Effect of pedometer-based walking interventions on long-term health outcomes: Prospective 4-year follow-up of two randomised controlled trials using routine primary care data.


Journal

PLoS medicine
ISSN: 1549-1676
Titre abrégé: PLoS Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101231360

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
06 2019
Historique:
received: 12 03 2019
accepted: 21 05 2019
entrez: 26 6 2019
pubmed: 27 6 2019
medline: 4 12 2019
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Data are lacking from physical activity (PA) trials with long-term follow-up of both objectively measured PA levels and robust health outcomes. Two primary care 12-week pedometer-based walking interventions in adults and older adults (PACE-UP and PACE-Lift) found sustained objectively measured PA increases at 3 and 4 years, respectively. We aimed to evaluate trial intervention effects on long-term health outcomes relevant to walking interventions, using routine primary care data. Randomisation was from October 2012 to November 2013 for PACE-UP participants from seven general (family) practices and October 2011 to October 2012 for PACE-Lift participants from three practices. We downloaded primary care data, masked to intervention or control status, for 1,001 PACE-UP participants aged 45-75 years, 36% (361) male, and 296 PACE-Lift participants, aged 60-75 years, 46% (138) male, who gave written informed consent, for 4-year periods following randomisation. The following new events were counted for all participants, including those with preexisting diseases (apart from diabetes, for which existing cases were excluded): nonfatal cardiovascular, total cardiovascular (including fatal), incident diabetes, depression, fractures, and falls. Intervention effects on time to first event post-randomisation were modelled using Cox regression for all outcomes, except for falls, which used negative binomial regression to allow for multiple events, adjusting for age, sex, and study. Absolute risk reductions (ARRs) and numbers needed to treat (NNTs) were estimated. Data were downloaded for 1,297 (98%) of 1,321 trial participants. Event rates were low (<20 per group) for outcomes, apart from fractures and falls. Cox hazard ratios for time to first event post-randomisation for interventions versus controls were nonfatal cardiovascular 0.24 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.07-0.77, p = 0.02), total cardiovascular 0.34 (95% CI 0.12-0.91, p = 0.03), diabetes 0.75 (95% CI 0.42-1.36, p = 0.34), depression 0.98 (95% CI 0.46-2.07, p = 0.96), and fractures 0.56 (95% CI 0.35-0.90, p = 0.02). Negative binomial incident rate ratio for falls was 1.07 (95% CI 0.78-1.46, p = 0.67). ARR and NNT for cardiovascular events were nonfatal 1.7% (95% CI 0.5%-2.1%), NNT = 59 (95% CI 48-194); total 1.6% (95% CI 0.2%-2.2%), NNT = 61 (95% CI 46-472); and for fractures 3.6% (95% CI 0.8%-5.4%), NNT = 28 (95% CI 19-125). Main limitations were that event rates were low and only events recorded in primary care records were counted; however, any underrecording would not have differed by intervention status and so should not have led to bias. Routine primary care data used to assess long-term trial outcomes demonstrated significantly fewer new cardiovascular events and fractures in intervention participants at 4 years. No statistically significant differences between intervention and control groups were demonstrated for other events. Short-term primary care pedometer-based walking interventions can produce long-term health benefits and should be more widely used to help address the public health inactivity challenge. PACE-UP isrctn.com ISRCTN98538934; PACE-Lift isrctn.com ISRCTN42122561.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Data are lacking from physical activity (PA) trials with long-term follow-up of both objectively measured PA levels and robust health outcomes. Two primary care 12-week pedometer-based walking interventions in adults and older adults (PACE-UP and PACE-Lift) found sustained objectively measured PA increases at 3 and 4 years, respectively. We aimed to evaluate trial intervention effects on long-term health outcomes relevant to walking interventions, using routine primary care data.
METHODS AND FINDINGS
Randomisation was from October 2012 to November 2013 for PACE-UP participants from seven general (family) practices and October 2011 to October 2012 for PACE-Lift participants from three practices. We downloaded primary care data, masked to intervention or control status, for 1,001 PACE-UP participants aged 45-75 years, 36% (361) male, and 296 PACE-Lift participants, aged 60-75 years, 46% (138) male, who gave written informed consent, for 4-year periods following randomisation. The following new events were counted for all participants, including those with preexisting diseases (apart from diabetes, for which existing cases were excluded): nonfatal cardiovascular, total cardiovascular (including fatal), incident diabetes, depression, fractures, and falls. Intervention effects on time to first event post-randomisation were modelled using Cox regression for all outcomes, except for falls, which used negative binomial regression to allow for multiple events, adjusting for age, sex, and study. Absolute risk reductions (ARRs) and numbers needed to treat (NNTs) were estimated. Data were downloaded for 1,297 (98%) of 1,321 trial participants. Event rates were low (<20 per group) for outcomes, apart from fractures and falls. Cox hazard ratios for time to first event post-randomisation for interventions versus controls were nonfatal cardiovascular 0.24 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.07-0.77, p = 0.02), total cardiovascular 0.34 (95% CI 0.12-0.91, p = 0.03), diabetes 0.75 (95% CI 0.42-1.36, p = 0.34), depression 0.98 (95% CI 0.46-2.07, p = 0.96), and fractures 0.56 (95% CI 0.35-0.90, p = 0.02). Negative binomial incident rate ratio for falls was 1.07 (95% CI 0.78-1.46, p = 0.67). ARR and NNT for cardiovascular events were nonfatal 1.7% (95% CI 0.5%-2.1%), NNT = 59 (95% CI 48-194); total 1.6% (95% CI 0.2%-2.2%), NNT = 61 (95% CI 46-472); and for fractures 3.6% (95% CI 0.8%-5.4%), NNT = 28 (95% CI 19-125). Main limitations were that event rates were low and only events recorded in primary care records were counted; however, any underrecording would not have differed by intervention status and so should not have led to bias.
CONCLUSIONS
Routine primary care data used to assess long-term trial outcomes demonstrated significantly fewer new cardiovascular events and fractures in intervention participants at 4 years. No statistically significant differences between intervention and control groups were demonstrated for other events. Short-term primary care pedometer-based walking interventions can produce long-term health benefits and should be more widely used to help address the public health inactivity challenge.
TRIAL REGISTRATIONS
PACE-UP isrctn.com ISRCTN98538934; PACE-Lift isrctn.com ISRCTN42122561.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31237875
doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002836
pii: PMEDICINE-D-19-00949
pmc: PMC6592516
doi:

