Background: The present study describes the effectiveness of a complex intervention that addresses multiple lifestyles to promote healthy behaviours in increasing adherence to the Mediterranean diet (MD).
Methods: Cluster-randomised, hybrid clinical trial controlled with two parallel groups. The study was carried out in 26 primary Spanish healthcare centres. People aged 45-75 years who presented at least two of the following criteria were included: smoker, low adherence to the MD or insufficient level of physical activity. The intervention group (IG) had three different levels of action: individual, group, and community, with the aim of acting on the behaviours related to smoking, diet and physical activity at the same time. The individual intervention included personalised recommendations and agreements on the objectives to attain. Group sessions were adapted to the context of each healthcare centre. The community intervention was focused on the social prescription of resources and activities performed in the environment of the community of each healthcare centre. Control group (CG) received brief advice given in the usual visits to the doctor’s office. The primary outcome was the change, after 12 months, in the number of participants in each group with good adherence to the MD pattern. Secondary outcomes included the change in the total score of the MD adherence score (MEDAS) and the change in some cardiovascular risk factors.
Results: Three thousand sixty-two participants were included (IG = 1,481, CG = 1,581). Low adherence to the MD was present in 1,384 (93.5%) participants, of whom 1,233 initiated the intervention and conducted at least one individual visit with a healthcare professional. A greater increase (13.7%; 95% CI, 9.9-17.5; p < 0.001) was obtained by IG in the number of participants who reached 9 points or more (good adherence) in the MEDAS at the final visit. Moreover, the effect attributable to the intervention obtained a greater increase (0.50 points; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.66; p < 0.001) in IG. Conclusions: A complex intervention modelled and carried out by primary healthcare professionals, within a real clinical healthcare context, achieved a global increase in the adherence to the MD compared to the brief advice.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend measuring blood pressure (BP) in both arms, adopting the higher arm readings for diagnosis and management. Data to support this recommendation are lacking. We evaluated associations of higher and lower arm systolic BPs with diagnostic and treatment thresholds, and prognosis in hypertension, using data from the Inter-arm Blood Pressure Difference-Individual Participant Data Collaboration.
METHODS: One-stage multivariable Cox regression models, stratified by study, were used to examine associations of higher or lower reading arm BPs with cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular events, in individual participant data meta-analyses pooled from 23 cohorts. Cardiovascular events were modelled for Framingham and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk scores. Model fit was compared throughout using Akaike information criteria. Proportions reclassified across guideline recommended intervention thresholds were also compared.
RESULTS: We analyzed 53 172 participants: mean age 60 years; 48% female. Higher arm BP, compared with lower arm, reclassified 12% of participants at either 130 or 140 mm Hg systolic BP thresholds (both P<0.001). Higher arm BP models fitted better for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and cardiovascular events (all P<0.001). Higher arm BP models better predicted cardiovascular events with Framingham and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk scores (both P<0.001) and reclassified 4.6% and 3.5% of participants respectively to higher risk categories compared with lower arm BPs). CONCLUSIONS: Using BP from higher instead of lower reading arms reclassified 12% of people over thresholds used to diagnose hypertension. All prediction models performed better when using the higher arm BP. Both arms should be measured for accurate diagnosis and management of hypertension.

Background: The effectiveness of statin treatment to reduce coronary events and mortality has been hardly examined considering goals of LDL-C. We aimed to analyse such association in secondary cardiovascular prevention. Methods: Retrospective cohort analysis of electronic health records from the SIDIAP database, Catalonia-Spain. Recruitment period was from 2006 to 2017 and study period finished at the end of 2018. We included 54,175 people aged >= 35 years in cardiovascular secondary prevention starting statin treatment. We analysed the association of achieved LDL-C goals after statin initiation with coronary heart disease and all-cause mortality. Results: Mean age was 69 years and 20,146 (37.2%) were women. Coronary heart disease occurred in 5687 (10.5%) participants, and 10,676 (19.7%) persons passed away. Median follow-up lasted 5.7 years (interquartile range, 3.4-8.1). The coronary heart disease HRs (95% CI) for the LDL-C goals of 70-100, <70-55 and <55 mg/dL were .86 (.81-.92), .83 (.76-.9) and .8 (.72-.88), respectively. They were .89 (.83-.96) in the group with 30%-40% reduction and .86 (.8-.93) in the groups with 40%-50% and >= 50% reduction. We observed no association with mortality. We observed no relevant differences by sex or age. Conclusions: This population-level retrospective analysis of real-world data observed that treatment with statins is effective to achieve certain LDL-C goals and CHD reduction. The lack of significant difference between LDL-C goals needs confirmation in additional studies with real-world data. The LDL-C target should consider the magnitude of the decrease in coronary events.