Study design and methods: U.S. study to protect brain health through lifestyle intervention to reduce risk (U.S. POINTER).

INTRODUCTION: The U.S. study to protect brain health through lifestyle intervention to reduce risk (U.S. POINTER) is conducted to confirm and expand the results of the Finnish Geriatric Intervention Study to Prevent Cognitive Impairment and Disability (FINGER) in Americans. METHODS: U.S. POINTER was planned as a 2-year randomized controlled trial of two lifestyle interventions in 2000 older adults at risk for dementia due to well-established factors. The primary outcome is a global cognition composite that permits harmonization with FINGER. RESULTS: U.S. POINTER is centrally coordinated and conducted at five clinical sites (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03688126). Outcomes assessments are completed at baseline and every 6 months. Both interventions focus on exercise, diet, cognitive/social stimulation, and cardiovascular health, but differ in intensity and accountability. The study partners with a worldwide network of similar trials for harmonization of methods and data sharing. DISCUSSION: U.S. POINTER is testing a potentially sustainable intervention to support brain health and Alzheimer's prevention for Americans. Impact is strengthened by the targeted participant diversity and expanded scientific scope through ancillary studies.

Systolic Blood Pressure Control Among Individuals With Type 2 Diabetes: A Comparative Effectiveness Analysis of Three Interventions.

BACKGROUND: The relative effectiveness of 3 approaches to blood pressure control-(i) an intensive lifestyle intervention (ILI) focused on weight loss, (ii) frequent goal-based monitoring of blood pressure with pharmacological management, and (iii) education and support-has not been established among overweight and obese adults with type 2 diabetes who are appropriate for each intervention. METHODS: Participants from the Action for Health in Diabetes (Look AHEAD) and the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) cohorts who met criteria for both clinical trials were identified. The proportions of these individuals with systolic blood pressure (SBP) <140 mm Hg from annual standardized assessments over time were compared with generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: Across 4 years among 480 Look AHEAD and 1,129 ACCORD participants with baseline SBPs between 130 and 159 mm Hg, ILI (OR = 1.46; 95% CI = [1.18-1.81]) and frequent goal-based monitoring with pharmacotherapy (OR = 1.51; 95% CI = [1.16-1.97]) yielded higher rates of blood pressure control compared to education and support. The intensive behavioral-based intervention may have been more effective among individuals with body mass index >30 kg/m2, while frequent goal-based monitoring with medication management may be more effective among individuals with lower body mass index (interaction P = 0.047). CONCLUSIONS: Among overweight and obese adults with type 2 diabetes, both ILI and frequent goal-based monitoring with pharmacological management can be successful strategies for blood pressure control. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY: clinicaltrials.gov identifiers NCT00017953 (Look AHEAD) and NCT00000620 (ACCORD).

Constructing common cohorts from trials with overlapping eligibility criteria: implications for comparing effect sizes between trials.

BACKGROUND: Comparing findings from separate trials is necessary to choose among treatment options, however differences among study cohorts may impede these comparisons. PURPOSE: As a case study, to examine the overlap of study cohorts in two large randomized controlled clinical trials that assess interventions to reduce risk of major cardiovascular disease events in adults with type 2 diabetes in order to explore the feasibility of cross-trial comparisons METHODS: The Action for Health in Diabetes (Look AHEAD) and The Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trials enrolled 5145 and 10,251 adults with type 2 diabetes, respectively. Look AHEAD assesses the efficacy of an intensive lifestyle intervention designed to produce weight loss; ACCORD tests pharmacological therapies for control of glycemia, hyperlipidemia, and hypertension. Incidence of major cardiovascular disease events is the primary outcome for both trials. A sample was constructed to include participants from each trial who appeared to meet eligibility criteria and be appropriate candidates for the other trial's interventions. Demographic characteristics, health status, and outcomes of members and nonmembers of this constructed sample were compared. RESULTS: Nearly 80% of Look AHEAD participants were projected to be ineligible for ACCORD; ineligibility was primarily due to better glycemic control or no early history of cardiovascular disease. Approximately 30% of ACCORD participants were projected to be ineligible for Look AHEAD, often for reasons linked to poorer health. The characteristics of participants projected to be jointly eligible for both trials continued to reflect differences between trials according to factors likely linked to retention, adherence, and study outcomes. LIMITATIONS: Accurate ascertainment of cross-trial eligibility was hampered by differences between protocols. CONCLUSIONS: Despite several similarities, the Look AHEAD and ACCORD cohorts represent distinct populations. Even within the subsets of participants who appear to be eligible and appropriate candidates for trials of both modes of intervention, differences remained. Direct comparisons of results from separate trials of lifestyle and pharmacologic interventions are compromised by marked differences in enrolled cohorts.