Banques de données

ISRCTN
['ISRCTN98538934', 'ISRCTN42122561']

Types de publication

Journal Article Randomized Controlled Trial Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

e1002836

Subventions

Organisme : Department of Health
ID : 10/32/02
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : PB-PG-0909-20055
Pays : United Kingdom

Commentaires et corrections

Type : CommentIn

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: TH, ESL, FH, IC, SD, CF, CW, SA, PW, MU, JI, and DGC report grants from NIHR Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme, grants from NIHR Research for Patient Benefit Programme (RfPB), and grants from NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research (CLAHRC) South London, during the conduct of the study for themselves or their institution. SK, CV, SI, UE, and JF-R report grants from NIHR HTA Programme, grants from NIHR RfPB, during the conduct of the study for themselves or their institution. There are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Références

BMC Public Health. 2013 Jan 04;13:5
pubmed: 23289648
BMC Med. 2013 Mar 19;11:75
pubmed: 23506544
Lancet. 2012 Jul 21;380(9838):219-29
pubmed: 22818936
Br J Sports Med. 2015 Jun;49(11):705-9
pubmed: 25183627
Ann Behav Med. 2010 May;39(2):128-38
pubmed: 20422333
Am J Prev Med. 2013 Nov;45(5):649-57
pubmed: 24139780
Int J Epidemiol. 2011 Feb;40(1):121-38
pubmed: 20630992
N Engl J Med. 2001 May 3;344(18):1343-50
pubmed: 11333990
JAMA. 2018 Nov 20;320(19):1983-1984
pubmed: 30418469
PLoS One. 2013 Sep 13;8(9):e75379
pubmed: 24058681
Sci Rep. 2018 May 16;8(1):7668
pubmed: 29769554
Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2016 Nov-Dec;67:1-6
pubmed: 27394028
Ann Epidemiol. 2008 Nov;18(11):827-35
pubmed: 18809340
BMJ. 1999 Dec 4;319(7223):1492-5
pubmed: 10582940
PLoS Med. 2017 Jan 3;14(1):e1002210
pubmed: 28045890
Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2016 Jan;16(1):118-25
pubmed: 25613322
J Physiother. 2014 Sep;60(3):151-6
pubmed: 25092418
Sports Med. 2001 Feb;31(2):91-100
pubmed: 11227981
BMJ. 1998 Nov 7;317(7168):1309-12
pubmed: 9804726
Int J Epidemiol. 2017 Feb 1;46(1):149-161
pubmed: 27477031
BMJ. 2011 Nov 04;343:d6462
pubmed: 22058134
J Am Heart Assoc. 2016 Sep 14;5(9):
pubmed: 27628572
BMC Public Health. 2014 Dec 15;14:1272
pubmed: 25511452
BMJ Open. 2018 Oct 17;8(10):e021978
pubmed: 30337309
Prev Med. 2016 Mar;84:48-56
pubmed: 26740346
Trials. 2018 Jan 22;19(1):58
pubmed: 29357921
Br J Gen Pract. 2015 Nov;65(640):e731-8
pubmed: 26500320
Trials. 2013 Dec 05;14:418
pubmed: 24304838
PLoS Med. 2015 Feb 17;12(2):e1001783
pubmed: 25689364
Health Technol Assess. 2018 Jun;22(37):1-274
pubmed: 29961442
JAMA. 2018 Nov 20;320(19):2020-2028
pubmed: 30418471
Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2015 Jan-Feb;60(1):45-51
pubmed: 25456885
JAMA. 2007 Nov 21;298(19):2296-304
pubmed: 18029834
PLoS Med. 2018 Mar 9;15(3):e1002526
pubmed: 29522529
BMC Public Health. 2017 Jun 15;17(1):576
pubmed: 28619115
JAMA Cardiol. 2016 Aug 01;1(5):568-74
pubmed: 27439082
BMJ. 2016 Aug 09;354:i3857
pubmed: 27510511
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Sep 30;(9):CD010393
pubmed: 24085593
PLoS One. 2015 Oct 01;10(10):e0139442
pubmed: 26426421
BMJ. 2008 Dec 11;337:a2509
pubmed: 19074218
Res Q Exerc Sport. 2009 Sep;80(3):648-55
pubmed: 19791652

Auteurs

Tess Harris (T)

Population Health Research Institute, St George's University of London, Tooting, London, United Kingdom.

Elizabeth S Limb (ES)

Population Health Research Institute, St George's University of London, Tooting, London, United Kingdom.

Fay Hosking (F)

Population Health Research Institute, St George's University of London, Tooting, London, United Kingdom.

Iain Carey (I)

Population Health Research Institute, St George's University of London, Tooting, London, United Kingdom.

Steve DeWilde (S)

Population Health Research Institute, St George's University of London, Tooting, London, United Kingdom.

Cheryl Furness (C)

Population Health Research Institute, St George's University of London, Tooting, London, United Kingdom.

Charlotte Wahlich (C)

Population Health Research Institute, St George's University of London, Tooting, London, United Kingdom.

Shaleen Ahmad (S)

Population Health Research Institute, St George's University of London, Tooting, London, United Kingdom.

Sally Kerry (S)

Pragmatic Clinical Trials Unit, Queen Mary's University of London, London, United Kingdom.

Peter Whincup (P)

Population Health Research Institute, St George's University of London, Tooting, London, United Kingdom.

Christina Victor (C)

Gerontology and Health Services Research Unit, Brunel University, London, United Kingdom.

Michael Ussher (M)

Population Health Research Institute, St George's University of London, Tooting, London, United Kingdom.
Institute for Social Marketing and Public Health, University of Stirling, Stirling, Scotland, United Kingdom.

Steve Iliffe (S)

Research Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.

Ulf Ekelund (U)

Department of Sport Medicine, Norwegian School of Sport Sciences, Oslo, Norway.

Julia Fox-Rushby (J)

Department of Population Science, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.

Judith Ibison (J)

Institute of Medical and Biomedical Education, St George's University of London, Tooting, London, United Kingdom.

Derek G Cook (DG)

Population Health Research Institute, St George's University of London, Tooting, London, United Kingdom.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH