Search

Background: Long-term weight loss in people living with obesity can reduce the risk and progression of noncommunicable diseases. Observational studies suggest that digital coaching can lead to long-term weight loss. Objective: We investigated whether an eHealth lifestyle coaching program for people living with obesity with or without type 2 diabetes led to significant, long-term (12-month) weight loss compared to usual care. Methods: In a randomized controlled trial that took place in 50 municipalities in Denmark, 340 people living with obesity with or without type 2 diabetes were enrolled from April 16, 2018, to April 1, 2019, and randomized via an automated computer algorithm to an intervention (n=200) or a control (n=140) group. Patients were recruited via their general practitioners, the Danish diabetes organization, and social media. The digital coaching intervention consisted of an initial 1-hour face-to-face motivational interview followed by digital coaching using behavioral change techniques enabled by individual live monitoring. The primary outcome was change in body weight from baseline to 12 months. Results: Data were assessed for 200 participants, including 127 from the intervention group and 73 from the control group, who completed 12 months of follow-up. After 12 months, mean body weight and BMI were significantly reduced in both groups but significantly more so in the intervention group than the control group (–4.5 kg, 95% CI –5.6 to –3.4 vs –1.5 kg, 95% CI –2.7 to –0.2, respectively; P<.001; and –1.5 kg/m2, 95% CI –1.9 to –1.2 vs –0.5 kg/m2, 95% CI –0.9 to –0.1, respectively; P<.001). Hemoglobin A1c was significantly reduced in both the intervention (–6.0 mmol/mol, 95% CI –7.7 to –4.3) and control (–4.9 mmol/mol, 95% CI –7.4 to –2.4) groups, without a significant group difference (all P>.46). Conclusions: Compared to usual care, digital lifestyle coaching can induce significant weight, Background: Long-term weight loss in people living with obesity can reduce the risk and progression of noncommunicable diseases. Observational studies suggest that digital coaching can lead to long-term weight loss. Objective: We investigated whether an eHealth lifestyle coaching program for people living with obesity with or without type 2 diabetes led to significant, long-term (12-month) weight loss compared to usual care. Methods: In a randomized controlled trial that took place in 50 municipalities in Denmark, 340 people living with obesity with or without type 2 diabetes were enrolled from April 16, 2018, to April 1, 2019, and randomized via an automated computer algorithm to an intervention (n=200) or a control (n=140) group. Patients were recruited via their general practitioners, the Danish diabetes organization, and social media. The digital coaching intervention consisted of an initial 1-hour face-to-face motivational interview followed by digital coaching using behavioral change techniques enabled by individual live monitoring. The primary outcome was change in body weight from baseline to 12 months. Results: Data were assessed for 200 participants, including 127 from the intervention group and 73 from the control group, who completed 12 months of follow-up. After 12 months, mean body weight and BMI were significantly reduced in both groups but significantly more so in the intervention group than the control group (-4.5 kg, 95% CI -5.6 to -3.4 vs -1.5 kg, 95% CI -2.7 to -0.2, respectively; P<.001; and -1.5 kg/m2, 95% CI -1.9 to -1.2 vs -0.5 kg/m2, 95% CI -0.9 to -0.1, respectively; P<.001). Hemoglobin A1c was significantly reduced in both the intervention (-6.0 mmol/mol, 95% CI -7.7 to -4.3) and control (-4.9 mmol/mol, 95% CI -7.4 to -2.4) groups, without a significant group difference (all P>.46). Conclusions: Compared to usual care, digital lifestyle coaching can induce significant weight loss for people living with obesity, both with and wi

