Dataset Information

Health, not weight loss, focused programmes versus conventional weight loss programmes for cardiovascular risk factors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Obesity is a cardiovascular disease risk factor. Conventional weight loss (CWL) programmes focus on weight loss, however 'health, not weight loss, focused' (HNWL) programmes concentrate on improved health and well-being, irrespective of weight loss. What are the differences in CVD risk outcomes between these programmes?

Aim

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the effects of HNWL with CWL programmes on cardiovascular disease risk factors.

Methods

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ASSIA, clinical trial registers, commercial websites and reference lists for randomised controlled trials comparing the two programmes (initially searched up to August 2015 and searched updated to 5 April 2019). We used the Mantel-Haneszel fixed-effect model to pool results. Sub-group and sensitivity analyses that accounted for variations in length of follow-up, enhanced programmes and risk of bias dealt with heterogeneity.

Results

Eight randomised controlled trials of 20,242 potential studies were included. Improvements in total cholesterol-HDL ratio (mean difference -?0.21?mmol/L, 95% confidence interval [-?3.91, 3.50]) and weight loss (-?0.28?kg [-?2.00, 1.44]) favoured HNWL compared to CWL programmes in the long term (53-104?week follow-up), whereas improvements in systolic (-?1.14?mmHg, [-?5.84, 3.56]) and diastolic (-?0.15?mmHg, [-?3.64, 3.34]) blood pressure favoured CWL programmes. These differences did not reach statistical significance. Statistically significant improvements in body satisfaction (-?4.30 [-?8.32, -?0.28]) and restrained eating behaviour (-?4.30 [-?6.77, -?1.83]) favoured HNWL over CWL programmes.

Conclusions

We found no long-term significant differences in improved CVD risk factors; however, body satisfaction and restrained eating behaviour improved more with HNWL compared to CWL programmes. Yet firm conclusions cannot be drawn from small studies with high losses to follow-up and data sometimes arising from a single small study.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO CRD42015019505.

SUBMITTER: Khasteganan N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6689181 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Health, not weight loss, focused programmes versus conventional weight loss programmes for cardiovascular risk factors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Khasteganan Nazanin N Lycett Deborah D Furze Gill G Turner Andy P AP

Systematic reviews 20190810 1

<h4>Background</h4>Obesity is a cardiovascular disease risk factor. Conventional weight loss (CWL) programmes focus on weight loss, however 'health, not weight loss, focused' (HNWL) programmes concentrate on improved health and well-being, irrespective of weight loss. What are the differences in CVD risk outcomes between these programmes?<h4>Aim</h4>To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the effects of HNWL with CWL programmes on cardiovascular disease risk factors.<h4>Metho ...[more]

PMID: 31400767

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the long-term efficacy of diet plus exercise (D+E) vs. diet (D), D+E vs. exercise (E) and D vs. E on anthropometric outcomes and cardiovascular risk factors in overweight and obese participants.MethodsElectronic searches were performed in MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of controlled trials. Inclusion criteria were as follows: body mass index≥25 kg/m2 and a minimum intervention period including follow-up of ≥12 months. Outcomes of interest were as follows: anthropometric parameters, blood lipids, blood pressure and cardiorespiratory fitness. Pooled effects were calculated using pairwise random effects and Bayesian random effects network meta-analysis. Results of the corresponding fixed effects models were compared in sensitivity analyses.ResultsOverall, 22 trials (24 reports) met the inclusion criteria and 21 (including 3,521 participants) of them were included in the quantitative analysis. As compared with D, D+E resulted in a significantly more pronounced reduction in body weight [mean differences (MD): -1.38 kg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.98 to -0.79], and fat mass (MD: -1.65 kg, 95% CI -2.81 to -0.49], respectively. When comparing D+E with E, MD in change of body weight (-4.13 kg, 95% CI -5.62 to -2.64), waist circumference (-3.00 cm, 95% CI -5.81 to -0.20), and fat mass (-3.60 kg, 95% CI -6.15 to -1.05) was in favour of combined diet and exercise, respectively. Comparing E vs. D, diet resulted in a significantly more pronounced decrease in body weight (MD: -2.93 kg, 95% CI -4.18 to -1.68), and fat mass (MD: -2.20 kg, 95% CI -3.75 to -0.66). D+E yielded also the greatest reductions with respect to blood lipids and blood pressure when compared to single applications of D and E, respectively. Results from the network meta-analyses confirmed these findings.ConclusionsModerate-quality evidence from the present network meta-analysis suggests that D+E can be highly recommended for long-term obesity management. Furthermore, the evidence suggests a moderate superiority of D over E with respect to anthropometric outcomes.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42013003906.

Project description:BackgroundWith obesity prevalence projected to increase, the demand for bariatric surgery will consequently rise. Enhanced recovery programmes aim for improved recovery, earlier discharge, and more efficient use of resources following surgery. This systematic literature review aimed to evaluate the evidence available on the effects of enhanced recovery programmes after three common bariatric procedures: laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB), laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), and one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB).MethodsMEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library and the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database were searched for studies published in 2012-2019 comparing outcomes with enhanced recovery programmes versus conventional care after bariatric surgery in Europe, the Middle East and Africa. Data were extracted and meta-analyses or descriptive analyses performed when appropriate using R.ResultsOf 1152 screened articles, seven relevant studies including 3592 patients were identified. Six reported outcomes for 1434 patients undergoing LRYGB; however, as only individual studies reported on LSG and OAGB these could not be included in the analyses. The meta-analysis revealed a significantly shorter mean duration of hospital-stay for LRYGB enhanced recovery programmes than conventional care (mean difference [95% CI]: -1.34 days [-2.01, -0.67]; p<0.0001), supported by sensitivity analysis excluding retrospective studies. Meta-analysis found no significant difference in 30-day readmission rate (risk ratio [95% CI]: 1.39 [0.84, 2.28]; p = 0.2010). Complication rates were inconsistently reported by Clavien-Dindo grade, but descriptive analysis showed generally higher low-grade rates for enhanced recovery programmes; the trend reversed for high-grade complications. Reoperation rates were rarely reported; no significant differences were seen.ConclusionThese results support enhanced recovery programmes allowing shorter inpatient stay without significant differences in readmission rate following LRYGB, although complication and reoperation rate comparisons were inconclusive. Further research is needed to fill current data gaps including the lack of studies on LSG and OAGB.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine if the characteristics of behavioural weight loss programmes influence the rate of change in weight after the end of the programme.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesTrial registries, 11 electronic databases, and forward citation searching (from database inception; latest search December 2019). Randomised trials of behavioural weight loss programmes in adults with overweight or obesity, reporting outcomes at ≥12 months, including at the end of the programme and after the end of the programme.Review methodsStudies were screened by two independent reviewers with discrepancies resolved by discussion. 5% of the studies identified in the searches met the inclusion criteria. One reviewer extracted the data and a second reviewer checked the data. Risk of bias was assessed with Cochrane's risk of bias tool (version 1). The rate of change in weight was calculated (kg/month; converted to kg/year for interpretability) after the end of the programme in the intervention versus control groups by a mixed model with a random intercept. Associations between the rate of change in weight and prespecified variables were tested.ResultsData were analysed from 249 trials (n=59 081) with a mean length of follow-up of two years (longest 30 years). 56% of studies (n=140) had an unclear risk of bias, 21% (n=52) a low risk, and 23% (n=57) a high risk of bias. Regain in weight was faster in the intervention versus the no intervention control groups (0.12-0.32 kg/year) but the difference between groups was maintained for at least five years. Each kilogram of weight lost at the end of the programme was associated with faster regain in weight at a rate of 0.13-0.19 kg/year. Financial incentives for weight loss were associated with faster regain in weight at a rate of 1-1.5 kg/year. Compared with programmes with no meal replacements, interventions involving partial meal replacements were associated with faster regain in weight but not after adjustment for weight loss during the programme. Access to the programme outside of the study was associated with slower regain in weight. Programmes where the intensity of the interaction reduced gradually were also associated with slower regain in weight in the multivariable analysis, although the point estimate suggested that the association was small. Other characteristics did not explain the heterogeneity in regain in weight.ConclusionFaster regain in weight after weight loss was associated with greater initial weight loss, but greater initial weight loss was still associated with reduced weight for at least five years after the end of the programme, after which data were limited. Continued availability of the programme to participants outside of the study predicted a slower regain in weight, and provision of financial incentives predicted faster regain in weight; no other clear associations were found.Study registrationPROSPERO CRD42018105744.

Project description:BackgroundBehavioural weight management programmes are effective in assisting people with overweight or obesity to lose excess body weight. Yet, many still struggle to attain their weight loss goals in such programmes. Little is understood about the factors which impact success in these programmes. Synthesising this data will allow for theory to be developed on how to improve success in such programmes. The main aim of this review will be to extract and synthesise the barriers and facilitators of successful weight loss during participation of behavioural weight loss programmes in adults living with overweight and obesity.MethodsA systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, The Cochrane Library and CINAHL will be performed from inception onwards. Studies will also be sought by contacting experts in the field, reference and website searching. Studies will be eligible if the participants are adults living with obesity (population) undertaking or recently completed behavioural weight loss programmes (intervention) with the primary focus of weight loss (outcome). The primary outcomes will be amount of weight lost and information on barriers and/or facilitators to success. The secondary outcomes will be reasons or factors related to attrition and adherence and behaviour change techniques used in programmes. Two reviewers will screen citations and full-text data. Reviewer 1 will screen all, and reviewer 2 will screen a random 50% of articles. Data extraction will be completed by reviewer 1, and 10% will be checked by the research team. Potential conflicts will be resolved through discussion. Data will be synthesised and described narratively to show the characteristics of each study, levels of success and barriers and facilitators during programme participation. A thematic approach will be taken, and themes will be coded against the levels of the socioecological model. Quantitative data will be extracted and categorised according to these themes and presented alongside the qualitative data.DiscussionOur findings can be used to inform how weight loss programmes can be improved to facilitate success in those at risk of failure. Results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: ( PROSPERO CRD42019148158 ).

Project description:ObjectiveA meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was performed to compare the effects of miniaturized extracorporeal circulation (MECC) and conventional extracorporeal circulation (CECC) on morbidity and mortality rates after cardiac surgery.MethodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted using Ovid, PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane databases. Randomized controlled trials from the year 2000 with n > 40 patients were considered. Key search terms included variations of "mini," "cardiopulmonary," "bypass," "extracorporeal," "perfusion," and "circuit." Studies were assessed for bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. The primary outcomes were postoperative mortality and stroke. Secondary outcomes included arrhythmia, myocardial infarction, renal failure, blood loss, and a composite outcome comprised of mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction and renal failure. Duration of intensive care unit, and hospital stay was also recorded.ResultsThe 42 studies eligible for this study included a total of 2154 patients who underwent CECC and 2196 patients who underwent MECC. There were no significant differences in any preoperative or demographic characteristics. Compared with CECC, MECC did not reduce the incidence of mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, and renal failure but did significantly decrease the composite of these outcomes (odds ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50-0.81; P = .0002). MECC was also associated with reductions in arrhythmia (odds ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.54-0.83; P = .0003), blood loss (mean difference [MD], -96.37 mL; 95% CI, -152.70 to -40.05 mL; P = .0008), hospital stay (MD, -0.70 days; 95% CI, -1.21 to -0.20 days; P = .006), and intensive care unit stay (MD, -2.27 hours; 95% CI, -3.03 to -1.50 hours; P < .001).ConclusionsMECC demonstrates clinical benefits compared with CECC. Further studies are required to perform a cost-utility analysis and to assess the long-term outcomes of MECC. These should use standardized definitions of endpoints such as mortality and renal failure to reduce inconsistency in outcome reporting.

