Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 8 de 8
Filter
1.
Gerontol Geriatr Med ; 8: 23337214221096007, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1817146

ABSTRACT

Older adults have higher sedentary behavior (SB), lower physical activity, and are particularly susceptible to negative impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic and associated public health restrictions. Pandemic impacts to SB and health, particularly via objective assessment, are not well documented in the literature. Here we described differences in SB, physical activity, and blood pressure (BP) for older adults before and during the pandemic. Baseline thigh-worn activPAL accelerometer and BP measurements from 95 participants enrolled in a SB intervention trial pre-pandemic were compared to 60 enrolled post-pandemic. We used linear regression models adjusted for demographic and health factors to estimate differences in sample means of SB measures and BP. The post-COVID sample was older (age 67 vs. 70), more female (60% vs. 72%), and included more individuals of color (21% vs. 32%). In fully adjusted models, systolic BP was statistically significantly higher in the post-COVID group (6.8, 95% CI: [0.3,13.3]). After adjustment, activPAL-measured and self-reported activity were non-significant but trended towards greater total sitting (0.4 hours [-0.3, 1.1]), fewer daily steps (-270 [-1078, 538]), and greater self-reported TV time (0.4 hours, [-0.3, 1.1]) post-COVID. Future analyses are warranted to better quantify these impacts and guide clinical care and future interventions.

2.
Innovation in Aging ; 5(Supplement_1):339-339, 2021.
Article in English | PMC | ID: covidwho-1584624

ABSTRACT

Little is known about objective levels of sitting time (ST), patterns of ST, and physical activity (PA) among older adults before compared to during the COVID -19 pandemic. We used data from the Healthy Aging Resources to Thrive Trial to examine differences in activPAL-assessed ST, standing time, breaks from sitting, and steps in study enrollees prior to March 2020 (N = 97, % female = 60.8, % white = 81.4;Mean BMI = 35.2) compared to post-March 2020 (N = 47, % female = 70.2, % white = 72.3;Mean BMI = 36.1). During the pandemic, participants had higher sitting time (Mean = 11.5 vs. 10.7 hours/day), fewer breaks from sitting (Mean = 40 vs. 44 breaks/day), and fewer steps (Mean = 4441 vs. 5931 steps/day) than prior to the pandemic. Interventions may be needed to support older adults with obesity in recovering losses in time spent physically active.

3.
Contemp Clin Trials ; 111: 106593, 2021 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1525717

ABSTRACT

Older adults with obesity spend the majority of their waking hours sedentary. Given substantial barriers to regular physical activity in this population, approaches to reduce sedentary time could be an effective health promotion strategy. We present the protocol of a randomized controlled trial to reduce sitting time in older adults with a body mass index of 30 kg/m2 or above. Participants (N = 284) will be randomized to receive a sitting reduction intervention (termed I-STAND) or a healthy living focused attention control condition. I-STAND includes 10 contacts with a health coach (10 sessions total) and participants receive a wrist-worn prompting device and portable standing desk. The healthy living condition includes 10 sessions with a health coach to set goals around various topics relating to healthy aging. Participants receive their assigned intervention for 6 months. After 6 months, those receiving the I-STAND condition are re-randomized to receive five booster health coaching sessions by 'phone or no further contact; healthy living participants receive no further contact and those in both conditions are followed for an additional 6 months. Measurements initially included wearing an activPAL device and completing several biometric tests (e.g., blood pressure, HbA1c), at baseline, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months; however, during the COVID-19 pandemic we shifted to remote assessments and were unable to collect all of these measures. The primary outcomes remained activPAL-assessed sitting time and blood pressure. Recruitment is anticipated to be completed in 2022.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cardiovascular Diseases , Aged , Humans , Pandemics , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , SARS-CoV-2
4.
MEDLINE; 2020.
Non-conventional in English | MEDLINE | ID: grc-750497

ABSTRACT

There are plausible mechanisms by which angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) may increase the risk of COVID-19 infection or affect disease severity. To examine the association between these medications and COVID-19 infection or hospitalization, we conducted a retrospective cohort study within a US integrated healthcare system. Among people aged ≥18 years enrolled in the health plan for at least 4 months as of 2/29/2020, current ACEI and ARB use was identified from pharmacy data, and the estimated daily dose was calculated and standardized across medications. COVID-19 infections were identified through 6/14/2020 from laboratory and hospitalization data. We used logistic regression to estimate adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals. Among 322,044 individuals, 720 developed COVID-19 infection. Among people using ACEI/ARBs, 183/56,105 developed COVID-19 (3.3 per 1000 individuals) compared with 537/265,939 without ACEI/ARB use (2.0 per 1000), yielding an adjusted OR of 0.94 (95% CI 0.75-1.16). For use of < 1 defined daily dose vs. nonuse, the adjusted OR for infection was 0.89 (95% CI 0.62-1.26);for 1 to < 2 defined daily doses, 0.97 (95% CI 0.71-1.31);and for ≥2 defined daily doses, 0.94 (95% CI 0.72-1.23). The OR was similar for ACEIs and ARBs and in subgroups by age and sex. 29% of people with COVID-19 infection were hospitalized;the adjusted OR for hospitalization in relation to ACEI/ARB use was 0.92 (95% CI 0.54-1.57), and there was no association with dose. These findings support current recommendations that individuals on these medications continue their use.

