Marco Pahor

IMPORTANCE: In older adults reduced mobility is common and is an independent risk factor for morbidity, hospitalization, disability, and mortality. Limited evidence suggests that physical activity may help prevent mobility disability; however, there are no definitive clinical trials examining whether physical activity prevents or delays mobility disability. OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that a long-term structured physical activity program is more effective than a health education program (also referred to as a successful aging program) in reducing the risk of major mobility disability. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The Lifestyle Interventions and Independence for Elders (LIFE) study was a multicenter, randomized trial that enrolled participants between February 2010 and December 2011, who participated for an average of 2.6 years. Follow-up ended in December 2013. Outcome assessors were blinded to the intervention assignment. Participants were recruited from urban, suburban, and rural communities at 8 centers throughout the United States. We randomized a volunteer sample of 1635 sedentary men and women aged 70 to 89 years who had physical limitations, defined as a score on the Short Physical Performance Battery of 9 or below, but were able to walk 400 m. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomized to a structured, moderate-intensity physical activity program (n = 818) conducted in a center (twice/wk) and at home (3-4 times/wk) that included aerobic, resistance, and flexibility training activities or to a health education program (n = 817) consisting of workshops on topics relevant to older adults and upper extremity stretching exercises. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was major mobility disability objectively defined by loss of ability to walk 400 m. RESULTS: Incident major mobility disability occurred in 30.1% (246 participants) of the physical activity group and 35.5% (290 participants) of the health education group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.82 [95% CI, 0.69-0.98], P = .03).Persistent mobility disability was experienced by 120 participants (14.7%) in the physical activity group and 162 participants (19.8%) in the health education group (HR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.57-0.91]; P = .006). Serious adverse events were reported by 404 participants (49.4%) in the physical activity group and 373 participants (45.7%) in the health education group (risk ratio, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.98-1.20]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: A structured, moderate-intensity physical activity program compared with a health education program reduced major mobility disability over 2.6 years among older adults at risk for disability. These findings suggest mobility benefit from such a program in vulnerable older adults. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01072500.

BACKGROUND: Aging results in vascular stiffening and an increase in the velocity of the pressure wave as it travels down the aorta. Increased aortic pulse wave velocity (aPWV) has been associated with mortality in clinical but not general populations. The objective of this investigation was to determine whether aPWV is associated with total and cardiovascular (CV) mortality and CV events in a community-dwelling sample of older adults. METHODS AND RESULTS: aPWV was measured at baseline in 2488 participants from the Health, Aging and Body Composition (Health ABC) study. Vital status, cause of death and coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, and congestive heart failure were determined from medical records. Over 4.6 years, 265 deaths occurred, 111 as a result of cardiovascular causes. There were 341 CHD events, 94 stroke events, and 181 cases of congestive heart failure. Results are presented by quartiles because of a threshold effect between the first and second aPWV quartiles. Higher aPWV was associated with both total mortality (relative risk, 1.5, 1.6, and 1.7 for aPWV quartiles 2, 3, and 4 versus 1; P=0.019) and cardiovascular mortality (relative risk, 2.1, 3.0, and 2.3 for quartiles 2, 3, and 4 versus 1; P=0.004). aPWV quartile was also significantly associated with CHD (P=0.007) and stroke (P=0.001). These associations remained after adjustment for age, gender, race, systolic blood pressure, known CV disease, and other variables related to events. CONCLUSIONS: Among generally healthy, community-dwelling older adults, aPWV, a marker of arterial stiffness, is associated with higher CV mortality, CHD, and stroke.

OBJECTIVES: To define clinically relevant cutpoints for usual gait speed and to investigate their predictive value for health-related events in older persons. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Health, Aging and Body Composition Study. PARTICIPANTS: Three thousand forty-seven well-functioning older persons (mean age 74.2). MEASUREMENTS: Usual gait speed on a 6-m course was assessed at baseline. Participants were randomly divided into two groups to identify (Sample A; n=2,031) and then validate (Sample B; n=1,016) usual gait-speed cutpoints. Rates of persistent lower extremity limitation events (mean follow-up 4.9 years) were calculated according to gait speed in Sample A. A cutpoint (defining high- (< 1 m/s) and low risk (> or = 1 m/s) groups) was identified based on persistent lower extremity limitation events. The predictive value of the identified cutpoints for major health-related events (persistent severe lower extremity limitation, death, and hospitalization) was evaluated in Sample B using Cox regression analyses. RESULTS: A graded response was seen between risk groups and health-related outcomes. Participants in the high-risk group had a higher risk of persistent lower extremity limitation (rate ratio (RR)=2.20, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.76-2.74), persistent severe lower extremity limitation (RR=2.29, 95% CI=1.63-3.20), death (RR=1.64, 95% CI=1.14-2.37), and hospitalization (RR=1.48, 95% CI=1.02-2.13) than those in the low-risk group. CONCLUSION: Usual gait speed of less than 1 m/s identifies persons at high risk of health-related outcomes in well-functioning older people. Provision of a clinically meaningful cutpoint for usual gait speed may facilitate its use in clinical and research settings.

CONTEXT: Establishing relative benefit or harm from specific antihypertensive agents is limited by the complex array of studies that compare treatments. Network meta-analysis combines direct and indirect evidence to better define risk or benefit. OBJECTIVE: To summarize the available clinical trial evidence concerning the safety and efficacy of various antihypertensive therapies used as first-line agents and evaluated in terms of major cardiovascular disease end points and all-cause mortality. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: We used previous meta-analyses, MEDLINE searches, and journal reviews from January 1995 through December 2002. We identified long-term randomized controlled trials that assessed major cardiovascular disease end points as an outcome. Eligible studies included both those with placebo-treated or untreated controls and those with actively treated controls. DATA EXTRACTION: Network meta-analysis was used to combine direct within-trial between-drug comparisons with indirect evidence from the other trials. The indirect comparisons, which preserve the within-trial randomized findings, were constructed from trials that had one treatment in common. DATA SYNTHESIS: Data were combined from 42 clinical trials that included 192 478 patients randomized to 7 major treatment strategies, including placebo. For all outcomes, low-dose diuretics were superior to placebo: coronary heart disease (CHD; RR, 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69-0.92); congestive heart failure (CHF; RR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.42-0.62); stroke (RR, 0.71; 0.63-0.81); cardiovascular disease events (RR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.69-0.83); cardiovascular disease mortality (RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.73-0.92); and total mortality (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.84-0.96). None of the first-line treatment strategies-beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, calcium channel blockers (CCBs), alpha-blockers, and angiotensin receptor blockers-was significantly better than low-dose diuretics for any outcome. Compared with CCBs, low-dose diuretics were associated with reduced risks of cardiovascular disease events (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.89-1.00) and CHF (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.67-0.81). Compared with ACE inhibitors, low-dose diuretics were associated with reduced risks of CHF (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.96), cardiovascular disease events (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.89-1.00), and stroke (RR, 0.86; 0.77-0.97). Compared with beta-blockers, low-dose diuretics were associated with a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease events (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.80-0.98). Compared with alpha-blockers, low-dose diuretics were associated with reduced risks of CHF (RR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.43-0.60) and cardiovascular disease events (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.75-0.93). Blood pressure changes were similar between comparison treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose diuretics are the most effective first-line treatment for preventing the occurrence of cardiovascular disease morbidity and mortality. Clinical practice and treatment guidelines should reflect this evidence, and future trials should use low-dose diuretics as the standard for clinically useful comparisons.