| Literature DB >> 35893913 |
Silke Zimmermann1, Mandy Vogel2, Akash Mathew1, Thomas Ebert3,4, Rajiv Rana1, Shihai Jiang1, Berend Isermann1, Ronald Biemann1.
Abstract
It is controversial whether lifestyle-induced weight loss (LIWL) intervention provides long-term benefit. Here, we investigated whether the degree of weight loss (WL) in a controlled LIWL intervention study determined the risk of prediabetes and recurrence of metabolic syndrome (MetS) during a 5-year follow-up. Following LIWL, 58 male participants (age 45-55 years) were divided into four quartiles based on initial WL: Q1 (WL 0-8.1%, n = 15), Q2 (WL 8.1-12.8%, n = 14), Q3 (WL 12.8-16.0%, n = 14), and Q4 (WL 16.0-27.5%, n = 15). We analyzed changes in BMI, HDL cholesterol, triglycerides (TGs), blood pressure, and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) at annual follow-up visits. With a weight gain after LIWL between 1.2 (Q2) and 2.5 kg/year (Q4), the reduction in BMI was maintained for 4 (Q2, p = 0.03) or 5 (Q3, p = 0.03; Q4, p < 0.01) years, respectively, and an increase in FPG levels above baseline values was prevented in Q2-Q4. Accordingly, there was no increase in prediabetes incidence after LIWL in participants in Q2 (up to 2 years), Q3 and Q4 (up to 5 years). A sustained reduction in MetS was maintained in Q4 during the 5-year follow-up. The present data indicate that a greater initial LIWL reduces the risk of prediabetes and recurrence of MetS for up to 5 years.Entities:
Keywords: 5-year follow-up; lifestyle-induced weight loss; long-term benefit; metabolic syndrome; prediabetes
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35893913 PMCID: PMC9331424 DOI: 10.3390/nu14153060
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 6.706
Figure 1Schematic of study design. The study was embedded in a controlled, monocentric, 6-month lifestyle-induced weight loss (LIWL) trial. Paired blood samples were collected before and after LIWL as well as after each year of follow-up (total: 5 years of follow-up). For statistical analysis, participants were divided into four quartiles based on the extent of weight loss. Fifty-eight participants completed the LIWL program and were included in the data analysis.
Table showing the absolute (N) and relative (%) numbers of participants in each quartile (Q1–Q4) at each timepoint.
| Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BL | 15/100 | 14/100 | 14/100 | 15/100 | |
| LIWL | 15/100 | 14/100 | 14/100 | 15/100 | |
| FU1 | 11/73 | 13/80 | 12/73 | 15/93 | n.s. |
| FU2 | 8/53 | 12/73 | 12/73 | 13/80 | n.s. |
| FU3 | 8/53 | 9/53 | 11/67 | 12/73 | n.s. |
| FU4 | 6/40 | 11/67 | 12/73 | 13/80 | 0.02 |
| FU5 | 7/47 | 10/60 | 12/73 | 14/87 | 0.01 |
Fisher’s exact probability test was used to analyze differences in group sizes (only significant values are listed). BL = baseline; LIWL = lifestyle-induced weight loss; FU1–5 = years of follow-up.
Figure 2Division of study participants into four quartiles based on initial weight loss. Q1 represents the 25% of individuals with the lowest levels of weight loss. Differences between groups were analyzed by the Mann-Whitney U test.
Median and interquartile ranges of BMI before and after LIWL and during the 5-year follow-up.
| BMI (kg/m2) | BL | Q1 |
| BL | Q2 |
| BL | Q3 |
| BL | Q4 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LIWL | 32.9 ± 6.6 | 30.9 ± 7.3 | <0.01 | 33.0 ± 5.7 | 28.8 ± 4.9 | <0.01 | 35.4 ± 3.4 | 30.0 ± 3.5 | <0.01 | 35.2 ± 3.2 | 27.5 ± 5.1 | <0.01 |
| FU1 | 32.6 ± 6.2 | n.s. | 30.7 ± 7.2 | <0.01 | 29.8 ± 3.2 | <0.01 | 28.2 ± 5.1 | <0.01 | ||||
| FU2 | 32.2 ± 4.1 | n.s. | 30.4 ± 6.7 | <0.01 | 31.3 ± 4.4 | <0.01 | 29.8 ± 6.4 | <0.01 | ||||
| FU3 | 31.9 ± 5.4 | n.s. | 30.1 ± 4.1 | n.s. | 31.2 ± 3.7 | <0.01 | 30.2 ± 7.8 | <0.01 | ||||
| FU4 | 32.3 ± 5.0 | n.s. | 32.1 ± 4.7 | 0.03 | 32.4 ± 3.6 | <0.01 | 31.2 ± 8.7 | <0.01 | ||||
| FU5 | 33.8 ± 3.7 | n.s. | 33.6 ± 3.9 | n.s. | 33.6 ± 4.0 | 0.03 | 31.1 ± 8.7 | <0.01 |
The Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to analyze changes between paired samples between BL and subsequent follow-up timepoints (only significant values are listed). BL = baseline; BMI = body mass index; LIWL = lifestyle-induced weight loss; FU1–5 = years of follow-up.
Figure 3Absolute weight recovery is dependent on initial weight loss. Line plot summarizing changes in BMI during the 5-year follow-up in weight loss quartiles (Q1–Q4). Data are presented as the median (interquartile range). BL = baseline; WL = weight loss; 1–5 = years of follow-up.
Figure 4Long-term effects of lifestyle-induced weight loss on parameters of metabolic syndrome in weight loss quartiles (Q1–Q4). Triglyceride (TG) (a), HDL cholesterol (b), systolic blood pressure (RRsys) (c), and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) levels (d) during the 5-year follow-up. Data are presented as the median (interquartile range). BL = baseline; WL = weight loss; 1–5 = years of follow-up.
Median and interquartile ranges of TG levels before and after LIWL and during the 5-year follow-up.
| TG (mmol/L) | BL | Q1 |
| BL | Q2 |
| BL | Q3 |
| BL | Q4 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LIWL | 2.19 ± 2.2 | 2.16 ± 2.8 | n.s. | 2.0 ± 2.6 | 1.36 ± 0.8 | <0.01 | 2.03 ± 1.9 | 1.4 ± 0.8 | <0.01 | 1.83 ± 1.5 | 0.98 ± 0.4 | <0.01 |
| FU1 | 1.93 ± 1.8 | n.s. | 1.42 ± 2.1 | 0.03 | 1.37 ± 1.4 | <0.01 | 1.10 ± 1.5 | <0.01 | ||||
| FU2 | 2.31 ± 1.0 | n.s. | 1.46 ± 2.3 | n.s. | 2.01 ± 1.7 | n.s. | 1.4 ± 1.3 | 0.01 | ||||
| FU3 | 2.76 ± 1.8 | n.s. | 1.5 ± 1.4 | n.s. | 1.97 ± 1.2 | n.s. | 1.23 ± 1.6 | 0.02 | ||||
| FU4 | 2.46 ± 1.3 | n.s. | 1.8 ± 3.2 | n.s. | 1.95 ± 1.7 | n.s. | 1.25 ± 1.1 | 0.04 | ||||
| FU5 | 2.9 ± 1.7 | n.s. | 1.87 ± 2.4 | n.s. | 2.18 ± 2.3 | n.s. | 1.55 ± 1.0 | n.s. |
The Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to analyze changes between paired samples between BL and subsequent follow-up timepoints (only significant values are listed). BL = baseline; LIWL = lifestyle-induced weight loss; triglycerides = TG; FU1–5 = years of follow-up.
Median and interquartile ranges of HDL cholesterol levels before and after LIWL and during the 5-year follow-up.
| HDL (mmol/L) | BL | Q1 |
| BL | Q2 |
| BL | Q3 |
| BL | Q4 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LIWL | 1.41 ± 0.7 | 1.53 ± 0.8 | n.s. | 1.2 ± 0.4 | 1.33 ± 0.4 | <0.01 | 1.23 ± 0.4 | 1.45 ± 0.6 | <0.01 | 1.21 ± 0.4 | 1.46 ± 0.4 | <0.01 |
| FU1 | 1.6 ± 0.4 | n.s. | 1.26 ± 0.5 | 0.03 | 1.19 ± 0.7 | n.s. | 1.45 ± 0.4 | <0.01 | ||||
| FU2 | 1.34 ± 0.7 | n.s. | 1.28 ± 0.5 | n.s. | 1.13 ± 0.7 | n.s. | 1.28 ± 0.6 | n.s. | ||||
| FU3 | 1.23 ± 0.5 | 0.02 | 1.28 ± 0.5 | n.s. | 1.24 ± 0.5 | n.s. | 1.21 ± 0.5 | n.s. | ||||
| FU4 | 1.38 ± 0.5 | n.s. | 1.32 ± 0.7 | n.s. | 1.13 ± 0.7 | n.s. | 1.27 ± 0.6 | n.s. | ||||
| FU5 | 1.24 ± 0.7 | 0.02 | 1.16 ± 0.5 | n.s. | 1.25 ± 0.4 | n.s. | 1.25 ± 0.4 | n.s. |
The Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to analyze changes between paired samples between BL and subsequent follow-up timepoints (only significant values are listed). BL = baseline; HDL = HDL cholesterol; LIWL = lifestyle-induced weight loss; FU1–5 = years of follow-up.
Median and interquartile ranges of RRsys levels before and after LIWL and during the 5-year follow-up.
| RRsys (mmHg) | BL | Q1 |
| BL | Q2 |
| BL | Q3 |
| BL | Q4 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LIWL | 140 ± 12 | 138 ± 16.0 | n.s. | 138 ± 14.0 | 122 ± 13.0 | <0.01 | 140 ± 28.5 | 130 ± 14.0 | n.s. | 149.0 ± 18.0 | 130 ± 18.0 | 0.02 |
| FU1 | 140 ± 23.8 | n.s. | 123 ± 18.8 | 0.03 | 125 ± 28.0 | n.s. | 135 ± 22.5 | 0.02 | ||||
| FU2 | 148 ± 57.3 | n.s. | 138 ± 20.0 | n.s. | 145 ± 25.0 | n.s. | 131 ± 23.3 | n.s. | ||||
| FU3 | 137 ± 35.0 | n.s. | 131.0 ± 10.0 | n.s. | 138 ± 25.0 | n.s. | 135 ± 25.0 | n.s. | ||||
| FU4 | 128 ± 27.3 | n.s. | 144.5 ± 33.3 | n.s. | 141 ± 30.0 | n.s. | 129.5 ± 31.3 | n.s. | ||||
| FU5 | 137 ± 12.3 | n.s. | 134 ± 16.0 | n.s. | 130 ± 18.0 | n.s. | 123 ± 17.5 | <0.01 |
The Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to analyze changes between paired samples between BL and subsequent follow-up timepoints (only significant values are listed). BL = baseline; LIWL = lifestyle-induced weight loss; FU1–5 = years of follow-up; RRsys = systolic blood pressure.