5.
Front Public Health ; 9: 679976, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1256413

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Older adults, who already have higher levels of social isolation, loneliness, and sedentary behavior, are particularly susceptible to negative impacts from social distancing mandates meant to control the spread of COVID-19. We sought to explore the physical, mental, and social health impacts of the pandemic on older adults and their coping techniques. Materials and Methods: We conducted 25 semi-structured interviews with a sub-sample of participants in an ongoing sedentary behavior reduction intervention. Interviews were recorded and transcribed, and iterative coding was used to extract key themes. Results: Most participants reported an increase in sedentary behavior due to limitations on leaving their home and increased free time to pursue seated hobbies (e.g., reading, knitting, tv). However, many participants also reported increased levels of intentional physical activity and exercise, particularly outdoors or online. Participants also reported high levels of stress and a large decrease in in-person social connection. Virtual connection with others through phone and video was commonly used to stay connected with friends and family, engage in community groups and activities, and cope with stress and social isolation. Maintenance of a positive attitude and perspective gained from past hardships was also an important coping strategy for many participants. Discussion: The COVID-19 pandemic and associated social distancing measures have impacted older adults' perceived levels of activity, stress, and social isolation, but many leveraged technology and prior life experiences to cope. These themes could inform future interventions for older adults dealing with chronic stress and isolation.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Adaptation, Psychological , Aged , Humans , Pandemics/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2 , Social Isolation
7.
Am J Hypertens ; 34(4): 339-347, 2021 04 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-851724

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) may increase the risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection or affect disease severity. Prior studies have not examined risks by medication dose. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included people aged ≥18 years enrolled in a US integrated healthcare system for at least 4 months as of 2/29/2020. Current ACEI and ARB use was identified from pharmacy data, and the estimated daily dose was calculated and standardized across medications. COVID-19 infections and hospitalizations were identified through 6/14/2020 from laboratory and hospitalization data. We used logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), adjusting for race/ethnicity, obesity, and other covariates. RESULTS: Among 322,044 individuals, 826 developed COVID-19 infection. Among people using ACEI/ARBs, 204/56,105 developed COVID-19 (3.6 per 1,000 individuals) compared with 622/265,939 without ACEI/ARB use (2.3 per 1,000), yielding an adjusted OR of 0.91 (95% CI 0.74-1.12). For use of <1 defined daily dose (DDD) vs. nonuse, the adjusted OR for infection was 0.92 (95% CI 0.66-1.28); for 1 to <2 DDDs, 0.89 (95% CI 0.66-1.19); and for ≥2 DDDs, 0.92 (95% CI 0.72-1.18). The OR was similar for ACEIs and ARBs and in subgroups by age and sex. 26% of people with COVID-19 infection were hospitalized; the adjusted OR for hospitalization in relation to ACEI/ARB use was 0.98 (95% CI 0.63-1.54), and there was no association with dose. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support current recommendations that individuals on these medications continue their use.


Subject(s)
Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists , Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors , COVID-19 , Dose-Response Relationship, Drug , Hypertension , Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists/administration & dosage , Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists/adverse effects , Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors/administration & dosage , Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors/adverse effects , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/therapy , Cohort Studies , Comorbidity , Drug Monitoring/methods , Female , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Hypertension/drug therapy , Hypertension/epidemiology , Hypertension/metabolism , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , Risk Assessment , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Severity of Illness Index , United States/epidemiology
8.
medRxiv ; 2020 Jul 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-663454

ABSTRACT

There are plausible mechanisms by which angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) may increase the risk of COVID-19 infection or affect disease severity. To examine the association between these medications and COVID-19 infection or hospitalization, we conducted a retrospective cohort study within a US integrated healthcare system. Among people aged ≥18 years enrolled in the health plan for at least 4 months as of 2/29/2020, current ACEI and ARB use was identified from pharmacy data, and the estimated daily dose was calculated and standardized across medications. COVID-19 infections were identified through 6/14/2020 from laboratory and hospitalization data. We used logistic regression to estimate adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals. Among 322,044 individuals, 720 developed COVID-19 infection. Among people using ACEI/ARBs, 183/56,105 developed COVID-19 (3.3 per 1000 individuals) compared with 537/265,939 without ACEI/ARB use (2.0 per 1000), yielding an adjusted OR of 0.94 (95% CI 0.75-1.16). For use of < 1 defined daily dose vs. nonuse, the adjusted OR for infection was 0.89 (95% CI 0.62-1.26); for 1 to < 2 defined daily doses, 0.97 (95% CI 0.71-1.31); and for ≥2 defined daily doses, 0.94 (95% CI 0.72-1.23). The OR was similar for ACEIs and ARBs and in subgroups by age and sex. 29% of people with COVID-19 infection were hospitalized; the adjusted OR for hospitalization in relation to ACEI/ARB use was 0.92 (95% CI 0.54-1.57), and there was no association with dose. These findings support current recommendations that individuals on these medications continue their use.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL