ライフサイエンスコーパス: lifestyle intervention

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

2 universal rather than targeted approaches to lifestyle intervention.

3 ta reinforces evidence for T2D prevention by lifestyle intervention.

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

5 ho remain with prediabetes despite intensive lifestyle intervention.

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

7 investigated in 50 participants undergoing a lifestyle intervention.

8 o identify NASH resolution in patients under lifestyle intervention.

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

10 cardiovascular risk and greater benefit from lifestyle interventions.

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

12 diuretics, mineralocorticoid antagonists and lifestyle interventions.

13 disease (AD) are now focusing on multidomain lifestyle interventions.

14 ac procedures, and discharge medications and lifestyle interventions.

15 ement is best addressed by pharmacologic and lifestyle interventions.

16 ulate primary prevention strategies based on lifestyle interventions.

17 newly diagnosed dyslipidemia who were under lifestyle interventions.

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

19 idities that appear resistant to traditional lifestyle interventions.

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

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

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

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

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

25 supports the prioritization of therapies and lifestyle interventions aimed at controlling weight for

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

34 The intensive lifestyle intervention also produced greater reductions

35 However, whether lifestyle intervention ameliorates metabolic CHD risk fa

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

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

38 Lifestyle interventions among people with impaired gluco

39 a model to compare the impacts of different lifestyle interventions among prediabetes individuals an

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

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

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

43 The impact of a lifestyle intervention and changes in cardiorespiratory

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

45 Across intensive lifestyle intervention and diabetes support and educatio

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

47 he risk of incident HF between the intensive lifestyle intervention and diabetes support and educatio

48 Both intensive lifestyle intervention and metformin can prevent or dela

49 Both lifestyle intervention and metformin therapy reduced the

50 Lifestyle intervention and metformin treatment improved

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

52 of incident HF (n=257) between the intensive lifestyle intervention and the diabetes support and educ

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

54 rs, if present, would favor more intensified lifestyle interventions and consideration of initiation

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

56 The Lifestyle Interventions and Independence for Elders (LIF

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

58 The Lifestyle Interventions and Independence for Elders (LIF

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

60 et is lowering LDL cholesterol, firstly with lifestyle interventions and subsequently with pharmacolo

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

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

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

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

65 Although lifestyle interventions are considered the first-line th

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

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

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

69 m receiving usual care (CON), a theory-based lifestyle intervention arm of 6 core and up to 15 mainte

70 ow-up with greater declines in the intensive lifestyle intervention arm.

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

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

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

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

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

76 allocated either to an intensive weight-loss lifestyle intervention based on er-MedDiet, PA promotion

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

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

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

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

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

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

83 Lifestyle intervention can successfully induce weight lo

84 remains unclear whether targeted health and lifestyle interventions can attenuate or even offset inc

85 Lifestyle interventions can delay the onset of type 2 di

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

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

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

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

90 Lifestyle intervention comprised a 15-session diet and b

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

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

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

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

95 Lifestyle intervention decreases multiple metabolic CHD

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

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

98 litus in the Look AHEAD trial, the intensive lifestyle intervention did not appear to modify the risk

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

100 rved among the participants in the different lifestyle interventions during months 6-14 (aFMT, 30.4%

101 Comprehensive lifestyle interventions effectively decrease the inciden

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

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

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

105 Lifestyle interventions focusing on increasing physical

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

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

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

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

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

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

112 Lifestyle interventions for heart-disease prevention, wh

113 her research is needed to identify effective lifestyle interventions for individuals with isolated im

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

115 Growing evidence supports the use of lifestyle interventions for the prevention and adjuvant

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

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

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

119 Although trials of lifestyle interventions generally focus on cardiovascula

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

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

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

123 The lifestyle-intervention group had a relative reduction of

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

134 Lifestyle intervention, however, was successful in offse

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

142 mpared weight loss with metformin, intensive lifestyle intervention (ILS), or placebo.

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

144 is study is to evaluate BC changes made by a lifestyle intervention in a randomized homogeneous sampl

145 Lifestyle intervention in people with impaired glucose t

146 nal environment appeared to be modified by a lifestyle intervention in pregnancy.

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

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

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

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

151 viding helpful information to improve future lifestyle interventions in adults.

152 We aimed to assess the long-term effects of lifestyle interventions in people with impaired glucose

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

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

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

156 A behavioral lifestyle intervention incorporating diet and physical a

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

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

159 In adults with type 2 diabetes, a lifestyle intervention is associated with significant lo

160 T2D prevention by lifestyle intervention is effective.

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

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

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

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

165 Active lifestyle intervention led by renal dietitians did not i

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

167 Lifestyle interventions (LIs) that help women reduce the

168 Unlike many lifestyle interventions, long-term population health ben

169 ), a randomised controlled trial (RCT), of a lifestyle intervention (low glycaemic index (GI) diet pl

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

171 66 patients underwent a 16-week lifestyle intervention (LSI) programme consisting of die

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

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

174 Lifestyle interventions may be a desirable prevention st

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

176 rial highlights that high adherence rates to lifestyle interventions may improve health outcomes.

177 Lifestyle interventions may provide benefit, but it is u

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

179 2 years after random assignment to intensive lifestyle intervention, metformin therapy, or placebo.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

187 The effect of multifaceted lifestyle interventions on clinically oriented outcomes

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

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

190 s underlying the beneficial effects of these lifestyle interventions on hypertension, which include n

191 tudy was to assess the impact of 2 different lifestyle interventions on parents/caregivers of childre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

200 , and by a combination of drug treatment and lifestyle interventions over 6 months (-7.6 mm Hg; P < .

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

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

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

204 Intensive lifestyle intervention participants lost significantly m

205 RESULTS Intensive lifestyle intervention participants lost significantly m

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

207 are various prevention modalities, intensive lifestyle interventions, pharmacotherapy and cardiovascu

208 Missing data on lifestyle interventions, possible misclassification of p

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

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

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

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

213 "individual-focused" or "peer-to-peer-based" lifestyle intervention program for 12 months or control.

214 dent lifestyle intervention study (Tuebingen Lifestyle Intervention Program, N = 229, P = 0.0084).

215 IMED-Plus) based on an intensive weight-loss lifestyle intervention program.

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

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

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

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

220 6.9 persons would have to participate in the lifestyle-intervention program, and 13.9 would have to r

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

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

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

224 Lifestyle intervention programs are effective in prevent

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

226 The lifestyle intervention reduced the incidence by 58 perce

227 The lifestyle intervention reduced the incidence of diabetes

228 entive and antihypertensive effects of major lifestyle interventions (regular physical exercise, body

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

230 Lifestyle interventions require adaptation in this group

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

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

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

234 Clinically, active versus passive lifestyle intervention resulted in reduced incidence of

235 Clinically, active versus passive lifestyle intervention resulted in reduced incidence of

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

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

238 roach to care, starting with a foundation of lifestyle interventions, self-management, and first-line

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

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

241 Lifestyle interventions specifically targeted toward the

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

243 In addition, diet and lifestyle intervention studies are needed to confirm our

244 Lifestyle-intervention studies have not shown improved o

245 Small lifestyle-intervention studies suggest that modest weigh

246 association was confirmed in an independent lifestyle intervention study (Tuebingen Lifestyle Interv

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

248 When diagnosed at early stages, lifestyle interventions such as exercise and weight loss

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

250 Lifestyle interventions, such as exercise, are recommend

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

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

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

254 An intensive lifestyle intervention that produces weight loss and imp

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

256 The optimal lifestyle intervention that reverses diabetes risk facto

257 mutually exclusive alternative is to address lifestyle interventions that can help reduce the risk of

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

259 Lifestyle interventions that induce modest weight loss a

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

261 Numerous recent lifestyle interventions that reduce cholesterol have als

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

263 Lifestyle intervention to achieve weight loss and increa

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

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

266 r kidney transplantation, but the benefit of lifestyle intervention to improve glucose metabolism pos

267 er kidney transplantation but the benefit of lifestyle intervention to improve glucose metabolism pos

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

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

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

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

272 a2, change in environmental temperature, and lifestyle interventions to comprehensively test the prem

273 Lifestyle interventions to improve dietary and physical

274 Lifestyle interventions to improve HRF and PA may be ben

275 Lifestyle interventions to reduce body mass index (BMI)

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

277 Three lifestyle intervention trials did not show a statistical

278 A meta-analysis of two multidomain lifestyle intervention trials indicated more cognitive b

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

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

281 Lifestyle interventions usually are delivered in-person;

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

283 However, lifestyle interventions via dietary changes and exercise

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

285 Our comprehensive lifestyle intervention was associated with increases in

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

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

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

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

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

291 The lifestyle intervention was more effective than metformin

292 % CI: 17 to 43%), compared with placebo; the lifestyle intervention was significantly more effective

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

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

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

296 to provide patients with either an intensive lifestyle intervention, which focused on reduced caloric

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

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

299 otransporter type 2 inhibitors as add-ons to lifestyle interventions with or without metformin in tho

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