Matthew J O'Brien1, Alberly Perez2, Adam B Scanlan3, Victor A Alos2, Robert C Whitaker4, Gary D Foster5, Ronald T Ackermann6, Jody D Ciolino7, Carol Homko8. 1. Division of General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois; Center for Community Health, Institute for Public Health and Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois; Puentes de Salud Health Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Department of Preventive Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. Electronic address: matthew.obrien1@northwestern.edu. 2. Puentes de Salud Health Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Center for Obesity Research and Education, College of Public Health, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 3. Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 4. Center for Obesity Research and Education, College of Public Health, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, College of Public Health, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 5. Weight Watchers International, Inc., New York, New York. 6. Division of General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois; Center for Community Health, Institute for Public Health and Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. 7. Department of Preventive Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. 8. Center for Obesity Research and Education, College of Public Health, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Although the Diabetes Prevention Program and other clinical trials demonstrated the efficacy of intensive lifestyle interventions (ILI) and metformin to prevent type 2 diabetes, no studies have tested their comparative effects in pragmatic settings. This study was designed to compare the real-world effectiveness of ILI, metformin, and standard care among Hispanic women (Latinas) with prediabetes. STUDY DESIGN: RCT. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Ninety-two Latinas, who had a mean hemoglobin A1c of 5.9%, BMI of 33.3 kg/m2, and waist circumference of 97.4 cm (38.3 inches), were recruited from an urban community and randomly assigned to ILI, metformin, or standard care using 1:1:1 allocation. Data were collected from 2013-2015 and analyzed in 2016. INTERVENTION: The 12-month ILI was adapted from the Diabetes Prevention Program's ILI and delivered by community health workers (promotoras) over 24 sessions. Metformin participants received 850 mg twice daily. Those randomized to standard care continued their regular medical care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Weight and secondary outcomes (waist circumference, blood pressure, hemoglobin A1c, fasting plasma glucose, insulin, and lipids) were assessed at baseline and 12 months. RESULTS: ILI participants demonstrated significantly greater mean weight loss (-4.0 kg, 5.0%) than metformin (-0.9 kg, 1.1%) and standard care participants (+0.8 kg, 0.9%) (p<0.001). The difference in weight loss between metformin and standard care was not significant. The ILI group experienced a greater reduction in waist circumference than standard care (p=0.001), and a marginal improvement in hemoglobin A1c compared with metformin and standard care (p=0.063). CONCLUSIONS: In the first comparative effectiveness trial of diabetes prevention treatments, a 12-month ILI produced significantly greater weight loss than metformin and standard care among Latinas with prediabetes. These data suggest that ILI delivered by promotoras is an effective strategy for preventing diabetes in this high-risk group, which may be superior to metformin. Future pragmatic trials involving larger samples should examine differences in diabetes incidence associated with these treatments.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: Although the Diabetes Prevention Program and other clinical trials demonstrated the efficacy of intensive lifestyle interventions (ILI) and metformin to prevent type 2 diabetes, no studies have tested their comparative effects in pragmatic settings. This study was designed to compare the real-world effectiveness of ILI, metformin, and standard care among Hispanic women (Latinas) with prediabetes. STUDY DESIGN: RCT. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Ninety-two Latinas, who had a mean hemoglobin A1c of 5.9%, BMI of 33.3 kg/m2, and waist circumference of 97.4 cm (38.3 inches), were recruited from an urban community and randomly assigned to ILI, metformin, or standard care using 1:1:1 allocation. Data were collected from 2013-2015 and analyzed in 2016. INTERVENTION: The 12-month ILI was adapted from the Diabetes Prevention Program's ILI and delivered by community health workers (promotoras) over 24 sessions. Metforminparticipants received 850 mg twice daily. Those randomized to standard care continued their regular medical care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Weight and secondary outcomes (waist circumference, blood pressure, hemoglobin A1c, fasting plasma glucose, insulin, and lipids) were assessed at baseline and 12 months. RESULTS: ILI participants demonstrated significantly greater mean weight loss (-4.0 kg, 5.0%) than metformin (-0.9 kg, 1.1%) and standard care participants (+0.8 kg, 0.9%) (p<0.001). The difference in weight loss between metformin and standard care was not significant. The ILI group experienced a greater reduction in waist circumference than standard care (p=0.001), and a marginal improvement in hemoglobin A1c compared with metformin and standard care (p=0.063). CONCLUSIONS: In the first comparative effectiveness trial of diabetes prevention treatments, a 12-month ILI produced significantly greater weight loss than metformin and standard care among Latinas with prediabetes. These data suggest that ILI delivered by promotoras is an effective strategy for preventing diabetes in this high-risk group, which may be superior to metformin. Future pragmatic trials involving larger samples should examine differences in diabetes incidence associated with these treatments.
Authors: Ira S Ockene; Trinidad L Tellez; Milagros C Rosal; George W Reed; John Mordes; Philip A Merriam; Barbara C Olendzki; Garry Handelman; Robert Nicolosi; Yunsheng Ma Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2011-12-15 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Matthew J O'Brien; Alberly Perez; Victor A Alos; Robert C Whitaker; Jody D Ciolino; David C Mohr; Ronald T Ackermann Journal: Diabetes Educ Date: 2015-05-28 Impact factor: 2.140
Authors: M Kaye Kramer; Andrea M Kriska; Elizabeth M Venditti; Rachel G Miller; Maria M Brooks; Lora E Burke; Linda M Siminerio; Francis X Solano; Trevor J Orchard Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Ronald T Ackermann; Emily A Finch; Edward Brizendine; Honghong Zhou; David G Marrero Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 5.043
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: Uma Mudaliar; Azadeh Zabetian; Michael Goodman; Justin B Echouffo-Tcheugui; Ann L Albright; Edward W Gregg; Mohammed K Ali Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2016-07-26 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Luis A Rodríguez; Simón Barquera; Carlos A Aguilar-Salinas; Jaime Sepúlveda-Amor; Luz María Sánchez-Romero; Edgar Denova-Gutiérrez; Nydia Balderas; Lizbeth Moreno-Loaeza; Margaret A Handley; Sanjay Basu; Oliva López-Arellano; Alberto Gallardo-Hernández; Dean Schillinger Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2020-06-21 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Tannaz Moin; Julie A Schmittdiel; James H Flory; Jessica Yeh; Andrew J Karter; Lydia E Kruge; Dean Schillinger; Carol M Mangione; William H Herman; Elizabeth A Walker Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2018-08-17 Impact factor: 6.604
Authors: Jack M Birch; Rebecca A Jones; Julia Mueller; Matthew D McDonald; Rebecca Richards; Michael P Kelly; Simon J Griffin; Amy L Ahern Journal: Obes Rev Date: 2022-03-03 Impact factor: 10.867