Key result
Offering the Healthy Heart lifestyle programme to high-cardiovascular-risk patients did not significantly improve weight (β -0.5; 95% CI -1.08 to 0.05) or other cardiovascular risk factors.
Why the study?
The study evaluated the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of offering the combined lifestyle programme Healthy Heart to improve lifestyle behaviour and reduce cardiovascular risk.
Does offering a combined lifestyle intervention improve lifestyle behaviour and reduce cardiovascular risk in high-cardiovascular-risk patients in primary care?
Does offering a combined lifestyle intervention improve lifestyle behaviour and reduce cardiovascular risk in high-cardiovascular-risk patients in primary care?
Mean Difference: -0.5 (95% CI -1.08–0.05)
Offering a combined lifestyle intervention program in primary care to high-risk patients did not significantly improve lifestyle behaviors or cardiovascular risk factors and was not cost-effective.
No benefit on lifestyle, risk factors or QALYs; leaves open whether refined programmes warrant testing in primary care.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of offering the combined lifestyle programme "Healthy Heart", addressing overweight, diet, physical activity, smoking and alcohol, to improve lifestyle behaviour and reduce cardiovascular risk. DESIGN: A practice-based non-randomised stepped-wedge cluster trial with two-year follow-up. Outcomes were obtained via questionnaires and routine care data. A cost-utility analysis was performed. During the intervention period, "Healthy Heart" was offered during regular cardiovascular risk management consultations in primary care in The Hague, The Netherlands. The period prior to the intervention period served as the control period. RESULTS: In total, 511 participants (control) and 276 (intervention) with a high cardiovascular risk were included (overall mean ± SD age 65.0 ± 9.6; women: 56%). During the intervention period, 40 persons (15%) participated in the Healthy Heart programme. Adjusted outcomes did not differ between the control and intervention period after 3-6 months and 12-24 months. Intervention versus control (95% CI) 3-6 months: weight: β -0.5 (-1.08-0.05); SBP β 0.15 (-2.70-2.99); LDL-cholesterol β 0.07 (-0.22-0.35); HDL-cholesterol β -0.03 (-0.10-0.05); physical activity β 38 (-97-171); diet β 0.95 (-0.93-2.83); alcohol OR 0.81 (0.44-1.49); quit smoking OR 2.54 (0.45-14.24). Results were similar for 12-24 months. Mean QALYs and mean costs of cardiovascular care were comparable over the full study period (mean difference (95% CI) QALYs: -0.10 (-0.20; 0.002); costs: EUR 106 (-80; 293)). CONCLUSIONS: For both the shorter (3-6 months) and longer term (12-24 months), offering the Healthy Heart programme to high-cardiovascular-risk patients did not improve their lifestyle behaviour nor cardiovascular risk and was not cost-effective on a population level.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nieuwenhuijse et al. (2023) studied High cardiovascular risk (n=787). Healthy Heart combined lifestyle programme vs. Control period (regular cardiovascular risk management) was evaluated on Weight at 3-6 months (β -0.5, 95% CI -1.08-0.05). Offering the Healthy Heart lifestyle programme to high-cardiovascular-risk patients did not significantly improve weight (β -0.5; 95% CI -1.08 to 0.05) or other cardiovascular risk factors.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: