BACKGROUND: The Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) intensive lifestyle intervention resulted in significant weight loss, reducing the development of diabetes, but needs to be adapted to primary care provider (PCP) practices. OBJECTIVES: To compare a DPP-translation using individual (IC) vs. conference (CC) calls delivered by PCP staff for the outcome of percent weight loss over 2 years. DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial. SETTING: Five PCP sites. PARTICIPANTS: Obese patients with metabolic syndrome, without diabetes (IC, n = 129; CC, n = 128). INTERVENTION: Telephone delivery of the DPP Lifestyle Balance intervention [16-session core curriculum in year 1, 12-session continued telephone contact in year 2 plus telephone coaching sessions (dietitians). MAIN MEASURES: Weight (kg), body mass index (BMI), and waist circumference. BASELINE DATA: age = 52 years, BMI = 39 kg/m(2), 75 % female, 85 % non-Hispanic White, 13 % non-Hispanic Black, and 48 % annual incomes <$40,000/year. In the intention-to-treat analyses at year 2, mean percent weight loss was -5.6 % (CC, p < 0.001) and -1.8 % (IC, p = 0.046) and was greater for CC than for IC (p = 0.016). At year 2, mean weight loss was 6.2 kg (CC) and 2.2 kg (IC) (p < 0.001). There was similar weight loss at year 1, but between year 1 and year 2 CC participants continued to lose while IC participants regained. At year 2, 52 % and 43 % (CC) and 29 % and 22 % (IC) of participants lost at least 5 % and 7 % of initial weight. BMI also decreased more for CC than IC (-2.1 kg/m(2) vs. -0.8 kg/m(2) p < 0.001). Waist circumference decreased by 3.1 cm (CC) and 2.4 cm (IC) at year 2. Completers (≥9 of 16 sessions; mean 13.3 sessions) lost significantly more weight than non-completers (mean 4.3 sessions). CONCLUSIONS: PCP staff delivery of the DPP lifestyle intervention by telephone can be effective in achieving weight loss in obese people with metabolic syndrome. Greater weight loss may be attained with a group telephone intervention.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) intensive lifestyle intervention resulted in significant weight loss, reducing the development of diabetes, but needs to be adapted to primary care provider (PCP) practices. OBJECTIVES: To compare a DPP-translation using individual (IC) vs. conference (CC) calls delivered by PCP staff for the outcome of percent weight loss over 2 years. DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial. SETTING: Five PCP sites. PARTICIPANTS: Obese patients with metabolic syndrome, without diabetes (IC, n = 129; CC, n = 128). INTERVENTION: Telephone delivery of the DPP Lifestyle Balance intervention [16-session core curriculum in year 1, 12-session continued telephone contact in year 2 plus telephone coaching sessions (dietitians). MAIN MEASURES: Weight (kg), body mass index (BMI), and waist circumference. BASELINE DATA: age = 52 years, BMI = 39 kg/m(2), 75 % female, 85 % non-Hispanic White, 13 % non-Hispanic Black, and 48 % annual incomes <$40,000/year. In the intention-to-treat analyses at year 2, mean percent weight loss was -5.6 % (CC, p < 0.001) and -1.8 % (IC, p = 0.046) and was greater for CC than for IC (p = 0.016). At year 2, mean weight loss was 6.2 kg (CC) and 2.2 kg (IC) (p < 0.001). There was similar weight loss at year 1, but between year 1 and year 2 CC participants continued to lose while IC participants regained. At year 2, 52 % and 43 % (CC) and 29 % and 22 % (IC) of participants lost at least 5 % and 7 % of initial weight. BMI also decreased more for CC than IC (-2.1 kg/m(2) vs. -0.8 kg/m(2) p < 0.001). Waist circumference decreased by 3.1 cm (CC) and 2.4 cm (IC) at year 2. Completers (≥9 of 16 sessions; mean 13.3 sessions) lost significantly more weight than non-completers (mean 4.3 sessions). CONCLUSIONS:PCP staff delivery of the DPP lifestyle intervention by telephone can be effective in achieving weight loss in obese people with metabolic syndrome. Greater weight loss may be attained with a group telephone intervention.
Authors: Robert Ross; Miu Lam; Steven N Blair; Timothy S Church; Marshall Godwin; Stephen B Hotz; Ana Johnson; Peter T Katzmarzyk; Lucie Lévesque; Susan MacDonald Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2012-02-27
Authors: Trevor J Orchard; Marinella Temprosa; Ronald Goldberg; Steven Haffner; Robert Ratner; Santica Marcovina; Sarah Fowler Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2005-04-19 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Jeffrey A Katula; Mara Z Vitolins; Erica L Rosenberger; Caroline S Blackwell; Timothy M Morgan; Michael S Lawlor; David C Goff Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2011-05-18 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Ethan M Balk; Amy Earley; Gowri Raman; Esther A Avendano; Anastassios G Pittas; Patrick L Remington Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2015-09-15 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: A L B Shapiro; J L Kaar; T L Crume; A P Starling; A M Siega-Riz; B M Ringham; D H Glueck; J M Norris; L A Barbour; J E Friedman; D Dabelea Journal: Int J Obes (Lond) Date: 2016-05-02 Impact factor: 5.095
Authors: Elizabeth M Venditti; Marsha D Marcus; Rachel G Miller; Vincent C Arena; Susan L Greenspan; Bonny Rockette-Wagner Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2021-01-18 Impact factor: 6.053