Importance: It is unclear whether a lifestyle intervention can maintain glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. Objective: To test whether an intensive lifestyle intervention results in equivalent glycemic control compared with standard care and, secondarily, leads to a reduction in glucose-lowering medication in participants with type 2 diabetes. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized, assessor-blinded, single-center study within Region Zealand and the Capital Region of Denmark (April 2015-August 2016). Ninety-eight adult participants with non-insulin-dependent type 2 diabetes who were diagnosed for less than 10 years were included. Participants were randomly assigned (2:1; stratified by sex) to the lifestyle group (n = 64) or the standard care group (n = 34). Interventions: All participants received standard care with individual counseling and standardized, blinded, target-driven medical therapy. Additionally, the lifestyle intervention included 5 to 6 weekly aerobic training sessions (duration 30-60 minutes), of which 2 to 3 sessions were combined with resistance training. The lifestyle participants received dietary plans aiming for a body mass index of 25 or less. Participants were followed up for 12 months. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was change in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) from baseline to 12-month follow-up, and equivalence was prespecified by a CI margin of ±0.4% based on the intention-to-treat population. Superiority analysis was performed on the secondary outcome reductions in glucose-lowering medication. Results: Among 98 randomized participants (mean age, 54.6 years [SD, 8.9]; women, 47 [48%]; mean baseline HbA1c, 6.7%), 93 participants completed the trial. From baseline to 12-month follow-up, the mean HbA1c level changed from 6.65% to 6.34% in the lifestyle group and from 6.74% to 6.66% in the standard care group (mean between-group difference in change of -0.26% [95% CI, -0.52% to -0.01%]), not meeting the criteria for equivalence (P = .15). Reduction in glucose-lowering medications occurred in 47 participants (73.5%) in the lifestyle group and 9 participants (26.4%) in the standard care group (difference, 47.1 percentage points [95% CI, 28.6-65.3]). There were 32 adverse events (most commonly musculoskeletal pain or discomfort and mild hypoglycemia) in the lifestyle group and 5 in the standard care group. Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults with type 2 diabetes diagnosed for less than 10 years, a lifestyle intervention compared with standard care resulted in a change in glycemic control that did not reach the criterion for equivalence, but was in a direction consistent with benefit. Further research is needed to assess superiority, as well as generalizability and durability of findings. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02417012.
RCT Entities:
Importance: It is unclear whether a lifestyle intervention can maintain glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. Objective: To test whether an intensive lifestyle intervention results in equivalent glycemic control compared with standard care and, secondarily, leads to a reduction in glucose-lowering medication in participants with type 2 diabetes. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized, assessor-blinded, single-center study within Region Zealand and the Capital Region of Denmark (April 2015-August 2016). Ninety-eight adult participants with non-insulin-dependent type 2 diabetes who were diagnosed for less than 10 years were included. Participants were randomly assigned (2:1; stratified by sex) to the lifestyle group (n = 64) or the standard care group (n = 34). Interventions: All participants received standard care with individual counseling and standardized, blinded, target-driven medical therapy. Additionally, the lifestyle intervention included 5 to 6 weekly aerobic training sessions (duration 30-60 minutes), of which 2 to 3 sessions were combined with resistance training. The lifestyle participants received dietary plans aiming for a body mass index of 25 or less. Participants were followed up for 12 months. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was change in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) from baseline to 12-month follow-up, and equivalence was prespecified by a CI margin of ±0.4% based on the intention-to-treat population. Superiority analysis was performed on the secondary outcome reductions in glucose-lowering medication. Results: Among 98 randomized participants (mean age, 54.6 years [SD, 8.9]; women, 47 [48%]; mean baseline HbA1c, 6.7%), 93 participants completed the trial. From baseline to 12-month follow-up, the mean HbA1c level changed from 6.65% to 6.34% in the lifestyle group and from 6.74% to 6.66% in the standard care group (mean between-group difference in change of -0.26% [95% CI, -0.52% to -0.01%]), not meeting the criteria for equivalence (P = .15). Reduction in glucose-lowering medications occurred in 47 participants (73.5%) in the lifestyle group and 9 participants (26.4%) in the standard care group (difference, 47.1 percentage points [95% CI, 28.6-65.3]). There were 32 adverse events (most commonly musculoskeletal pain or discomfort and mild hypoglycemia) in the lifestyle group and 5 in the standard care group. Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults with type 2 diabetes diagnosed for less than 10 years, a lifestyle intervention compared with standard care resulted in a change in glycemic control that did not reach the criterion for equivalence, but was in a direction consistent with benefit. Further research is needed to assess superiority, as well as generalizability and durability of findings. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02417012.
Authors: Donna H Ryan; Mark A Espeland; Gary D Foster; Steven M Haffner; Van S Hubbard; Karen C Johnson; Steven E Kahn; William C Knowler; Susan Z Yanovski Journal: Control Clin Trials Date: 2003-10
Authors: Xavier Pi-Sunyer; George Blackburn; Frederick L Brancati; George A Bray; Renee Bright; Jeanne M Clark; Jeffrey M Curtis; Mark A Espeland; John P Foreyt; Kathryn Graves; Steven M Haffner; Barbara Harrison; James O Hill; Edward S Horton; John Jakicic; Robert W Jeffery; Karen C Johnson; Steven Kahn; David E Kelley; Abbas E Kitabchi; William C Knowler; Cora E Lewis; Barbara J Maschak-Carey; Brenda Montgomery; David M Nathan; Jennifer Patricio; Anne Peters; J Bruce Redmon; Rebecca S Reeves; Donna H Ryan; Monika Safford; Brent Van Dorsten; Thomas A Wadden; Lynne Wagenknecht; Jacqueline Wesche-Thobaben; Rena R Wing; Susan Z Yanovski Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2007-03-15 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Elbert S Huang; Sydney E S Brown; Bernard G Ewigman; Edward C Foley; David O Meltzer Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2007-07-10 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Silvio E Inzucchi; Richard M Bergenstal; John B Buse; Michaela Diamant; Ele Ferrannini; Michael Nauck; Anne L Peters; Apostolos Tsapas; Richard Wender; David R Matthews Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2012-04-19 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Danielle Perry; Michael R Kolber; Christina Korownyk; Adrienne J Lindblad; Jamil Ramji; Joey Ton; G Michael Allan Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: Anthony W Russell; Maria Donald; Samantha J Borg; Jianzhen Zhang; Letitia H Burridge; Robert S Ware; Nelufa Begum; H David McIntyre; Claire L Jackson Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2018-10-03 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Helga Ellingsgaard; Eleonora Seelig; Katharina Timper; Michael Coslovsky; Line Soederlund; Mark P Lyngbaek; Nicolai J Wewer Albrechtsen; Arno Schmidt-Trucksäss; Henner Hanssen; Walter O Frey; Kristian Karstoft; Bente K Pedersen; Marianne Böni-Schnetzler; Marc Y Donath Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2019-12-03 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Linda M Delahanty; Douglas E Levy; Yuchiao Chang; Bianca C Porneala; Valerie Goldman; Jeanna McCarthy; Laurie Bissett; Anthony Romeo Rodriguez; Barbara Chase; Rajani LaRocca; Amy Wheeler; Deborah J Wexler Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-01-21 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Vincent J H Yao; Michael Sun; Aivi A Rahman; Zachariah Samuel; Joyce Chan; Elizabeth Zheng; Alan C Yao Journal: Clin Exp Hepatol Date: 2021-06-30