Median and interquartile ranges of fasting plasma glucose levels before and after LIWL and during the 5-year follow-up.
| Glucose (mmol/L) | BL | Q1 |
| BL | Q2 |
| BL | Q3 |
| BL | Q4 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LIWL | 5.9 ± 0.8 | 5.8 ± 0.7 | n.s. | 6.2 ± 1.2 | 5.7 ± 0.6 | 0.02 | 5.9 ± 1.2 | 5.4 ± 0.6 | n.s. | 6.2 ± 0.9 | 5.6 ± 0.7 | 0.02 |
| FU1 | 5.9 ± 0.2 | n.s. | 5.6 ± 0.9 | n.s. | 5.6 ± 0.7 | n.s. | 5.6 ± 0.5 | 0.02 | ||||
| FU2 | 6.3 ± 0.7 | n.s. | 5.7 ± 1.0 | n.s. | 5.4 ± 0.7 | n.s. | 5.4 ± 0.9 | 0.03 | ||||
| FU3 | 6.1 ± 1.8 | n.s. | 5.7 ± 1.1 | n.s. | 5.7 ± 1.4 | n.s. | 5.7 ± 0.9 | 0.02 | ||||
| FU4 | 6.4 ± 1.0 | n.s. | 6.4 ± 1.2 | n.s. | 6.3 ±1.5 | n.s. | 5.8 ± 1.3 | n.s. | ||||
| FU5 | 6.8 ± 1.5 | 0.05 | 6.2 ± 1.4 | n.s. | 6.0 ± 1.2 | n.s. | 5.9 ± 0.8 | n.s. |
The Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to analyze changes between paired samples between BL and subsequent follow-up timepoints (only significant values are listed). BL = baseline; LIWL = lifestyle-induced weight loss; FU1–5 = years of follow-up.
Table showing absolute numbers of participants with prediabetes (PD) after LIWL during 5 years of follow-up and the total number of participants at the indicated timepoints in each quartile (Q1–Q4).
| Q1 |
| Q2 |
| Q3 |
| Q4 |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BL | 7/15 | 7/14 | 5/14 | 7/15 | ||||
| LIWL | 2/15 | 2/14 | 2/14 | 1/15 | ||||
| FU1 | 4/11 | n.s. | 3/12 | n.s. | 1/11 | n.s. | 1/14 | n.s. |
| FU2 | 2/8 | n.s. | 3/11 | n.s. | 2/11 | n.s. | 1/12 | n.s. |
| FU3 | 3/8 | n.s. | 4/8 | 0.05 | 3/10 | n.s. | 3/11 | n.s. |
| FU4 | 2/6 | 0.03 | 4/10 | n.s. | 3/11 | n.s. | 1/12 | n.s. |
| FU5 | 3/7 | 0.03 | 3/9 | n.s. | 3/11 | n.s. | 1/13 | n.s. |
McNemar’s test was used to analyze differences between frequencies at different timepoints in each quartile compared to the frequency of PD after LIWL (only significant values are listed). BL = baseline; LIWL = lifestyle-induced weight loss; FU1–5 = years of follow-up; alpha level of significance = 0.05.
Table showing the absolute numbers of participants with metabolic syndrome (MetS) and the total number of participants at the indicated timepoints in each quartile (Q1–Q4).
| Q1 |
| Q2 |
| Q3 |
| Q4 |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BL | 15/15 | 14/14 | 14/14 | 15/15 | ||||
| LIWL | 11/15 | 0.05 | 6/14 | <0.01 | 4/14 | <0.01 | 5/15 | <0.01 |
| FU1 | 6/11 | 0.03 | 5/12 | <0.01 | 4/11 | <0.01 | 4/14 | <0.01 |
| FU2 | 7/8 | n.s. | 7/11 | 0.05 | 7/11 | 0.05 | 7/12 | 0.03 |
| FU3 | 6/8 | n.s. | 6/8 | n.s. | 8/10 | n.s. | 8/11 | n.s. |
| FU4 | 5/6 | n.s. | 10/10 | n.s. | 9/11 | n.s. | 9/12 | n.s. |
| FU5 | 6/7 | n.s. | 9/9 | n.s. | 8/11 | n.s. | 9/13 | 0.05 |
McNemar’s test was used to analyze differences between frequencies at different timepoints in each quartile compared to the frequency of MetS at BL (only significant values are listed). BL = baseline; LIWL = lifestyle-induced weight loss; FU1–5 = years of follow-up; alpha level of significance = 0.05.