Rebecca M Henderson1, Laura Lovato2, Michael E Miller2, Roger A Fielding3, Tim S Church4, Anne B Newman5, Thomas W Buford6, Marco Pahor6, Mary M McDermott7, Randall S Stafford8, David S H Lee9, Stephen B Kritchevsky10. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, Section on Gerontology and Geriatric Medicine, Sticht Center on Aging, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina. rmyer@wakehealth.edu. 2. Department of Biostatistical Sciences, Wake Forest University Health Sciences, Winston-Salem, North Carolina. 3. Nutrition, Exercise Physiology and Sarcopenia Laboratory, Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Louisiana State University System, Baton Rouge. 5. Department of Epidemiology, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 6. Department of Medicine, Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. 7. Department of Aging and Geriatric Research, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville. 8. Stanford Prevention Research Center, Stanford School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California. 9. College of Pharmacy, Oregon State University and Oregon Health and Science University, Portland. 10. Department of Internal Medicine, Section on Gerontology and Geriatric Medicine, Sticht Center on Aging, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) are among the most commonly prescribed classes of medications. Although their cardiovascular benefits and myalgia risks are well documented, their effects on older adults initiating an exercise training program are less understood. METHODS:1,635 sedentary men and women aged 70-89 years with Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) score of 9 or below and were able to walk 400 m were randomized to a structured, moderate-intensity physical activity (PA) program consisting of both center-based (twice/wk) and home-based (3-4 times/wk) aerobic, resistance, and flexibility training or to a health education (HE) program combined with upper extremity stretching. RESULTS: Overall, the PA intervention was associated with lower risk of major mobility disability (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.69-0.98). The effect was similar (p value for interaction = .62) in both statin users (PA n = 415, HE n = 412; HR = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.67-1.1) and nonusers (PA n = 402, HE n = 404; HR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.61-1.01). Attendance was similar for statin users (65%) and nonusers (63%). SPPB at 12 months was slightly greater for PA (8.35±0.10) than for HE (7.94±0.10) in statin users but not in nonusers (PA 8.25±0.10, HE 8.16±0.10), though the interaction effect was not statistically significant. Self-reported PA levels were not different between statin users and nonusers. CONCLUSIONS: Although statins have been associated with adverse effects on muscle, data from the LIFE Study show that statin users and nonusers both benefit from PA interventions. Older adults who require statin medications to manage chronic medical conditions and are sedentary will be able to benefit from interventions to increase PA.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) are among the most commonly prescribed classes of medications. Although their cardiovascular benefits and myalgia risks are well documented, their effects on older adults initiating an exercise training program are less understood. METHODS: 1,635 sedentary men and women aged 70-89 years with Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) score of 9 or below and were able to walk 400 m were randomized to a structured, moderate-intensity physical activity (PA) program consisting of both center-based (twice/wk) and home-based (3-4 times/wk) aerobic, resistance, and flexibility training or to a health education (HE) program combined with upper extremity stretching. RESULTS: Overall, the PA intervention was associated with lower risk of major mobility disability (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.69-0.98). The effect was similar (p value for interaction = .62) in both statin users (PA n = 415, HE n = 412; HR = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.67-1.1) and nonusers (PA n = 402, HE n = 404; HR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.61-1.01). Attendance was similar for statin users (65%) and nonusers (63%). SPPB at 12 months was slightly greater for PA (8.35±0.10) than for HE (7.94±0.10) in statin users but not in nonusers (PA 8.25±0.10, HE 8.16±0.10), though the interaction effect was not statistically significant. Self-reported PA levels were not different between statin users and nonusers. CONCLUSIONS: Although statins have been associated with adverse effects on muscle, data from the LIFE Study show that statin users and nonusers both benefit from PA interventions. Older adults who require statin medications to manage chronic medical conditions and are sedentary will be able to benefit from interventions to increase PA.
Authors: Beth A Parker; Amanda L Augeri; Jeffrey A Capizzi; Kevin D Ballard; Christopher Troyanos; Aaron L Baggish; Pierre A D'Hemecourt; Paul D Thompson Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2011-10-28 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: G Panayiotou; V Paschalis; M G Nikolaidis; A A Theodorou; C K Deli; N Fotopoulou; I G Fatouros; Y Koutedakis; M Sampanis; A Z Jamurtas Journal: Scand J Med Sci Sports Date: 2012-01-31 Impact factor: 4.221
Authors: Mary McGrae McDermott; Jack M Guralnik; Philip Greenland; William H Pearce; Michael H Criqui; Kiang Liu; Lloyd Taylor; Cheeling Chan; Leena Sharma; Joseph R Schneider; Paul M Ridker; David Green; Maureen Quann Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-02-11 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Anthony P Marsh; Laura C Lovato; Nancy W Glynn; Kimberly Kennedy; Cynthia Castro; Kathryn Domanchuk; Erica McDavitt; Ruben Rodate; Michael Marsiske; Joanne McGloin; Erik J Groessl; Marco Pahor; Jack M Guralnik Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2013-05-28 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Jay Giri; Mary M McDermott; Philip Greenland; Jack M Guralnik; Michael H Criqui; Kiang Liu; Luigi Ferrucci; David Green; Joseph R Schneider; Lu Tian Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2006-02-09 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Shelly L Gray; Aaron K Aragaki; Michael J LaMonte; Barbara B Cochrane; Charles Kooperberg; Jennifer G Robinson; Nancy F Woods; Andrea Z LaCroix Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2012-11-23 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Roger A Fielding; W Jack Rejeski; Steven Blair; Tim Church; Mark A Espeland; Thomas M Gill; Jack M Guralnik; Fang-Chi Hsu; Jeffrey Katula; Abby C King; Stephen B Kritchevsky; Mary M McDermott; Michael E Miller; Susan Nayfield; Anne B Newman; Jeff D Williamson; Denise Bonds; Sergei Romashkan; Evan Hadley; Marco Pahor Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2011-08-08 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Kari Luotola; Satu Jyväkorpi; Annele Urtamo; Kaisu H Pitkälä; Mika Kivimäki; Timo E Strandberg Journal: Age Ageing Date: 2020-02-27 Impact factor: 10.668