significant reduction in the incidence of pre-eclampsia (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.92; p = 0.008) and shoulder dystocia (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.70; p = 0.02). Dietary interventions in pregnancy resulted in a significant decrease in the risk of pre-eclampsia (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.85; p = 0.0009), gestational hypertension (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.88; p = 0.03) and preterm birth (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.96; p = 0.03) and showed a trend in reducing the incidence of gestational diabetes (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.03). There were no differences in the incidence of small-for-gestational-age infants between the groups (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.29). There were no significant maternal or fetal adverse effects observed for the interventions in the included trials. The overall strength of evidence for weight gain in pregnancy and birthweight was moderate for all interventions considered together. There was high-quality evidence for small-for-gestational-age infants as an outcome. The quality of evidence for all interventions on pregnancy outcomes was very low to moderate. The quality of evidence for all adverse outcomes was very low. Limitations The included studies varied in the reporting of population, intensity, type and frequency of intervention and patient complience, limiting the interpretation of the findings. There was significant heterogeneity for the beneficial effect of diet on gestational weight gain. Conclusions Interventions in pregnancy to manage weight result in a significant reduction in weight gain in pregnancy (evidence quality was moderate). Dietary interventions are the most effective type of intervention in pregnancy in reducing gestational weight gain and the risks of pre-eclampsia, gestational hypertension and shoulder dystocia. There is no evidence of harm as a result of the dietary and physical activity-based interventions in pregnancy. Individual patient data meta-analysis is needed to provide robust evidence on the differential effect of intervention in various groups based on BMI, age, parity, socioeconomic status and medical conditions in pregnancy. Funding The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme. (HTA no. 09/27/06).

ESC Guidelines for the Management of Acute Myocardial Infarction in Patients Presenting With ST-Segment Elevation

Abstract: ACE : angiotensin-converting enzyme ACS : acute coronary syndrome ADP : adenosine diphosphate AF : atrial fibrillation AMI : acute myocardial infarction AV : atrioventricular AIDA-4 : Abciximab Intracoronary vs. intravenously Drug Application APACHE II : Acute Physiology Aand Chronic