Project description:BackgroundSome popular weight loss diets restricting carbohydrates (CHO) claim to be more effective, and have additional health benefits in preventing cardiovascular disease compared to balanced weight loss diets.Methods and findingsWe compared the effects of low CHO and isoenergetic balanced weight loss diets in overweight and obese adults assessed in randomised controlled trials (minimum follow-up of 12 weeks), and summarised the effects on weight, as well as cardiovascular and diabetes risk. Dietary criteria were derived from existing macronutrient recommendations. We searched Medline, EMBASE and CENTRAL (19 March 2014). Analysis was stratified by outcomes at 3-6 months and 1-2 years, and participants with diabetes were analysed separately. We evaluated dietary adherence and used GRADE to assess the quality of evidence. We calculated mean differences (MD) and performed random-effects meta-analysis. Nineteen trials were included (n = 3209); 3 had adequate allocation concealment. In non-diabetic participants, our analysis showed little or no difference in mean weight loss in the two groups at 3-6 months (MD 0.74 kg, 95%CI -1.49 to 0.01 kg; I2 = 53%; n = 1745, 14 trials; moderate quality evidence) and 1-2 years (MD 0.48 kg, 95%CI -1.44 kg to 0.49 kg; I2 = 12%; n = 1025; 7 trials, moderate quality evidence). Furthermore, little or no difference was detected at 3-6 months and 1-2 years for blood pressure, LDL, HDL and total cholesterol, triglycerides and fasting blood glucose (>914 participants). In diabetic participants, findings showed a similar pattern.ConclusionsTrials show weight loss in the short-term irrespective of whether the diet is low CHO or balanced. There is probably little or no difference in weight loss and changes in cardiovascular risk factors up to two years of follow-up when overweight and obese adults, with or without type 2 diabetes, are randomised to low CHO diets and isoenergetic balanced weight loss diets.

Project description:The association between body weight variability and the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) has been investigated previously with mixed findings. However, there has been no extensive study which systematically evaluates the current evidence. Furthermore, the impact of ethnicity and type 2 diabetes on this phenomena has not yet been investigated. Therefore, the aim of this study was to comprehensively evaluate the effect of weight variability on risk of CVD (any cardiovascular (CV) event, composite CV outcome, CV death, Stroke, Myocardial Infarction) and the influence of ethnicity and type 2 diabetes status on the observed association. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed according to the meta-analyses of observational studies in epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines. The electronic databases PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies that investigated the relationship between body weight or BMI variability and CV diseases using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and keywords. The relative risks (RRs) for the outcomes were collected from studies, pooled, and analysed using a random-effects model to estimate the overall relative risk. Of 5645 articles screened, 23 studies with a total population of 15,382,537 fulfilled the prespecified criteria and were included. Individuals in the highest strata of body weight variability were found to have significantly increased risk of any CV event (RR = 1.27; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 1.17-1.38; P < 0.0001; I2 = 97.28%), cardiovascular death (RR = 1.29; 95% CI 1.03-1.60; P < 0.0001; I2 = 55.16%), myocardial infarction (RR = 1.32; 95% CI 1.09-1.59; P = 0.0037; I2 = 97.14%), stroke (RR = 1.21; 95% CI 1.19-1.24; P < 0.0001; I2 = 0.06%), and compound CVD outcomes (RR = 1.36; 95% CI 1.08-1.73; P = 0.01; I2 = 92.41%). Similar RRs were observed regarding BMI variability and per unit standard deviation (SD) increase in body weight variability. Comparable effects were seen in people with and without diabetes, in White Europeans and Asians. In conclusion, body weight variability is associated with increased risk of CV diseases regardless of ethnicity or diabetes status. Future research is needed to prove a causative link between weight variability and CVD risk, as appropriate interventions to maintain stable weight could positively influence CVD.

Dataset Information

Health, not weight loss, focused programmes versus conventional weight loss programmes for cardiovascular risk factors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background

Aim

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Systematic review registration

Publications

Health, not weight loss, focused programmes versus conventional weight loss programmes for cardiovascular risk factors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets