TY - JOUR
T1 - Different Effects of Lifestyle Intervention in High-and Low-Risk Prediabetes
T2 - Results of the Randomized Controlled Prediabetes Lifestyle Intervention Study (PLIS)
AU - Fritsche, Andreas
AU - Wagner, Robert
AU - Heni, Martin
AU - Kantartzis, Kostantinos
AU - Machann, Jürgen
AU - Schick, Fritz
AU - Lehmann, Rainer
AU - Peter, Andreas
AU - Dannecker, Corinna
AU - Fritsche, Louise
AU - Valenta, Vera
AU - Schick, Renate
AU - Nawroth, Peter Paul
AU - Kopf, Stefan
AU - Pfeiffer, Andreas F.H.
AU - Kabisch, Stefan
AU - Dambeck, Ulrike
AU - Stumvoll, Michael
AU - Blüher, Matthias
AU - Birkenfeld, Andreas L.
AU - Schwarz, Peter
AU - Hauner, Hans
AU - Clavel, Julia
AU - Seißler, Jochen
AU - Lechner, Andreas
AU - Müssig, Karsten
AU - Weber, Katharina
AU - Laxy, Michael
AU - Bornstein, Stefan
AU - Schürmann, Annette
AU - Roden, Michael
AU - de Angelis, Martin Hrabe
AU - Stefan, Norbert
AU - Häring, Hans Ulrich
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 by the American Diabetes Association.
PY - 2021/12
Y1 - 2021/12
N2 - Lifestyle intervention (LI) can prevent type 2 diabetes, but response to LI varies depending on risk subphenotypes. We tested whether individuals with prediabetes with low risk (LR) benefit from conventional LI and individuals with high risk (HR) benefit from an intensification of LI in a multicenter randomized controlled intervention over 12 months with 2 years’ follow-up. A total of 1,105 individuals with prediabetes based on American Diabetes Association glucose criteria were stratified into an HR or LR phenotype based on previously described thresholds of insulin secretion, insulin sensitivity, and liver fat content. LR individuals were randomly assigned to conventional LI according to the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) protocol or control (1:1) and HR individuals to conventional or intensified LI with doubling of required exercise (1:1). A total of 908 (82%) participants completed the study. In HR individuals, the difference between conventional and intensified LI in postchallenge glucose change was 20.29 mmol/L [95% CI 20.54; 20.04], P = 0.025. Liver fat (21.34 percentage points [95% CI 22.17; 20.50], P = 0.002) and cardiovascular risk (21.82 percentage points [95% CI 23.13; 20.50], P = 0.007) underwent larger reductions with intensified than with conventional LI. During a follow-up of 3 years, intensified compared with conventional LI had a higher probability of normalizing glucose tolerance (P = 0.008). In conclusion, it is possible in HR individuals with prediabetes to improve glycemic and cardiometabolic outcomes by intensification of LI. Individualized, risk phenotype–based LI may be beneficial for the prevention of diabetes.
AB - Lifestyle intervention (LI) can prevent type 2 diabetes, but response to LI varies depending on risk subphenotypes. We tested whether individuals with prediabetes with low risk (LR) benefit from conventional LI and individuals with high risk (HR) benefit from an intensification of LI in a multicenter randomized controlled intervention over 12 months with 2 years’ follow-up. A total of 1,105 individuals with prediabetes based on American Diabetes Association glucose criteria were stratified into an HR or LR phenotype based on previously described thresholds of insulin secretion, insulin sensitivity, and liver fat content. LR individuals were randomly assigned to conventional LI according to the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) protocol or control (1:1) and HR individuals to conventional or intensified LI with doubling of required exercise (1:1). A total of 908 (82%) participants completed the study. In HR individuals, the difference between conventional and intensified LI in postchallenge glucose change was 20.29 mmol/L [95% CI 20.54; 20.04], P = 0.025. Liver fat (21.34 percentage points [95% CI 22.17; 20.50], P = 0.002) and cardiovascular risk (21.82 percentage points [95% CI 23.13; 20.50], P = 0.007) underwent larger reductions with intensified than with conventional LI. During a follow-up of 3 years, intensified compared with conventional LI had a higher probability of normalizing glucose tolerance (P = 0.008). In conclusion, it is possible in HR individuals with prediabetes to improve glycemic and cardiometabolic outcomes by intensification of LI. Individualized, risk phenotype–based LI may be beneficial for the prevention of diabetes.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85122185177&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.2337/db21-0526
DO - 10.2337/db21-0526
M3 - Article
C2 - 34531293
AN - SCOPUS:85122185177
SN - 0012-1797
VL - 70
SP - 2785
EP - 2795
JO - Diabetes
JF - Diabetes
IS - 12
ER -