Advertisement

Clinical Effectiveness of Lifestyle Management Programs: Importance of the Class Effect Paradox

  • Neil F. GordonEmail author
Invited Commentary

Opinion Statement

It is well appreciated in pharmacotherapy that all drugs belonging to the same class of agents are not necessarily equally safe or effective. Because of this so-called “class effect paradox,” pharmaceutical companies must do extensive research to prove the safety and efficacy of a new drug before introducing it into the market, even if it belongs to a well-established class of medications. Like pharmaceutical agents, lifestyle management interventions can be organized into classes. This commentary examines the rationale for, and importance of, considering the class effect paradox when balancing the need for new and innovative lifestyle management programs with the need for evidence-based interventions with proven outcomes. In view of the fact that all lifestyle management programs within a specific broad intervention class do not necessarily result in clinical benefit, it is recommended that any new approach should not be widely implemented until it has been shown to be effective as evidenced by results of clinical studies published in peer-reviewed journals.

Keywords

Lifestyle Exercise Nutrition Prevention 

Notes

Compliance with ethics guidelines

Conflict of Interest

Dr. Neil F. Gordon has received consultancies from Wellness Corporate Solutions, LLC and PrevCan, Inc., and serves as a board member for PrevCan, Inc. Dr. Gordon is employed by and holds stock/stock options with Intervent International, LLC. Dr. Gordon holds stock/stock options with PrevCan, Inc.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References and recommended reading

  1. 1.
    Roberts CK, Barnard RJ. Effects of exercise and diet on chronic disease. J Appl Physiol. 2005;78:3–30.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Go AS, Mozaffarian D, Roger VL, Benjamin EJ, Berry JD, Borden WB, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics—2013 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2013;127:e6–e245.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mayosi BM, Flisher AJ, Lalloo UG, Sitas F, Tollman SM, Bradshaw D. The burden of non-communicable diseases in South Africa. Lancet. 2009;374:934–47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shay CM, Ning H, Allen NB, Carnethon MR, Chiuve SE, Greenlund KJ, et al. Status of cardiovascular health in US adults: prevalence estimates from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) 2003–2008. Circulation. 2012;125:45–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mattke S, Liu H, Caloyeras JP, Huang CY, Van Busum KR, Khodyakov D, et al. Workplace wellness programs study final report. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation; 2013.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Maron DJ, Forbes BL, Groves JR, Dietrich MS, Sells P, DiGenio AG. Health-risk appraisal with or without disease management for worksite cardiovascular risk reduction. J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2008;23:513–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lin JS, O’Connor E, Whitlock EP, Beil TL, Zuber SP, Perdue LA, et al. Behavioral counseling to promote physical activity and a healthful diet to prevent cardiovascular disease in adults: update of the evidence for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Evidence synthesis no. 79. AHRQ publication no. 11-05149-EF-1. Rockville, MD, December 2010.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    US Preventive Services Task Force. Behavioral counseling interventions to promote a healthful diet and physical activity for cardiovascular disease prevention in adults: clinical summary of US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation. AHRQ publication no. 11-05149-EF-3, June 2012.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Balady GJ, Ades PA, Bittner VA, Franklin BA, Gordon NF, Thomas RJ, et al. Referral, enrollment and delivery of cardiac rehabilitation/secondary prevention programs at clinical centers and beyond: a Presidential Advisory from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2011;124:2951–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    The Look AHEAD Research Group. Cardiovascular effects of intensive lifestyle intervention in type 2 diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:145–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gerstein HC. Do lifestyle changes reduce serious outcomes in diabetes? N Engl J Med. 2013;369:189–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.INTERVENT InternationalSavannahUSA

Personalised recommendations