Search

Many community-based translations of evidence-based interventions are designed as one-arm studies due to ethical and other considerations. Evaluating the impacts of such programs is challenging. Here, we examine the effectiveness of the lifestyle intervention implemented by the Special Diabetes Program for Indians Diabetes Prevention (SDPI-DP) demonstration project, a translational lifestyle intervention among American Indian and Alaska Native communities. Data from the landmark Diabetes Prevention Program placebo group was used as a historical control. We compared the use of propensity score (PS) and disease risk score (DRS) matching to adjust for potential confounder imbalance between groups. The unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) for diabetes risk was 0.35 for SDPI-DP lifestyle intervention vs. control. However, when relevant diabetes risk factors were considered, the adjusted HR estimates were attenuated toward 1, ranging from 0.56 (95% CI 0.44-0.71) to 0.69 (95% CI 0.56-0.96). The differences in estimated HRs using the PS and DRS approaches were relatively small but DRS matching resulted in more participants being matched and smaller standard errors of effect estimates. Carefully employed, publicly available randomized clinical trial data can be used as a historical control to evaluate the intervention effectiveness of one-arm community translational initiatives. It is critical to use a proper statistical method to balance the distributions of potential confounders between comparison groups in this kind of evaluations.

Many community-based translations of evidence-based interventions are designed as one-arm studies due to ethical and other considerations. Evaluating the impacts of such programs is challenging. Here, we examine the effectiveness of the lifestyle intervention implemented by the Special Diabetes Program for Indians Diabetes Prevention (SDPI-DP) demonstration project, a translational lifestyle intervention among American Indian and Alaska Native communities. Data from the landmark Diabetes Prevention Program placebo group was used as a historical control. We compared the use of propensity score (PS) and disease risk score (DRS) matching to adjust for potential confounder imbalance between groups. The unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) for diabetes risk was 0.35 for SDPI-DP lifestyle intervention vs. control. However, when relevant diabetes risk factors were considered, the adjusted HR estimates were attenuated toward 1, ranging from 0.56 (95% CI 0.44-0.71) to 0.69 (95% CI 0.56-0.96). The differences in estimated HRs using the PS and DRS approaches were relatively small but DRS matching resulted in more participants being matched and smaller standard errors of effect estimates. Carefully employed, publicly available randomized clinical trial data can be used as a historical control to evaluate the intervention effectiveness of one-arm community translational initiatives. It is critical to use a proper statistical method to balance the distributions of potential confounders between comparison groups in this kind of evaluations.

Objective: Genomewide association studies (GWAS) have identified consistent associations with obesity, with a number of studies implicating eating behavior as a primary mechanism. Few studies have replicated genetic associations with dietary intake. This study evaluates the association between obesity susceptibility loci and dietary intake. Methods: Data were obtained as part of the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP), a clinical trial of diabetes prevention in persons at high risk of diabetes. The association of 31 genomewide association studies identified obesity risk alleles with dietary intake, measured through a food frequency questionnaire, was investigated in 3,180 participants from DPP at baseline. Results: The minor allele at BDNF, identified as protective against obesity, was associated with lower total caloric intake (beta = -106.06, SE = 33.13; p = .0014) at experimentwide statistical significance (p = .0016), whereas association of MC4R rs571312 with higher caloric intake reached nominal significance (beta = 61.32, SE = 26.24; p = .0194). Among non-Hispanic white participants, the association of BDNF rs2030323 with total caloric intake was stronger (beta = -151.99, SE = 30.09; p < .0001), and association of FTO rs1421085 with higher caloric intake (beta = 56.72, SE = 20.69; p = .0061) and percentage fat intake (beta = 0.37, SE = 0.08; p =. 0418) was also observed. Conclusions: These results demonstrate with the strength of independent replication that BDNF rs2030323 is associated with 100 to 150 greater total caloric intake per allele, with additional contributions of MC4R and, in non-Hispanic white individuals, FTO. As it has been argued that an additional 100 kcal/d could account for the trends in weight gain, prevention focusing on genetic profiles with high dietary intake may help to quell adverse obesity trends.

