Joshua D Brown1,2, Steven M Smith3, Elsa S Strotmeyer4, Stephen B Kritchevsky5, Thomas M Gill6, Steven N Blair7, Roger A Fielding8, Thomas W Buford9, Marco Pahor10, Todd M Manini10. 1. Department of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, University of Florida College of Pharmacy, Gainesville. 2. Center for Drug Evaluation and Safety, University of Florida, Gainesville. 3. Department of Pharmacotherapy and Translational Research, University of Florida College of Pharmacy, Gainesville. 4. Center for Aging and Population Health, Department of Epidemiology, Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 5. Sticht Center for Healthy Aging and Alzheimer's Prevention, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina. 6. Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut. 7. Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia. 8. Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging, Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts. 9. Department of Medicine, University of Alabama-Birmingham. 10. Institute on Aging, Department of Aging and Geriatric Research, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) may protect against aging-related decline. This study directly compared ACEis and ARBs on associations with risk of mobility disability in older adults when combined with a physical activity intervention. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of the Lifestyle Interventions and Independence for Elders (LIFE) trial. Participants aged 70-89 years were randomized to a physical activity or health education intervention. Outcomes included incident and persistent major mobility disability, injurious falls, short physical performance battery, and gait speed. For this analysis, only participants who reported ACEi or ARB use at baseline were included. Baseline differences between ACEi and ARB groups were adjusted for using inverse probability of treatment weights. Weighted Cox proportional hazard models and analysis of covariance models were used to evaluate the independent effects of medications and interaction effects with the intervention on each outcome. RESULTS: Of 1,635 participants in the Lifestyle Interventions and Independence for Elders study, 796 used either an ACEi (496, 62.3%) or ARB (300, 37.7%). Compared with ACEi users, ARB users had 28% lower risk (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.72 [0.60-0.85]) of incident major mobility disability and 35% (HR = 0.65 [0.52-0.82]) lower risk of persistent major mobility disability whereas no interaction between medication use and intervention was observed. Risk of injurious falls and changes in short physical performance battery or gait speed were not different between ARB and ACEi users. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that ARBs may protect from major mobility disability by other mechanisms than improving physical performance.
BACKGROUND: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) may protect against aging-related decline. This study directly compared ACEis and ARBs on associations with risk of mobility disability in older adults when combined with a physical activity intervention. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of the Lifestyle Interventions and Independence for Elders (LIFE) trial. Participants aged 70-89 years were randomized to a physical activity or health education intervention. Outcomes included incident and persistent major mobility disability, injurious falls, short physical performance battery, and gait speed. For this analysis, only participants who reported ACEi or ARB use at baseline were included. Baseline differences between ACEi and ARB groups were adjusted for using inverse probability of treatment weights. Weighted Cox proportional hazard models and analysis of covariance models were used to evaluate the independent effects of medications and interaction effects with the intervention on each outcome. RESULTS: Of 1,635 participants in the Lifestyle Interventions and Independence for Elders study, 796 used either an ACEi (496, 62.3%) or ARB (300, 37.7%). Compared with ACEi users, ARB users had 28% lower risk (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.72 [0.60-0.85]) of incident major mobility disability and 35% (HR = 0.65 [0.52-0.82]) lower risk of persistent major mobility disability whereas no interaction between medication use and intervention was observed. Risk of injurious falls and changes in short physical performance battery or gait speed were not different between ARB and ACEi users. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that ARBs may protect from major mobility disability by other mechanisms than improving physical performance.
Authors: Thomas W Buford; Todd M Manini; Fang-Chi Hsu; Matteo Cesari; Stephen D Anton; Susan Nayfield; Randall S Stafford; Timothy S Church; Marco Pahor; Christy S Carter Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2012-06-21 Impact factor: 5.562
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: Marco Pahor; Jack M Guralnik; Stephen D Anton; Walter T Ambrosius; Steven N Blair; Timothy S Church; Mark A Espeland; Roger A Fielding; Thomas M Gill; Nancy W Glynn; Erik J Groessl; Abby C King; Stephen B Kritchevsky; Todd M Manini; Mary M McDermott; Michael E Miller; Anne B Newman; Jeff D Williamson Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2020-02-27 Impact factor: 5.562