Background: Digital health interventions are increasingly used to handle and promote positive health behaviors. Clinical measures are often used, and a certain precision is essential for digital health interventions to have an effect. Only few studies have compared clinically measured weights with self-reported weights. No study has examined the validity of self-reported weight from a mobile app used in a tailored weight loss intervention. Objective: The aim of this study was to analyze the agreement between clinically measured weight and self-reported weight collected from a mobile health lifestyle coaching program during a 12-month weight loss intervention for obese patients with and without type 2 diabetes. The secondary aim was to investigate the determinants for possible discrepancies between clinically measured and self-reported weights of these patients with different demographic and lifestyle characteristics and achievements of weight loss goals. Methods: Weight registrations were collected from participants (N=104) in a Danish randomized controlled trial examining the effect of a digital lifestyle intervention on weight loss among obese patients with and without type 2 diabetes. Data were collected at baseline and after 6 and 12 months. Self-reported weight was measured at home and registered in the app. Results: Self-reported body weight was lower than the weight measured in the clinic after 6 months by 1.03 kg (95% CI 1.01-1.05; P<.001) and after 12 months also by 1.03 kg (95% CI 0.99-1.04; P<.001). After 6 months, baseline weight and BMI were associated with a discrepancy of 0.03 kg (95% CI 0.01-0.04; P=.01) and 0.09 kg (95% CI 0.02-0.17; P=.02) per increment of 1 kg and 1 kg/m2, respectively, between clinically measured weight and self-reported weight. Weight change during the first 6 months was also associated with a difference of 0.1 kg (95% CI 0.04-0.01; P<.001) per kilogram of difference in weight, Background: Digital health interventions are increasingly used to handle and promote positive health behaviors. Clinical measures are often used, and a certain precision is essential for digital health interventions to have an effect. Only few studies have compared clinically measured weights with self-reported weights. No study has examined the validity of self-reported weight from a mobile app used in a tailored weight loss intervention. Objective: The aim of this study was to analyze the agreement between clinically measured weight and self-reported weight collected from a mobile health lifestyle coaching program during a 12-month weight loss intervention for obese patients with and without type 2 diabetes. The secondary aim was to investigate the determinants for possible discrepancies between clinically measured and self-reported weights of these patients with different demographic and lifestyle characteristics and achievements of weight loss goals. Methods: Weight registrations were collected from participants (N=104) in a Danish randomized controlled trial examining the effect of a digital lifestyle intervention on weight loss among obese patients with and without type 2 diabetes. Data were collected at baseline and after 6 and 12 months. Self-reported weight was measured at home and registered in the app. Results: Self-reported body weight was lower than the weight measured in the clinic after 6 months by 1.03 kg (95% CI 1.01-1.05; P<.001) and after 12 months also by 1.03 kg (95% CI 0.99-1.04; P<.001). After 6 months, baseline weight and BMI were associated with a discrepancy of 0.03 kg (95% CI 0.01-0.04; P=.01) and 0.09 kg (95% CI 0.02-0.17; P=.02) per increment of 1 kg and 1 kg/m2, respectively, between clinically measured weight and self-reported weight. Weight change during the first 6 months was also associated with a difference of 0.1 kg (95% CI 0.04-0.01; P<.001) per kilogram of difference in weight between clinically measured w

Aims To determine whether a strategy of intensive blood pressure control reduces the risk of heart failure (HF) events consistently across the spectrum of kidney function and albuminuria. Methods and results SPRINT was a randomized clinical trial in which 9361 individuals >= 50 years, at high risk for or with cardiovascular disease, a systolic blood pressure of 130-180 mmHg, but without diabetes, were randomized to intensive (target 300 mg/g. During a median follow-up of 3.2 years (range 0-4.8 years), 160 (1.8%) participants had HF events and 233 (2.6%) had HF events or cardiovascular death. Risks of HF events or cardiovascular death increased from 0.42 (0.34-0.53) per 100 patient-years in patients with eGFR >= 60 mL/min/1.73 m(2)and UACR 0.05). Conclusion In SPRINT, eGFR and albuminuria were strong and additive determinants in forecasting HF risk. The effect of intensive blood pressure control in decreasing HF risk did not significantly vary across the spectrum of kidney function or albuminuria. Multidisciplinary pathways, incorporating blood pressure control, are needed for at-risk patients with chronic kidney disease to attenuate HF risk. Trial Registration: Identifier NCT01206062.

Aims The 2018 ESC/ESH guidelines for hypertension recommend differential management of patients who are = 80 years of age. However, it is unclear whether intensive blood pressure towering is well-tolerated and modifies risk uniformly across the age spectrum.Methods and results SPRINT randomized 9361 high-risk adults without diabetes and age >= 50 years with systolic blood pressure 130-180 mmHg to either intensive or standard antihypertensive treatment. The primary efficacy endpoint was the composite of acute coronary syndromes, stroke, heart failure, or death from cardiovascular causes. The primary safety endpoint was composite serious adverse events. We assessed whether age modified the efficacy and safety of intensive vs. standard blood pressure lowering using Cox proportional-hazards regression and restricted cubic splines. In all, 3805 (41%), 4390 (47%), and 1166 (12%) were = 80 years. Mean age was similar between the two study groups (intensive group 67.9 +/- 9.4years vs. standard group 67.9 +/- 9.5 years; P=0.94). Median follow-up was 3.3 years. In multivariable models, age was linearly associated with the risk of stroke (P<0.001) and non-linearly associated with the risk of primary efficacy events, death from cardiovascular causes, death from any cause, heart failure, and serious adverse events (P 0.05).Conclusion In SPRINT, the benefits and risks of intensive blood pressure lowering did not differ according to the age categories proposed by the ESC/ESH guidelines for hypertension.