Primary outcomes from Partner2Lose: A randomized controlled trial to evaluate partner involvement on long-term weight loss

Background

Partner support is associated with better weight loss outcomes in observational studies, but randomized trials show mixed results for including partners. Unclear is whether teaching communication skills to couples will improve weight loss in index participants.

Purpose

To compare the efficacy of a partner-assisted intervention versus participant-only weight management program on long-term weight loss.

Methods

This community-based study took place in Madison, WI. Index participants were eligible if they met obesity guideline criteria to receive weight loss counseling, were aged 74 years or younger, lived with a partner, and had no medical contraindications to weight loss; partners were aged 74 years or younger and not underweight. Couples were randomized 1:1 to a partner-assisted or participant-only intervention. Index participants in both arms received an evidence-based weight management program. In the partner-assisted arm, partners attended half of the intervention sessions, and couples were trained in communication skills. The primary outcome was index participant weight at 24 months, assessed by masked personnel; secondary outcomes were 24-month self-reported caloric intake and average daily steps assessed by an activity tracker. General linear mixed models were used to compare group differences in these outcomes following intent-to-treat principles.

Results

Among couples assigned to partner-assisted (n=115) or participant-only intervention (n=116), most index participants identified as female (67%) and non-Hispanic White (87%). Average baseline age was 47.27 years (SD 11.51 years) and weight was 106.55 kg (SD 19.41 kg). The estimated mean 24-month weight loss was similar in the partner-assisted (2.66 kg) and participant-only arms (2.89 kg) (estimated mean difference, 0.23 kg [95% CI, -1.58, 2.04 kg]). There were no differences in 24-month average daily caloric intake (50 cal [95% CI: -233, 132 cal]) or steps (806 steps [95% CI: -1675, 64 steps]). The percentage of participants reporting an adverse event with at least possible attribution to the intervention did not differ by arm (partner-assisted: 9%, participant-only, 3%, p=0.11).

Conclusions

Partner-assisted and individual weight management interventions led to similar outcomes in index participants.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03801174.

POS1564-PARE EDUCATION TOPICS AND SMARTPHONE APP FUNCTIONS PRIORITIZED BY PEOPLE WITH RHEUMATIC AND MUSCULOSKELETAL DISEASES

Background

Generating information that people living with a rheumatic and musculoskeletal disease (RMD) find useful while making decisions about their treatment requires identifying and understanding educational needs and interests directly expressed from people living with RMD.

Objectives

To identify what types of information US adults with RMD perceive as important to know about their disease and how they express and prioritize such information.

Methods

Using nominal group technique, focus groups of participants (pts) with RMD generated sets of rank-order educational items which were then aggregated across groups into themes. Based on nominal group results, a survey with the final 28 items was administered online, along with a question about desired functions of a smartphone app for RMD, to members of the ArthritisPower registry in January 2022.

Results

Six nominal groups (n=47) yielded 28 unique items for the online survey of educational priorities. To date, a total of 570 pts completed the survey, of whom 85.4% were female, 89.5% white, mean age of 59.6 (SD 11.2) years. Rheumatoid arthritis (52.5%), osteoarthritis (16.0%), psoriatic arthritis (12.5%), and axial spondyloarthritis (7.5%) were the most common RMDs. Knowing how to tell when a medication is not working, how RMD affects other medical conditions, understanding the results of tests used to monitor their RMD, available treatment options and possible side effects, and how life will change as an RMD progresses were each items that > 75% of pts considered extremely important (Table 1). Top functions pts listed as useful for a smartphone app included being able to participate in research, view lab results, record symptoms or flares, share how they are doing with their provider, and get educational information about their disease (Table 2).

Table 1.

Top Education Topics Adults with Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Disease Consider Extremely Important (N=570).

Itemn (%)Knowing when the medication is not working505 (88.6)Knowing how a rheumatologic condition can affect your other health conditions or medical issues481 (84.4)Understanding the results of tests used to monitor your condition471 (82.6)Knowing the side effects of available drugs, and how the drugs interact with each other461 (80.9)Finding the right rheumatologist453 (79.5)Having realistic expectations of the effectiveness of the medications445 (78.1)Knowing how the disease will progress, even if the news is bad439 (77.0)Knowing the available medications and treatments for your rheumatologic condition437 (76.7)Knowing how long it takes drugs to work436 (76.5)Understanding how your life will change as your disease progresses434 (76.1)Table 2.

Desired Smartphone App Functions Rated By Adults with Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Disease (N=570).

App Functionn (%)Participate in patient-centered research299 (52.5)View my lab results283 (49.7)Record my symptoms (e.g. pain, fatigue) or disease flares to track my health over time278 (48.8)Record my symptoms and share how I am doing with my rheumatology provider to know if I am meeting my treatment goals230 (40.4)Get educational information about my disease225 (39.5)Keep track of the medications prescribed by doctor200 (35.1)Schedule and keep track of my medical appointments, rheumatology and other199 (34.9)Track the vaccines I get (i.e. vaccination record)188 (33.0)Help me improve some of my health habits (e.g. sleep, diet, exercise)187 (32.8)Keep track of my use of over-the-counter, complementary or alternative therapies (herbs, tinctures, acupuncture, massage, stretching, etc.)174 (30.5)Get support for my disease from trained patients with my same health condition (i.e. ‘peer coaching’)144 (25.3)

Conclusion

People with RMD prioritized information about medications and prognosis in educational materials, providing guidance for the development of educational tools. A sizeable minority felt educational materials were an important component of a smartphone app, but also identified other important features such as participation in research.

Disclosure of Interests

W. Benjamin Nowell Grant/research support from: Research support from AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly and Scipher, Kelly Gavigan: None declared, Kimberly Garza: None declared, Alexis Ogdie: None declared, Michael George: None declared, Jessica A. Walsh Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Merck, and Pfizer, Maria Danila: None declared, Shilpa Venkatachalam: None declared, Laura Stradford: None declared, Jeffrey Curtis Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Corrona, Eli Lilly and Company, Gilead, Janssen, Myriad, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, and UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Corrona, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen, Myriad, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, and UCB

Methodological similarities and variations among EQ-5D-5L value set studies: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

(1) To descriptively compare the selected elements of valuation methods for EQ-5D-5L value set studies, (2) to compare the characteristics of the value sets, and (3) to examine the associations between the selected elements of valuation methods and the EQ-5D-5L value sets.

METHODS

A systematic literature search of EQ-5D-5L valuation studies from 1 January 2009 to 22 April 2021 was conducted in selected databases. Following the initial search, we also explored additional studies published during the completion of the final version of the manuscript. Similarities and variations for selected elements of valuation methods were descriptively compared. The relative importance of dimensions, utility decrements between the levels, and distribution of the utility scores were used to compare value sets. A meta-regression analysis examined the associations between the selected methodological elements and the utility scores and dimension levels of EQ-5D-5L.

RESULTS

A total of 31 studies were included in this review. Methodological similarities centered around data collection and preference elicitation method. On the other hand, variations include sampling technique, sample size, and value set modeling. The variations in value sets based on the relative importance of dimension, decrement in utility score, and distribution of utility score across countries were observed. Although the distribution of the utility scores differed across countries, higher levels of each dimension tended to have a larger decrement in the utility scores. Mean utility scores for the experience-based value sets were higher than those estimated using stated choice methods. The selected methodological elements were not significantly associated with the mean predicted utility scores or most dimension-level coefficients.

CONCLUSIONS

EQ-5D-5L health state valuation methods and characteristics of value sets differed across studies. The impact of the variation of methodological elements on the value sets should be further investigated.