Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Different Effects of Lifestyle Intervention in High-and Low-Risk Prediabetes: Results of the Randomized Controlled Prediabetes Lifestyle Intervention Study (PLIS)

  • Andreas Fritsche
  • , Robert Wagner
  • , Martin Heni
  • , Kostantinos Kantartzis
  • , Jürgen Machann
  • , Fritz Schick
  • , Rainer Lehmann
  • , Andreas Peter
  • , Corinna Dannecker
  • , Louise Fritsche
  • , Vera Valenta
  • , Renate Schick
  • , Peter Paul Nawroth
  • , Stefan Kopf
  • , Andreas F.H. Pfeiffer
  • , Stefan Kabisch
  • , Ulrike Dambeck
  • , Michael Stumvoll
  • , Matthias Blüher
  • , Andreas L. Birkenfeld
  • Peter Schwarz, Hans Hauner, Julia Clavel, Jochen Seißler, Andreas Lechner, Karsten Müssig, Katharina Weber, Michael Laxy, Stefan Bornstein, Annette Schürmann, Michael Roden, Martin Hrabe de Angelis, Norbert Stefan, Hans Ulrich Häring
  • German Centre for Diabetes Research (DZD)
  • University of Tübingen
  • Universitätsklinikum Tübingen
  • University Hospital Heidelberg
  • Helmholtz Zentrum München German Research Center for Environmental Health
  • Joint Heidelberg-IDC Translational Diabetes Program
  • German Institute of Human Nutrition
  • University of Leipzig
  • Technische Universität Dresden
  • Technical University of Munich
  • University of Munich
  • Heinrich-Heine-University
  • Leibniz Center for Diabetes Research at Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf
  • Institute of Health Economics and Health Care Management

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

78 Scopus citations

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)2785-2795
Number of pages11
JournalDiabetes
Volume70
Issue number12
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 2021
Externally publishedYes

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

  1. SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
    SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Different Effects of Lifestyle Intervention in High-and Low-Risk Prediabetes: Results of the Randomized Controlled Prediabetes Lifestyle Intervention Study (PLIS)'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this