Key result
A peer-group based lifestyle intervention did not significantly improve the Fuster-BEWAT cardiovascular health score compared to self-management (mean difference 0.31; 95% CI -0.12 to 0.75; P=0.154).
Why the study?
Cardiovascular risk factors are increasing globally with a disproportionate burden in low and low-middle income countries, but limited data exist on peer-support lifestyle interventions for CV risk reduction in these settings.
Does a peer-group based lifestyle intervention improve cardiovascular health scores compared to self-management in adults with at least two cardiovascular risk factors?
RCT (n=402)
1:1
No
Does a peer-group based lifestyle intervention improve cardiovascular health scores compared to self-management in adults with at least two cardiovascular risk factors?
A 12-month peer-support lifestyle intervention was feasible but did not significantly improve a composite cardiovascular health score compared to self-management in adults with multiple CV risk factors in a low-middle income country.
BACKGROUND: The incidence of cardiovascular (CV) risk factors is increasing globally, with a disproportionate burden in the low and low-middle income countries (L/LMICs). Peer support, as a low-cost lifestyle intervention, has succeeded in managing chronic illness. For global CV risk reduction, limited data exists in LMICs. AIM: The GHP-CHANGE was designed as a community-based randomized trial to test the effectiveness of peer support strategy for CV risk reduction in the island of Grenada, a LMIC. METHODS: We recruited 402 adults from the Grenada Heart Project (GHP) Cohort Study of 2827 subjects with at least two CV risk factors. Subjects were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to a peer-group based intervention group (n = 206) or a self-management control group (n = 196) for 12 months. The primary outcome was the change from baseline in a composite score related to Blood pressure, Exercise, Weight, Alimentation and Tobacco (FBS, Fuster-BEWAT Score), ranging from 0 to 15 (ideal health = 15). Linear mixed-effects models were used to test for intervention effects. RESULTS: Participants mean age was 51.4 years (SD 14.5) years, two-thirds were female, and baseline mean FBS was 8.9 (SD 2.6) and 8.5 (SD 2.6) in the intervention and control group, respectively (P = .152). At post intervention, the mean FBS was higher in the intervention group compared to the control group [9.1 (SD 2.7) vs 8.5 (SD 2.6), P = .028]. When balancing baseline health profile, the between-group difference (intervention vs. control) in the change of FBS was 0.31 points (95% CI: -0.12 to 0.75; P = .154). CONCLUSIONS: The GHP-CHANGE trial showed that a peer-support lifestyle intervention program was feasible; however, it did not demonstrate a significant improvement in the FBS as compared to the control group. Further studies should assess the effects of low-cost lifestyle interventions in LMICs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Latina et al. (2019) conducted an RCT in Cardiovascular risk factors (n=402). Peer-group based lifestyle intervention vs. Self-management was evaluated on Change from baseline in Fuster-BEWAT Score (FBS) (MD 0.31, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.75, p=0.154). A peer-group based lifestyle intervention did not significantly improve the Fuster-BEWAT cardiovascular health score compared to self-management (mean difference 0.31; 95% CI -0.12 to 0.75; P=0.154).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: