The CC analysis included all patients with available data at baseline and 6 months for the respective endpoint, whereas the PP analysis included all patients randomized to usual care and those patients randomized to the lifestyle intervention group who performed at least 66.7% of prescribed training duration, reached target duration in at least 50% of weeks and filled at least two of three nutrition diaries. Results indicate that for most of the investigated endpoints, favoring of lifestyle intervention over usual care is more pronounced in the PP analysis compared with the CC analysis. This highlights the potential of lifestyle interventions in patients with long-term T2DM and concomitant CHD. The number of patients refers to n (lifestyle intervention)/ n (usual care) for each endpoint and analysis set. CC, complete-case; MCS, mental component score; PCS, physical component score; PP, per-protocol.
