SMART trial: A randomized clinical trial of self-monitoring in behavioral weight management-design and baseline findings.

BACKGROUND: The primary form of treatment for obesity today is behavioral therapy. Self-monitoring diet and physical activity plays an important role in interventions targeting behavior and weight change. The SMART weight loss trial examined the impact of replacing the standard paper record used for self-monitoring with a personal digital assistant (PDA). This paper describes the design, methods, intervention, and baseline sample characteristics of the SMART trial. METHODS: The SMART trial used a 3-group design to determine the effects of different modes of self-monitoring on short- and long-term weight loss and on adherence to self-monitoring in a 24-month intervention. Participants were randomized to one of three conditions (1) use of a standard paper record (PR); (2) use of a PDA with dietary and physical activity software (PDA); or (3), use of a PDA with the same software plus a customized feedback program (PDA + FB). RESULTS: We screened 704 individuals and randomized 210. There were statistically but not clinically significant differences among the three cohorts in age, education, HDL cholesterol, blood glucose and systolic blood pressure. At 24 months, retention rate for the first of three cohorts was 90%. CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, the SMART trial is the first large study to compare different methods of self-monitoring in a behavioral weight loss intervention and to compare the use of PDAs to conventional paper records. This study has the potential to reveal significant details about self-monitoring patterns and whether technology can improve adherence to this vital intervention component

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Adherence to a behavioral weight loss treatment program enhances weight loss and improvements in biomarkers

Sushama D Acharya3, Okan U Elci3, Susan M Sereika1,2,3, Edvin Music3, Mindi A Styn3, Melanie Warziski Turk3, Lora E Burke2,31Department of Biostatistics, Graduate School of Public Health, 2Department of Epidemiology, Graduate School of Public Health, 3School of Nursing, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USAObjectives: To describe participants’ adherence to multiple components (attendance, energy intake, fat gram, exercise goals, and self-monitoring eating and exercise behaviors) of a standard behavioral treatment program (SBT) for weight loss and how adherence to these components may influence weight loss and biomarkers (triglycerides, low density lipoproteins [LDL], high density lipoprotein, and insulin) during the intensive and less-intensive intervention phases. Methods: A secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial consisting of a SBT with either fat-restricted standard or lacto-ovo vegetarian diet. The 12-month intervention was delivered in 33 group sessions. The first six months reflected the intensive phase; the second six months, the less-intensive intervention phase. We conducted the analysis without regard to treatment assignment. Eligible participants included overweight/obese adults (N = 176; mean body mass index = 34.0 kg/m2). The sample was 86.9% female, 70.5% White, and 44.4 ± 8.6 years old. The outcome measures included weight and biomarkers. Results: There was a significant decline in adherence to each treatment component over time (P < 0.0001). In the first six months, adherence to attendance, self-monitoring and the energy goal were significantly associated with greater weight loss (P < 0.05). Adherence to attendance and exercise remained significantly associated with weight loss in the second six months (P < 0.05). Adherence to attendance, self-monitoring and exercise had indirect effects through weight loss on LDL, triglycerides, and insulin (P < 0.05).Conclusions: We observed a decline in adherence to each treatment component as the intervention intensity was reduced. Adherence to multiple treatment components was associated with greater weight loss and improvements in biomarkers. Future research needs to focus on improving and maintaining adherence to all components of the treatment protocol to promote weight loss and maintenance.Keywords: adherence, obesity, diet, exercise, self-monitoring, biomarker

A Descriptive Study of Past Experiences with Weight-Loss Treatment

Background: Overweight and obesity affect more than 60% of the adult population in the United States. Most adults who are overweight have a history of previous weight-loss treatment. Exploring individuals' past experiences with weight-loss treatment may allow improvements to the current approach to treatment. Objective: To examine individuals' prior experiences with weight-loss treatment, their treatment preferences, and what they found to be most and least satisfying. Design: Cross-sectional descriptive study. Subjects/setting: Individuals (N=155) who had registered for a weight-loss study wait list and met standard criteria for a weight-loss program (aged 18 to 55 years and body mass index between 25 and 42). Methods: Questionnaire packets were mailed to participants. Statistical analyses performed: Descriptive analyses of the participants' past history with weight-loss treatment, treatment preference, self-efficacy, therapeutic efficacy, barriers to adherence to weight-loss treatment, barriers to healthy eating, and experiences associated with following a low-fat diet. Results: One hundred ten participants (71%) returned completed questionnaire packets. The sample (82% white, 84% female, aged 42.6±8.5 years, and body mass index 33.5±5.3) was representative of those who seek weight-loss treatment in research settings. Participants were, on average, aged 21.1±8.9 years when they first tried a weight-loss program; 96.3% had tried to lose weight since that first time. The two most frequently tried programs were doing it on their own (93.5%) and commercial programs (70.8%). Barriers included having trouble controlling what I eat when hungry (71.3%), difficulty motivating myself to eat appropriately (66.2%), and using food as a reward (59.3%). Preferred weight-loss regimens were doing it on their own (30.6%) and a research program (22.4%). Conclusions: Participants were not seeking their preferred treatment. These data can be used to improve weight-loss programs by tailoring programs to meet the needs and preferences of participants. © 2008 American Dietetic Association

