Physical activity (PA) has beneficial effects on brain health and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. Yet, we know little about whether PA-induced changes to physiological mediators of CVD risk influence brain health and whether benefits to brain health may also explain PA-induced improvements to CVD risk. This study combines neurobiological and peripheral physiological methods in the context of a randomised clinical trial to better understand the links between exercise, brain health and CVD risk.

In this 12-month trial, 130 healthy individuals between the ages of 26 and 58 will be randomly assigned to either: (1) moderate-intensity aerobic PA for 150 min/week or (2) a health information control group. Cardiovascular, neuroimaging and PA measurements will occur for both groups before and after the intervention. Primary outcomes include changes in (1) brain structural areas (ie, hippocampal volume); (2) systolic blood pressure (SBP) responses to functional MRI cognitive stressor tasks and (3) heart rate variability. The main secondary outcomes include changes in (1) brain activity, resting state connectivity, cortical thickness and cortical volume; (2) daily life SBP stress reactivity; (3) negative and positive affect; (4) baroreflex sensitivity; (5) pulse wave velocity; (6) endothelial function and (7) daily life positive and negative affect. Our results are expected to have both mechanistic and public health implications regarding brain–body interactions in the context of cardiovascular health.

Ethical approval has been obtained from the University of Pittsburgh Institutional Review Board (IRB ID: 19020218). This study will comply with the NIH Data Sharing Policy and Policy on the Dissemination of NIH-Funded Clinical Trial Information and the Clinical Trials Registration and Results Information Submission rule.

NCT03841669.

Geriatric Fracture Centers (GFCs) are dedicated treatment units where care is tailored towards elderly patients who have suffered fragility fractures. The primary objective of this economic analysis was to determine the cost-utility of GFCs compared with usual care centres.

The primary analysis was a cost-utility analysis that measured the cost per incremental quality-adjusted life-year gained from treatment of hip fracture in GFCs compared with treatment in usual care centres from the societal perspective over a 1-year time horizon. The secondary analysis was a cost-utility analysis from a societal perspective over a lifetime time horizon. We evaluated these outcomes using a cost-utility analysis using data from a large multicentre prospective cohort study comparing GFCs versus usual care centres that took place in Austria, Spain, the USA, the Netherlands, Thailand and Singapore.

GFCs may be cost-effective in the long term, while providing a more comprehensive care plan. Patients in usual care centre group were slightly older and had fewer comorbidities. For the 1-year analysis, the costs per patient were slightly lower in the GFC group (–$646.42), while the quality-adjusted life-years were higher in the usual care centre group (+0.034). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $18 863.34 (US$/quality-adjusted life-year). The lifetime horizon analysis found that the costs per patient were lower in the GFC group (–$7210.35), while the quality-adjusted life-years were higher in the usual care centre group (+0.02). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $320 678.77 (US$/quality-adjusted life-year).

This analysis found that GFCs were associated with lower costs compared with usual care centres. The cost-savings were greater when the lifetime time horizon was considered. This comprehensive cost-effectiveness analysis, using data from an international prospective cohort study, found that GFC may be cost-effective in the long term, while providing a more comprehensive care plan. A greater number of major adverse events were reported at GFC, nevertheless a lower mortality rate associated with these adverse events at GFC. Due to the minor utility benefits, which may be a result of greater adverse event detection within the GFC group and much greater costs of usual care centres, the GFC may be cost-effective due to the large cost-savings it demonstrated over the lifetime time horizon, while potentially identifying and treating adverse events more effectively. These findings suggest that the GFC may be a cost-effective option over the lifetime of a geriatric patient with hip fracture, although future research is needed to further validate these findings.

Economic, level 2.

NCT02297581.

Cognitive dysfunction, a leading cause of mortality and morbidity in the USA and globally, has been shown to disproportionately affect the socioeconomically disadvantaged and those who identify as black or Hispanic/Latinx. Poor sleep is strongly associated with the development of vascular and metabolic diseases, which correlate with cognitive dysfunction. Therefore, sleep may contribute to observed disparities in cognitive disorders. The Epidemiologic Study of Disparities in Sleep and Cognition in Older Adults (DISCO) is a longitudinal, observational cohort study that focuses on gathering data to better understand racial/ethnic sleep disparities and illuminate the relationship among sleep, race and ethnicity and changes in cognitive function. This investigation may help inform targeted interventions to minimise disparities in cognitive health among ageing adults.

The DISCO study will examine up to 495 individuals aged 55 and older at two time points over 24 months. An equal number of black, white and Hispanic/Latinx individuals will be recruited using methods aimed for adults traditionally under-represented in research. Study procedures at each time point will include cognitive tests, gait speed measurement, wrist actigraphy, a type 2 home polysomnography and a clinical examination. Participants will also complete self-identified assessments and questionnaires on cognitive ability, sleep, medication use, quality of life, sociodemographic characteristics, diet, substance use, and psychological and social health.

This study was approved by the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine Institutional Review Board. Deidentified datasets will be shared via the BioLINCC repository following the completion of the project. Biospecimen samples from the study that are not being analysed can be made available to qualified investigators on review and approval by study investigators. Requests that do not lead to participant burden or that conflict with the primary aims of the study will be reviewed by the study investigators.