ライフサイエンスコーパス: lifestyle intervention

1 ta reinforces evidence for T2D prevention by lifestyle intervention.

2 etary intake and weight loss during an 18-mo lifestyle intervention.

3 ho remain with prediabetes despite intensive lifestyle intervention.

4 investigated in 50 participants undergoing a lifestyle intervention.

5 d blood pool scans at baseline and after the lifestyle intervention.

6 o identify NASH resolution in patients under lifestyle intervention.

7 n without fibrosis worsening after 1 year of lifestyle intervention.

8 al outcomes in 200 GD patients enrolled in a lifestyle intervention.

9 universal rather than targeted approaches to lifestyle intervention.

10 rely achieve long-term weight loss with only lifestyle interventions.

11 ul in losing or maintaining weight loss with lifestyle interventions.

12 idities that appear resistant to traditional lifestyle interventions.

13 ac procedures, and discharge medications and lifestyle interventions.

14 ement is best addressed by pharmacologic and lifestyle interventions.

15 ulate primary prevention strategies based on lifestyle interventions.

16 cardiovascular risk and greater benefit from lifestyle interventions.

17 sociated with HDL-C increases with intensive lifestyle intervention (0.0037) and had a nominal treatm

18 ups compared with the rates in the intensive lifestyle intervention (+31%) group.

19 o treatment groups during DPP (736 intensive lifestyle intervention, 647 metformin, 607 placebo).

20 We examined the effect of a lifestyle intervention aimed at lowering dietary fat int

21 s likely to derive benefit from an intensive lifestyle intervention aimed at weight loss.

22 estyle changes, and (3) outcomes of previous lifestyle interventions aimed at improving health within

23 e the effectiveness of drug, supplement, and lifestyle interventions aimed at preventing fracture, im

24 during a 2-year period in response to three lifestyle interventions, all delivered by PCPs in collab

25 weight loss is difficult to maintain through lifestyle intervention alone.

26 resulted in more disease remission than did lifestyle intervention alone.

27 entions (exercise with or without diet) with lifestyle interventions alone.

28 ose sufficient weight to improve health with lifestyle interventions alone.

29 reduced more in the surgical groups than the lifestyle intervention-alone group, with 65% of RYGB, 33

30 The intensive lifestyle intervention also produced greater reductions

31 However, whether lifestyle intervention ameliorates metabolic CHD risk fa

32 an intervention to motivate involvement in a lifestyle intervention among people with increased cardi

33 mparative effectiveness of psychological and lifestyle interventions among COPD patients is not known

34 Lifestyle interventions among people with impaired gluco

35 rences can be observed in the effects of the lifestyle interventions among subgroups defined by basel

36 QALY was approximately 1100 dollars for the lifestyle intervention and $31 300 for the metformin int

37 DL-C and triglyceride changes with intensive lifestyle intervention and a treatment interaction (P<0.

38 levated transaminases in GD independent of a lifestyle intervention and despite a significant reducti

39 Across intensive lifestyle intervention and diabetes support and educatio

40 /yes), with no differences between intensive lifestyle intervention and diabetes support and educatio

41 Both intensive lifestyle intervention and metformin can prevent or dela

42 Both lifestyle intervention and metformin therapy reduced the

43 Lifestyle intervention and metformin treatment improved

44 y who are unable to reduce successfully with lifestyle intervention and pharmacotherapy are eligible

45 cipants with >/=3% initial weight loss after lifestyle interventions and 4-y follow-up data.

46 ective secondary prevention with appropriate lifestyle interventions and evidence-based medical thera

47 The Lifestyle Interventions and Independence for Elders (LIF

48 A randomized clinical trial, the Lifestyle Interventions and Independence for Elders (LIF

49 The Lifestyle Interventions and Independence for Elders (LIF

50 Older cancer survivors respond favorably to lifestyle interventions and make durable changes in DQ a

51 in weight and other factors due to intensive lifestyle intervention) and "exhaustion of susceptible"

52 help clinicians counsel patients to consider lifestyle interventions, and should fuel research of oth

53 nefits, diets for weight loss, comprehensive lifestyle intervention approaches, and bariatric surgery

54 Effective pharmacologic and lifestyle interventions are available for primary and se

55 Although lifestyle interventions are considered the first-line th

56 ssessed whether complex psychological and/or lifestyle interventions are effective in reducing sympto

57 n determined what types of psychological and lifestyle interventions are most effective.

58 sical activity in cancer survivors; however, lifestyle interventions are not a routine part of cancer

59 These results suggest healthy lifestyle interventions as a nonpharmacologic strategy t

60 rovide further justification for adoption of lifestyle interventions as public health measures to con

61 Weight loss and lifestyle interventions, as well as metformin and other

62 onding placebos, with aggressive dietary and lifestyle intervention at baseline.

63 nominal interactions with the metformin and lifestyle interventions at 91 and 69 mostly nonoverlappi

64 nto the long-term effects of nutritional and lifestyle interventions before conception.

65 Gradual weight regain is common after lifestyle intervention but can be prevented by continued

66 ular fats were not differentially altered by lifestyle interventions but by weight loss per se.

67 isease is unknown, as is the extent to which lifestyle intervention can alter the course of progressi

68 research, the strategic and precise role of lifestyle intervention can be fashioned to improve CV ou

69 It is unclear whether a lifestyle intervention can maintain glycemic control in

70 Lifestyle intervention can successfully induce weight lo

71 Behavioral (lifestyle) interventions can decrease risk of type 2 dia

72 a societal perspective, the cost/QALY of the lifestyle intervention compared with doing nothing would

73 diabetes diagnosed for less than 10 years, a lifestyle intervention compared with standard care resul

74 on combining a specific compound and several lifestyle interventions compared with placebo for the pr

75 Lifestyle intervention comprised a 15-session diet and b

76 One-year intensive lifestyle intervention consisting of diet and physical a

77 of 6 months of high-intensity, comprehensive lifestyle intervention, consisting of a reduced-calorie

78 m effectiveness of a randomized, tailor-made lifestyle intervention, consisting of diet and exercise,

79 Seven studies reported that lifestyle interventions decreased the risk for diabetes

80 Lifestyle intervention decreases multiple metabolic CHD

81 Metformin, 850 mg twice daily, or intensive lifestyle intervention designed to achieve and maintain

82 tein can be used to target pharmacologic and lifestyle interventions designed to prevent first as wel

83 From both perspectives, the lifestyle intervention dominated the metformin intervent

84 Comprehensive lifestyle interventions effectively decrease the inciden

85 etabolic syndrome, the desirable approach is lifestyle intervention, especially weight reduction and

86 ared GH therapy with no GH therapy or GH and lifestyle interventions (exercise with or without diet)

87 An intensive lifestyle intervention focusing on weight loss did not r

88 Lifestyle interventions focusing on increasing physical

89 ervention for 1 year followed by a low-level lifestyle intervention for 2 years or surgical treatment

90 emphasise the long-term clinical benefits of lifestyle intervention for patients with impaired glucos

91 Therefore, maternal exercise is a powerful lifestyle intervention for preventing maternal HFD-induc

92 counterbalanced the beneficial effect of the lifestyle intervention for the special intervention grou

93 We examined whether an intensive lifestyle intervention for weight loss would decrease ca

94 ed controlled trials of psychological and/or lifestyle interventions for adults with COPD that measur

95 Lifestyle interventions for heart-disease prevention, wh

96 Participants in intensive lifestyle interventions for prediabetes may not be repre

97 plore the use of goal setting within healthy lifestyle interventions for the prevention of excess GWG

98 a framework, this article reviews intensive lifestyle interventions for weight loss.

99 quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of the DPP lifestyle intervention from the health plan's perspectiv

100 Although trials of lifestyle interventions generally focus on cardiovascula

101 aseline by 0.25 (-2.25 to 2.23) units in the lifestyle intervention group, and by 1.08 (-3.25 to 1.86

102 e ratio (T/S)units (IQR-0.05 to 0.11) in the lifestyle intervention group, but decreased in the contr

103 higher rates of progression in the intensive lifestyle intervention group.

104 The lifestyle-intervention group had a relative reduction of

105 At year 4, among 2514 adults in the lifestyle-intervention group, 517 (20.6%) had severe dis

106 e randomised (1:1:1:1) to a control group or lifestyle intervention groups (diet or exercise or both)

107 to 2.70; P=0.004) than in the metformin and lifestyle-intervention groups (hazard ratios, 1.62 and 1

108 months of participation in a high-intensity lifestyle intervention (>/= 14 treatment visits) consist

109 identified randomized, controlled trials of lifestyle interventions (>/=3 months' duration) that inc

110 tion in DPP, those assigned to the intensive lifestyle intervention had a higher diabetes risk (HR 1.

111 nts with type 2 diabetes undergoing a 1-year lifestyle intervention had significant improvements in G

112 l blood glucose and concluded that intensive lifestyle interventions have a moderate benefit in reduc

113 past three decades, both pharmacological and lifestyle interventions have been studied for the preven

114 Over the past decade, lifestyle interventions have been translated across vari

115 Lifestyle intervention, however, was successful in offse

116 n 1993 and 2003, and randomised to intensive lifestyle intervention (I) or lifestyle advice control (

117 Comparators included intensive lifestyle intervention (ILI) and no treatment.

118 We investigated whether a 1-year intensive lifestyle intervention (ILI) for weight loss would avert

119 res (GRS), metformin treatment and intensive lifestyle intervention (ILI) given a range of sampling f

120 trial and randomly assigned to an intensive lifestyle intervention (ILI) or diabetes support and edu

121 ollow-up, April 2008) comparing an intensive lifestyle intervention (ILI) with a diabetes support and

122 trial to determine the effects of intensive lifestyle intervention (ILI), including weight loss and

123 The objective was to determine whether lifestyle intervention improves metabolic CHD risk facto

124 policy challenges to broad implementation of lifestyle intervention in the health system.

125 y that is provided by a dietitian as part of lifestyle intervention in type 2 diabetes, but further r

126 astric banding [LAGB]) followed by low-level lifestyle intervention in years 2 and 3.

127 ir interaction with response to metformin or lifestyle interventions in 2,994 DPP participants.

128 Additionally, the lifestyle intervention included 5 to 6 weekly aerobic tr

129 Adverse events that were related to the lifestyle intervention included a slightly higher freque

130 rograms involved an intensive, family-based, lifestyle intervention, including exercise, nutritional

131 The addition of these medications to lifestyle intervention increases mean weight loss by 2.5

132 Among patients with severe obesity, a lifestyle intervention involving diet combined with init

133 T2D prevention by lifestyle intervention is effective.

134 remission of type 2 diabetes achievable with lifestyle intervention is unclear.

135 active surveillance, together with diet and lifestyle intervention, is appropriate for many older me

136 besity treatment, when used as an adjunct to lifestyle intervention, lead to greater mean weight loss

137 Weight reduction achieved through lifestyle intervention leads to improvements in liver hi

138 The authors also describe why lifestyle interventions like coaching in healthy dietary

139 Lifestyle interventions (LIs) that help women reduce the

140 ndomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive intensive lifestyle intervention (LS) or structured education (con

141 atients unable to reduce satisfactorily with lifestyle intervention may be candidates for pharmacothe

142 Reduced diabetes risk with lifestyle intervention may have been through effects upo

143 Lifestyle interventions may be a desirable prevention st

144 ctors, suggesting that more focused diet and lifestyle interventions may be needed to improve risk fa

145 Lifestyle interventions may provide benefit, but it is u

146 s early stage of disease, interventions (eg, lifestyle intervention, medication) can be used to preve

147 2 years after random assignment to intensive lifestyle intervention, metformin therapy, or placebo.

148 Program (DPP), which examined the effects of lifestyle intervention, metformin, and troglitazone vers

149 hentermine and topiramate, with office-based lifestyle interventions, might be a valuable treatment f

150 such as education, intensive monitoring, and lifestyle interventions, might be needed, especially for

151 in obese women who were randomly assigned to lifestyle interventions of either weight loss without ex

152 is warranted to determine the impact of such lifestyle intervention on improving physical fitness and

153 We assessed the long-term effect of lifestyle intervention on long-term outcomes among adult

154 We examined the effects of a multicomponent lifestyle intervention on weight loss and prevention of

155 The effect of multifaceted lifestyle interventions on clinically oriented outcomes

156 were to study the effect of 2 multicomponent lifestyle interventions on estimated CHD risk relative t

157 key component mediating salutary effects of lifestyle interventions on hyperglycemia and insulin res

158 Evidence on the effects of lifestyle interventions on plasma fatty acid composition

159 CI) with intensive pharmacologic therapy and lifestyle intervention (optimal medical therapy) is supe

160 with type 2 diabetes to either an intensive lifestyle intervention or a diabetes support-and-educati

161 PFAS among 957 participants randomized to a lifestyle intervention or placebo.

162 pants were randomly assigned to an intensive lifestyle intervention or to enhanced usual care (a diab

163 in the Diabetes Prevention Program, in which lifestyle intervention or treatment with metformin was c

164 rection of 'modifiable risk factors' through lifestyle interventions or medication would be most bene

165 ssociated with greater weight loss following lifestyle intervention over 4 years across the DPP and L

166 y modest reduction in BMI when combined with lifestyle interventions over the short term.

167 sociated with HDL-C increases with intensive lifestyle intervention (P=0.0038 and 0.013, respectively

168 ction test for normal glucose regulation and lifestyle intervention, p=0.1722; normal glucose regulat

169 Intensive lifestyle intervention participants lost significantly m

170 RESULTS Intensive lifestyle intervention participants lost significantly m

171 -related comorbidities produced by intensive lifestyle intervention, pharmacotherapy, and bariatric s

172 Missing data on lifestyle interventions, possible misclassification of p

173 In obese infertile women, a lifestyle intervention preceding infertility treatment,

174 ight in meters) of 29 or higher to a 6-month lifestyle intervention preceding treatment for infertili

175 etformin groups were offered group intensive lifestyle intervention prior to entering the DPPOS.

176 oved for long-term use, when prescribed with lifestyle interventions, produce additional weight loss

177 d with rosiglitazone (4 mg twice a day) or a lifestyle-intervention program focusing on weight loss t

178 We hypothesized that a lifestyle-intervention program or the administration of

179 thesized that modifying these factors with a lifestyle-intervention program or the administration of

180 tegies: 290 women were assigned to a 6-month lifestyle-intervention program preceding 18 months of in

181 6.9 persons would have to participate in the lifestyle-intervention program, and 13.9 would have to r

182 psyllium would be an effective addition to a lifestyle-intervention program.

183 A 6-year lifestyle intervention programme for Chinese people with

184 lifestyle modification; however, successful lifestyle intervention programmes are labour intensive.

185 Lifestyle intervention programs are effective in prevent

186 ncorporation of physical activity with other lifestyle interventions provides multiple benefits to hy

187 The lifestyle intervention reduced the incidence by 58 perce

188 The lifestyle intervention reduced the incidence of diabetes

189 fy 1-year treatment response to an intensive lifestyle intervention, relative to a usual care of diab

190 Lifestyle interventions require adaptation in this group

191 ormin plus rosiglitazone, and metformin plus lifestyle intervention, respectively.

192 he beta model implies that medical, diet, or lifestyle interventions restricting carcinogenesis ought

193 gery with 2 years of an adjunctive low-level lifestyle intervention resulted in more disease remissio

194 ght/obese individuals with T2D and whether a lifestyle intervention resulting in weight loss could di

195 To test whether an intensive lifestyle intervention results in equivalent glycemic co

196 h as low-dose aspirin, calcium, and diet and lifestyle interventions, show potential but small benefi

197 demonstrated that, compared with usual care, lifestyle intervention significantly reduced progression

198 Lifestyle interventions specifically targeted toward the

199 in C supplementation represents an effective lifestyle intervention strategy for improving endothelia

200 Lifestyle-intervention studies have not shown improved o

201 Small lifestyle-intervention studies suggest that modest weigh

202 (n=1411) data participating in a randomized lifestyle intervention study for weight loss, Action for

203 To lower risk of early AMD, recommended lifestyle interventions such as the avoidance of smoking

204 Lifestyle interventions, such as exercise, are recommend

205 urrent epidemic of obesity and the fact that lifestyle interventions, such as weight loss and exercis

206 The STRIDE study assessed whether a lifestyle intervention, tailored for individuals with se

207 ti-Alzheimer's therapy will be combined with lifestyle interventions targeting general brain health t

208 An intensive lifestyle intervention that produces weight loss and imp

209 pe 2 diabetes to participate in an intensive lifestyle intervention that promoted weight loss through

210 The optimal lifestyle intervention that reverses diabetes risk facto

211 Complex psychological and/or lifestyle interventions that include an exercise compone

212 Lifestyle interventions that induce modest weight loss a

213 evidence for alternative pharmacological and lifestyle interventions that may improve vascular functi

214 Numerous recent lifestyle interventions that reduce cholesterol have als

215 ects and in the latter group after 1 year of lifestyle intervention (the Look AHEAD [Action For Healt

216 Lifestyle intervention to achieve weight loss and increa

217 rates, but not the availability of intensive lifestyle intervention to all persons before the beginni

218 t that estimated the per capita costs of the lifestyle intervention to exceed that of the usual care

219 a precision medicine approach through early lifestyle intervention to offset the impact of blood pre

220 er summarizes scientific evidence supporting lifestyle intervention to prevent type 2 diabetes and di

221 ng pattern offers a new potential target for lifestyle intervention to reduce CVD risk.

222 The preschool period is a pivotal time for lifestyle interventions to begin the establishment of lo

223 Lifestyle interventions to improve dietary and physical

224 Lifestyle interventions to improve HRF and PA may be ben

225 nmark; they had previously completed a 68-wk lifestyle intervention trial and achieved an average wei

226 Three lifestyle intervention trials did not show a statistical

227 Either using metformin or delaying the lifestyle intervention until after a person develops dia

228 d controlled trial to examine the effects of lifestyle intervention using a combination of diet, exer

229 Lifestyle interventions usually are delivered in-person;

230 odify the effects of metformin treatment and lifestyle intervention (versus placebo control) on lipid

231 However, lifestyle interventions via dietary changes and exercise

232 analyses of overweight adults, an intensive lifestyle intervention was associated with a greater lik

233 Our comprehensive lifestyle intervention was associated with increases in

234 Decreased diabetes risk by lifestyle intervention was associated with reductions of

235 pecial intervention group smokers, while the lifestyle intervention was beneficial among nonsmokers.

236 The lifestyle intervention was cost-effective in all age gro

237 to metformin alone (P=0.006); metformin plus lifestyle intervention was intermediate but not signific

238 of diabetes in persons at high risk and the lifestyle intervention was more effective than metformin

239 The lifestyle intervention was more effective than metformin

240 % CI: 17 to 43%), compared with placebo; the lifestyle intervention was significantly more effective

241 o 43 percent), as compared with placebo; the lifestyle intervention was significantly more effective

242 ition of rosiglitazone, but not an intensive lifestyle intervention, was superior to metformin alone.

243 Overall, psychological and/or lifestyle interventions were associated with small reduc

244 Moreover, betaine was increased by the lifestyle intervention, which was the most effective app

245 d participated in an intensive nutrition and lifestyle intervention while undergoing careful surveill

246 ive set of community-based, widely available lifestyle interventions, with optional partner participa