PREFER study: A randomized clinical trial testing treatment preference and two dietary options in behavioral weight management - Rationale, design and baseline characteristics

Background: Obesity, a disorder associated with a myriad of comorbidities, is increasing at an alarming rate around the world. Given that pharmacotherapy has limited available options and that bariatric surgery is reserved for those who are morbidly obese or who have significant comorbidities, the most common approach to the treatment of obesity is standard behavioral treatment. This approach includes behavior modification related to eating and activity habits. The purpose of this paper is to describe the rationale, design, methods and baseline sample characteristics of a randomized controlled trial of a behavioral intervention in weight loss management, referred to as the PREFER study. Methods: The PREFER study, using a four-group design, includes: (1) a randomization scheme that permits participants to indicate a preferred dietary treatment approach, and (2) two dietary options, one of which is a lacto-ovo-vegetarian diet that has demonstrated potential for long-term adherence. The intervention (32 treatment sessions) is delivered over 12 months and is followed by a 6-month maintenance phase; final assessment occurs at 18 months. Results: We screened 932 individuals and randomized 197 to the study: Treatment Preference-Yes (n = 84) and Treatment Preference-No (n = 98). To maintain a balance across the four treatment groups, 15 subjects who preferred the standard diet had to be discarded from the Treatment Preference-Yes group. Retention at 18 months for the first of three cohorts was 82%. Conclusions: The PREFER study is a single center study and is the first randomized controlled trial examining a lacto-ovo-vegetarian diet as part of weight loss treatment. The ethnically diverse sample includes males and females with a body mass index of 27 to 43. The study has the potential to make a contribution to understanding the role of treatment preference and the potential of a lacto-ovo-vegetarian diet for long-term weight loss. © 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved

Early, Goal-Directed Therapy for Septic Shock - A Patient-Level Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: After a single-center trial and observational studies suggesting that early, goal-directed therapy (EGDT) reduced mortality from septic shock, three multicenter trials (ProCESS, ARISE, and ProMISe) showed no benefit. This meta-analysis of individual patient data from the three recent trials was designed prospectively to improve statistical power and explore heterogeneity of treatment effect of EGDT. METHODS: We harmonized entry criteria, intervention protocols, outcomes, resource-use measures, and data collection across the trials and specified all analyses before unblinding. After completion of the trials, we pooled data, excluding the protocol-based standard-therapy group from the ProCESS trial, and resolved residual differences. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included 1-year survival, organ support, and hospitalization costs. We tested for treatment-by-subgroup interactions for 16 patient characteristics and 6 care-delivery characteristics. RESULTS: We studied 3723 patients at 138 hospitals in seven countries. Mortality at 90 days was similar for EGDT (462 of 1852 patients [24.9%]) and usual care (475 of 1871 patients [25.4%]); the adjusted odds ratio was 0.97 (95% confidence interval, 0.82 to 1.14; P=0.68). EGDT was associated with greater mean (±SD) use of intensive care (5.3±7.1 vs. 4.9±7.0 days, P=0.04) and cardiovascular support (1.9±3.7 vs. 1.6±2.9 days, P=0.01) than was usual care; other outcomes did not differ significantly, although average costs were higher with EGDT. Subgroup analyses showed no benefit from EGDT for patients with worse shock (higher serum lactate level, combined hypotension and hyperlactatemia, or higher predicted risk of death) or for hospitals with a lower propensity to use vasopressors or fluids during usual resuscitation. CONCLUSIONS: In this meta-analysis of individual patient data, EGDT did not result in better outcomes than usual care and was associated with higher hospitalization costs across a broad range of patient and hospital characteristics. (Funded by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences and others; PRISM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02030158 .)

Longitudinal relationship between physical activity and cardiometabolic factors in overweight and obese adults

Few studies have reported longitudinal relationships between physical activity (PA) and cardiometabolic risk factors over time using repeated assessments in overweight or obese adults. We conducted a longitudinal study in 127 participants (81% with body mass index > 30 kg/m2) who completed a 12-month behavioral intervention for weight loss between 2003 and 2005 in Pittsburgh, PA, USA. Using absolute change scores from baseline to each time point (i.e., 6 and 12 months) for all studied variables (Δ = time point - baseline), we performed mixed effects modeling to examine relationships between PA and cardiometabolic risk factors, after adjusting for body weight, energy intake and other covariates (i.e., age, gender, and ethnicity). PA was assessed as energy expenditure (kcal/week) using the Paffenbarger activity questionnaire. Over the 12-month period, energy expenditure increased (Δ1,370 kcal/week at 6 months vs. Δ886 kcal/week at 12 months); body weight decreased (Δ8.9 kg at 6 months vs. Δ8.4 kg at 12 months). The average increase in energy expenditure over 12 months was significantly and independently related to reductions in total cholesterol (F = 6.25, p = 0.013), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) (F = 5.08, p = 0.025) and fasting blood glucose (F = 5.10, p = 0.025), but not to other risk factors (i.e., fasting insulin, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, and waist circumference). In conclusion, among overweight and obese adults undergoing a weight loss intervention, increased energy expenditure over 12 months may improve total cholesterol and LDL-C, important coronary risk factors, and fasting blood glucose, a metabolic risk factor. © 2009 Springer-Verlag