Skip to main content

Weight Loss Achieved by 2 Lifestyle Interventions


Two different lifestyle interventions modeled after those delivered in the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) produced significant weight loss among overweight or obese adults in a primary care setting, according to a study published onlineDecember 10 in the Archives of Internal Medicine by Jun Ma, MD, PhD, from the Department of Health Services Research, Palo Alto Medical Foundation Research Institute, and the Department of Medicine Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, and colleagues.
"Until recently, rigorous trial evidence on effective, scalable treatment models in primary care practice has been lacking," the authors write.
The Evaluation of Lifestyle Interventions to Treat Elevated Cardiometabolic Risk in Primary Care trial design is a 3-group, randomized study that compared both a coach-led, in-person weekly group intervention and a self-directed DVD intervention with usual care.
The interventions were adapted from those used in the landmark DPP trial, which produced a 58% reduction in the development of type 2 diabetes over the course of 3 years via modest weight loss.
In the current study, a total of 241 overweight or obese adults with prediabetes and/or metabolic syndrome were randomly assigned to 1 of the 3 groups for a 3-month intensive phase followed by a 12-month maintenance phase.
The same curriculum was delivered in both the coach-led and DVD formats, with both groups having the goal of gradual weight loss via incremental lifestyle changes. Both interventions included weight and physical activity goal-setting and motivational emails throughout the maintenance phase.
All study participants received standard medical care. Those randomly assigned to the usual care (control) group received no information regarding weight loss, although they were free to seek it out on their own.
At baseline, study participants were an average of nearly 53 years old, with a mean body mass index (BMI) of 32.0 kg/m 2. Slightly less than half (47%) were women, and the majority (78%) were non-Hispanic white. Most (87%) had metabolic syndrome, approximately 54% had prediabetes, and 41% had both.
The primary endpoint, change in BMI at 15 months, was significant for the 2 intervention groups compared with usual care: BMI dropped by 2.2 kg/m 2 in the coach-led group ( P < .001 compared with usual care) and by 1.6 kg/m 2 with the DVD intervention ( P = .02 compared with usual care) compared with just 0.9 kg/m 2 with usual care.
Similarly, body weight also dropped significantly with the 2 interventions compared with baseline and with the usual care group. The coach-led group lost an average of 6.3 kg and the self-directed group lost 4.5 kg, whereas the usual care group lost 2.4 kg.
"The maximum weight loss achieved within the coach-led intervention was substantial...and similar in magnitude to that achieved by the DPP lifestyle intervention and other behavioral or drug-based weight-loss trials," Dr. Ma and colleagues write, adding, "Weight loss in the self-directed intervention was less pronounced...but noteworthy given its low resource requirements and high potential for dissemination."
Both intervention groups were also more likely to achieve the 7% DPP weight-loss goal, at 37.0% and 35.9% for in-person and DVD, respectively, compared with just 14.4% in the usual care group ( P = .003 and .004, respectively).
Of the 81 participants in the usual care group, 15 said they used some type of weight loss program outside of the study compared with just 5 of the 79 in the coach-led intervention group and 3 of 81 in the DVD group. No study participants used weight-loss drugs or had weight-loss surgery.
"[T]he net intervention effects were significant even though a higher proportion of usual care participants reported attending outside weight-loss programs during the study period," the authors note.
Statistically significant improvements in waist circumference and fasting plasma glucose were also seen with both interventions.
"Proven effective in a primary care setting, the 2 DPP-based lifestyle interventions are readily scalable and exportable for substantial clinical and public health impact," the authors write.
Study limitations acknowledged by the authors include that participants were from a single clinic and of a high socioeconomic status; in addition, the trial only lasted 15 months and was not designed to assess event-based outcomes, such as development of type 2 diabetes, or cost-effectiveness.
According to David G. Marrero, PhD, the J.O. Ritchey Professor of Medicine and director of the Diabetes Translational Research Center at Indiana University in Indianapolis, "The study is interesting and makes an important comparison when considering the translation of the DPP into the public health.... It appears that live group sessions are much more effective, which probably capitalizes on the values associated with group dynamic among persons with a similar condition," he told Medscape Medical News.
Dr. Marrero, who was not involved in the study, added that although a group program is likely to be more expensive and difficult to implement in a primary care practice, "This might be offset by mounting the group experience in community settings and simply having the physician make the referral."
Such programs are not always available, he pointed out. "We need to provide far greater opportunities for patients to access effective, evidence-based programs to which [primary care physicians] can refer. The average [primary care physician] is simply not set up (currently) to implement an effective program. In this context, a supported, self-initiated program does hold promise."
Dr. Marrero recommended that physicians emphasize the importance of lifestyle modification to achieve modest, rather than unrealistically high, weight loss goals.
"In this context, any evidence-based approach that can be incorporated into the clinical practice that stimulates weight loss is good. Which strategies should be considered is still an open question. The article here describes 2 such approaches that seem to have reasonable effectiveness and should be seriously considered by [primary care physicians] as they struggle to address this growing problem."
The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, a Scientist Development Grant award from the American Heart Association, and internal funding from the Palo Alto Medical Foundation Research Institute. One coauthor has provided consulting services to Mylan Pharmaceuticals and another has received support for the Stanford Center for Clinical and Translational Education and Research (Spectrum) from the National Center for Research Resources. The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Marrero serves as a consultant to Tethys Bioscience Inc.
Arch Intern Med. Published online December 10, 2012. Full text
 

    Comments

    Post a Comment

    Popular posts from this blog

    Missing Data Lead FDA Panel to Vote Against Rivaroxaban for ACS May 23, 2012 (Updated May 24, 2012) (Silver Spring, Maryland) — The missing data issues plaguing the ATLAS ACS 2 TIMI 51 trial of the factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban (Xarelto, Bayer Healthcare/Janssen Pharmaceuticals) have prevented the drug from earning the endorsement of the FDA Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee. At its May 23 meeting, the panel voted six to four (with one abstention) against recommending that the FDA approve rivaroxaban for reducing the risk of thrombotic cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome or unstable angina in combination with aspirin, aspirin plus clopidogrel, or ticlopidine. Janssen's application is based on the results of the ATLAS ACS 2 phase 3 and the ATLAS ACS TIMI 46 phase 2 trial. The placebo-controlled ATLAS ACS 2 showed rivaroxaban reduced the risk of both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality while increasing the risk of bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage, but the studies were hindered by early patient withdrawals and missing data. We Don't Know What We're Missing Based on the ATLAS ACS 2 results, FDA reviewer Dr Karen Hicks recommended approval of rivaroxaban for the requested indications except all-cause mortality. However, another FDA reviewer, Dr Thomas Marciniak, was adamant that the trial results are not interpretable because about 12% of the patients had incomplete follow-up, far higher than the 1% to 1.5% differences in the end-point rates between rivaroxaban and placebo. A total of 1294 subjects discontinued the trial prematurely, and the company was only able to contact 183, of which 177 were confirmed to be alive. Because of the patient dropouts, the company adopted a "modified intention-to-treat analysis," whereby patients were observed for 30 days after randomization or the global end date for the trial, instead of observing all the patients until the end of the trial as the FDA originally suggested. Marciniak criticized the sponsor's efforts to follow the patients and said that three patient deaths not counted in the modified intention-to-treat analysis may just be the "tip of the iceberg." Because the percentage of patients whose ultimate vital status remains unknown is much greater than the reported differences in mortality rates, the claimed mortality benefits are not reliable. The majority of the panel sided with Marciniak. For example, Dr Sanjay Kaul (University of California, Los Angeles) voted "no" because "there was enough uncertainty in the quality and robustness of the data that dissuaded me from voting yes. . . . The 'missingness' of the data doesn't invalidate it, but it certainly makes it hard to infer [the conclusion]." Dr Steven Nissen (Cleveland Clinic, OH) said that the decision to use the modified intention-to-treat analysis had a "profound impact" on the interpretability of the data. "It's saying we don't care what happens after 30 days, [and] that colored the trial in ways we couldn't recover from." Given the risk of major bleeding, "I want to see better evidence that this strategy of adding an Xa inhibitor or a direct thrombin inhibitor or something else to a good antiplatelet agent is robustly better for the patient," Nissen said. He recommends that the companies run a new trial of the 2.5 twice-daily dose of rivaroxaban using a strict intention-to-treat approach, but, he said, "I don't expect the death benefit to be too robust." Several panelists said they were concerned that the patients who dropped out of the trial were disproportionately likely to have a bleeding event, which led them to quit the trial, or a "protopathic" event, as statistician Dr Scott Emerson (University of Washington, Seattle) put it. "We're worried that an impending event is what is changing their behavior. We see that all the time in clinical trials--that regularly measured end points do not pick up [all of] the events," he said. He said that since the company was only able to contact 183 of the over 1200 patients who dropped out, it is possible that the dropouts skew the outcomes comparison of the trial. "Differential event rates after dropout are the number-one thing we're afraid of, so you have to explore it" in a statistical sensitivity analysis of the potential impact of these unknown outcomes. "It would not surprise me if, at the end of the day, these data did not hold up under a proper sensitivity analysis," he said. "What I want to know is, among the people who had events, how differential was the follow-up, but I can tell you by just looking at it, there was a very slightly different amount of follow-up of the people in the treatment arm. But I don't know whether everyone in the treatment arm was cured and they were trekking in the Himalayas and everyone in the placebo arm went home to die. I don't know that that's not the case." Dr Maury Krantz (University of Colorado, Denver) voted in favor of approval but said he does not know how rivaroxaban would perform in general clinical practice, especially when used with aspirin and clopidogrel. "I felt very much torn by this. This isn't a simple paradigm shift. It means going to triple therapy, which is really a three-headed monster in many ways. I think that what you're going to see in practice, if this is not done carefully with the proper labeling and secondary studies, is really dramatic magnification of bleeding and perhaps minimization of the efficacy benefit."

    May 23, 2012   (Updated May 24, 2012)  (Silver Spring, Maryland)  —  The missing data issues plaguing the  ATLAS ACS 2 TIMI 51   trial of the factor Xa inhibitor  rivaroxaban  (Xarelto, Bayer Healthcare/Janssen Pharmaceuticals) have prevented the drug from earning the endorsement of the  FDA  Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee. At its May 23 meeting , the panel voted six to four (with one abstention) against recommending that the FDA approve rivaroxaban for reducing the risk of thrombotic cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome or unstable angina in combination with aspirin, aspirin plus  clopidogrel , or  ticlopidine . Janssen's application is based on the results of the ATLAS ACS 2 phase 3 and the  ATLAS ACS TIMI 46   phase 2 trial. The placebo-controlled ATLAS ACS 2 showed rivaroxaban reduced the risk of both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality while increasing the ri...
    Post a Comment
    Read more

    Antidepressants Linked to Higher Diabetes Risk in Kids

    Pediatric patients who use antidepressants may have an elevated risk for type 2 diabetes, the authors of a new study report. In a retrospective cohort study of more than 119,000 youths 5 to 20 years of age, the risk for incident type 2 diabetes was nearly twice as high among current users of certain types of antidepressants as among former users, Mehmet Burcu, PhD, and colleagues report in an article  published online October 16 in  JAMA Pediatrics . The risk intensified with increasing duration of use, greater cumulative doses, and higher daily doses of these antidepressants. The findings point to a growing need for closer monitoring of these products, including greater balancing of risks and benefits, in the pediatric population, the authors caution. They undertook the study because, despite growing evidence of an association between antidepressant use and an increased risk for type 2 diabetes in adults, similar research in pediatric patients was scarce. "To our know...
    Post a Comment
    Read more

    Sitting at Work Raises All-Cause and CV Mortality Risk

    May 21, 2012 (Lyon, France) — Sitting at work raises the risk of dying from cardiovascular (CV) and metabolic diseases, as well as the risk of dying from all causes, regardless of any exercise in which the individual may engage. That was the finding of a study reported here at the 19th European Congress on Obesity (ECO) by Anne Grunseit, PhD, from the Prevention Research Collaboration in the School of Public Health at the University of Sydney, Australia, and Norwegian colleagues. Research is increasingly focusing on sedentary behavior with low energy expenditure, including sitting and lying down, as behavioral risk factors for obesity and chronic disease. Sitting occurs during travel, while watching television, using computers, and reading. But with people often spending at least 9 hours a day at work, with fewer than 20% of jobs requiring physical exertion, and with many people spending at least 4 hours a day sitting at work, the sedentary time at work is high, and many people ar...
    Post a Comment
    Read more