Marco Pahor1, Jack M Guralnik2, Walter T Ambrosius3, Steven Blair4, Denise E Bonds5, Timothy S Church6, Mark A Espeland3, Roger A Fielding7, Thomas M Gill8, Erik J Groessl9, Abby C King10, Stephen B Kritchevsky3, Todd M Manini1, Mary M McDermott11, Michael E Miller3, Anne B Newman12, W Jack Rejeski3, Kaycee M Sink3, Jeff D Williamson3. 1. Department of Aging and Geriatric Research,University of Florida, Gainesville. 2. Department of Aging and Geriatric Research,University of Florida, Gainesville2Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore. 3. Department of Internal Medicine, Wake Forest University and School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina. 4. Department of Exercise Science, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia. 5. Division of Cardiac Sciences, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Bethesda, Maryland. 6. Department of Preventative Medicine, Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Louisiana. 7. Jean Mayer United States Department of Agriculture Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging, Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts. 8. Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut. 9. Veterans Affairs San Diego Healthcare System, San Diego, California10Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of California, San Diego, San Diego. 10. Department of Health Research and Policy and Department of Medicine, Stanford University, School of Medicine, Stanford, California. 11. Department of Medicine and Preventive Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. 12. Department of Epidemiology, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: In older adults reduced mobility is common and is an independent risk factor for morbidity, hospitalization, disability, and mortality. Limited evidence suggests that physical activity may help prevent mobility disability; however, there are no definitive clinical trials examining whether physical activity prevents or delays mobility disability. OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that a long-term structured physical activity program is more effective than a health education program (also referred to as a successful aging program) in reducing the risk of major mobility disability. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The Lifestyle Interventions and Independence for Elders (LIFE) study was a multicenter, randomized trial that enrolled participants between February 2010 and December 2011, who participated for an average of 2.6 years. Follow-up ended in December 2013. Outcome assessors were blinded to the intervention assignment. Participants were recruited from urban, suburban, and rural communities at 8 centers throughout the United States. We randomized a volunteer sample of 1635 sedentary men and women aged 70 to 89 years who had physical limitations, defined as a score on the Short Physical Performance Battery of 9 or below, but were able to walk 400 m. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomized to a structured, moderate-intensity physical activity program (n = 818) conducted in a center (twice/wk) and at home (3-4 times/wk) that included aerobic, resistance, and flexibility training activities or to a health education program (n = 817) consisting of workshops on topics relevant to older adults and upper extremity stretching exercises. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was major mobility disability objectively defined by loss of ability to walk 400 m. RESULTS:Incident major mobility disability occurred in 30.1% (246 participants) of the physical activity group and 35.5% (290 participants) of the health education group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.82 [95% CI, 0.69-0.98], P = .03).Persistent mobility disability was experienced by 120 participants (14.7%) in the physical activity group and 162 participants (19.8%) in the health education group (HR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.57-0.91]; P = .006). Serious adverse events were reported by 404 participants (49.4%) in the physical activity group and 373 participants (45.7%) in the health education group (risk ratio, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.98-1.20]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: A structured, moderate-intensity physical activity program compared with a health education program reduced major mobility disability over 2.6 years among older adults at risk for disability. These findings suggest mobility benefit from such a program in vulnerable older adults. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01072500.
RCT Entities:
IMPORTANCE: In older adults reduced mobility is common and is an independent risk factor for morbidity, hospitalization, disability, and mortality. Limited evidence suggests that physical activity may help prevent mobility disability; however, there are no definitive clinical trials examining whether physical activity prevents or delays mobility disability. OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that a long-term structured physical activity program is more effective than a health education program (also referred to as a successful aging program) in reducing the risk of major mobility disability. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The Lifestyle Interventions and Independence for Elders (LIFE) study was a multicenter, randomized trial that enrolled participants between February 2010 and December 2011, who participated for an average of 2.6 years. Follow-up ended in December 2013. Outcome assessors were blinded to the intervention assignment. Participants were recruited from urban, suburban, and rural communities at 8 centers throughout the United States. We randomized a volunteer sample of 1635 sedentary men and women aged 70 to 89 years who had physical limitations, defined as a score on the Short Physical Performance Battery of 9 or below, but were able to walk 400 m. INTERVENTIONS:Participants were randomized to a structured, moderate-intensity physical activity program (n = 818) conducted in a center (twice/wk) and at home (3-4 times/wk) that included aerobic, resistance, and flexibility training activities or to a health education program (n = 817) consisting of workshops on topics relevant to older adults and upper extremity stretching exercises. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was major mobility disability objectively defined by loss of ability to walk 400 m. RESULTS: Incident major mobility disability occurred in 30.1% (246 participants) of the physical activity group and 35.5% (290 participants) of the health education group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.82 [95% CI, 0.69-0.98], P = .03).Persistent mobility disability was experienced by 120 participants (14.7%) in the physical activity group and 162 participants (19.8%) in the health education group (HR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.57-0.91]; P = .006). Serious adverse events were reported by 404 participants (49.4%) in the physical activity group and 373 participants (45.7%) in the health education group (risk ratio, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.98-1.20]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: A structured, moderate-intensity physical activity program compared with a health education program reduced major mobility disability over 2.6 years among older adults at risk for disability. These findings suggest mobility benefit from such a program in vulnerable older adults. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01072500.
Authors: A L Stewart; C J Verboncoeur; B Y McLellan; D E Gillis; S Rush; K M Mills; A C King; P Ritter; B W Brown; W M Bortz Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2001-08 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Anne Shumway-Cook; Aftab Patla; Anita Stewart; Luigi Ferrucci; Marcia A Ciol; Jack M Guralnik Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Michael J Berry; W Jack Rejeski; Norman E Adair; Walter H Ettinger; Daniel J Zaccaro; Mary Ann Sevick Journal: J Cardiopulm Rehabil Date: 2003 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.081
Authors: Stephen P Messier; Richard F Loeser; Gary D Miller; Timothy M Morgan; W Jack Rejeski; Mary Ann Sevick; Walter H Ettinger; Marco Pahor; Jeff D Williamson Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2004-05
Authors: Yves M Rolland; Matteo Cesari; Michael E Miller; Brenda W Penninx; Hal H Atkinson; Marco Pahor Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: C E Shaaban; H J Aizenstein; D R Jorgensen; R L MacCloud; N A Meckes; K I Erickson; N W Glynn; J Mettenburg; J Guralnik; A B Newman; T S Ibrahim; P J Laurienti; A N Vallejo; C Rosano Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2017-08-03 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Dylan R Kirn; Kieran F Reid; Cynthia Hau; Edward M Phillips; Roger A Fielding Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2015-11-18 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Jason R Falvey; Robert E Burke; Cari R Levy; Allison M Gustavson; Lisa Price; Jeri E Forster; Jennifer E Stevens-Lapsley Journal: Phys Ther Date: 2019-01-01
Authors: Thomas M Gill; Jack M Guralnik; Marco Pahor; Timothy Church; Roger A Fielding; Abby C King; Anthony P Marsh; Anne B Newman; Christine A Pellegrini; Shyh-Huei Chen; Heather G Allore; Michael E Miller Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2016-09-27 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Jennifer S Brach; Subashan Perera; Sandra Gilmore; Jessie M VanSwearingen; Deborah Brodine; David Wert; Neelesh K Nadkarni; Edmund Ricci Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2016-08-10 Impact factor: 2.226