Summary Background Our objective was to quantify and predict diabetesriskreduction during the DiabetesPreventionProgramOutcomes Study (DPPOS) in participants who returned to normalglucoseregulation at least once during the DiabetesPreventionProgram (DPP) compared with those who consistently met criteria for prediabetes. Methods DPPOS is an ongoing observational study of participants from the DPP randomised trial. For this analysis, diabetes cumulative incidence in DPPOS was calculated for participants with normalglucoseregulation or prediabetes status during DPP with and without stratification by previous randomised treatment group. Cox proportional hazards modelling and generalised linear mixed models were used to quantify the effect of previous (DPP) glycaemic status on risk of later (DPPOS) diabetes and normalglucoseregulation status, respectively, per SD in change. Included in this analysis were 1990 participants of DPPOS who had been randomly assigned to treatment groups during DPP (736 intensive lifestyle intervention, 647 metformin, 607 placebo). These studies are registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00004992 (DPP) and NCT00038727 (DPPOS). Findings Diabetesrisk during DPPOS was 56% lower for participants who had returned to normalglucoseregulation versus those who consistently had prediabetes (hazard ratio [HR] 0·44, 95% CI 0·37–0·55, p<0·0001) and was unaffected by previous group assignment (interaction test for normalglucoseregulation and lifestyle intervention, p=0·1722; normalglucoseregulation and metformin, p=0·3304). Many, but not all, of the variables that increased diabetesrisk were inversely associated with the chance of a participant reaching normalglucoseregulation status in DPPOS. Specifically, previous achievement of normalglucoseregulation (odds ratio [OR] 3·18, 95% CI 2·71–3·72, p<0·0001), increased β-cell function (OR 1·28; 95% CI 1·18–1·39, p<0·0001), and insulin sensitivity (OR 1·16, 95% CI 1·08–1·25, p<0·0001) were associated with normalglu

A high GRS is associated with increased risk of developing diabetes and lower probability of returning to NGR in high-risk individuals, but a lifestyle intervention attenuates this risk.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes affects approximately 8 percent of adults in the United States. Some risk factors--elevated plasma glucose concentrations in the fasting state and after an oral glucose load, overweight, and a sedentary lifestyle--are potentially reversible. We hypothesized that modifying these factors with a lifestyle-intervention program or the administration of metformin would prevent or delay the development of diabetes. METHODS: We randomly assigned 3234 nondiabetic persons with elevated fasting and post-load plasma glucose concentrations to placebo, metformin (850 mg twice daily), or a lifestyle-modification program with the goals of at least a 7 percent weight loss and at least 150 minutes of physical activity per week. The mean age of the participants was 51 years, and the mean body-mass index (the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters) was 34.0; 68 percent were women, and 45 percent were members of minority groups. RESULTS: The average follow-up was 2.8 years. The incidence of diabetes was 11.0, 7.8, and 4.8 cases per 100 person-years in the placebo, metformin, and lifestyle groups, respectively. The lifestyle intervention reduced the incidence by 58 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 48 to 66 percent) and metformin by 31 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 17 to 43 percent), as compared with placebo; the lifestyle intervention was significantly more effective than metformin. To prevent one case of diabetes during a period of three years, 6.9 persons would have to participate in the lifestyle-intervention program, and 13.9 would have to receive metformin. CONCLUSIONS: Lifestyle changes and treatment with metformin both reduced the incidence of diabetes in persons at high risk. The lifestyle intervention was more effective than metformin.

Background Type 2 diabetes affects approximately 8 percent of adults in the United States. Some risk factors — elevated plasma glucose concentrations in the fasting state and after an oral glucose load, overweight, and a sedentary lifestyle — are potentially reversible. We hypothesized that modifying these factors with a lifestyle-intervention program or the administration of metformin would prevent or delay the development of diabetes. Methods We randomly assigned 3234 nondiabetic persons with elevated fasting and post-load plasma glucose concentrations to placebo, metformin (850 mg twice daily), or a lifestyle modification program with the goals of at least a 7 percent weight loss and at least 150 minutes of physical activity per week. The mean age of the participants was 51 years, and the mean body-mass index (the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters) was 34.0; 68 percent were women, and 45 percent were members of minority groups. Results The average follow-up was 2.8 years. The incidence of diabetes was 11.0, 7.8, and 4.8 cases per 100 person-years in the placebo, metformin, and lifestyle groups, respectively. The lifestyle intervention reduced the incidence by 58 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 48 to 66 percent) and metformin by 31 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 17 to 43 percent), as compared with placebo; the lifestyle intervention was significantly more effective than metformin. To prevent one case of diabetes during a period of three years, 6.9 persons would have to participate in the lifestyle-intervention program, and 13.9 would have to receive metformin. Conclusions Lifestyle changes and treatment with metformin both reduced the incidence of diabetes in persons at high risk. The lifestyle intervention was more effective than metformin.