Dataset Information

Improving diabetes prevention with benefit based tailored treatment: risk based reanalysis of Diabetes Prevention Program.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To determine whether some participants in the Diabetes Prevention Program were more or less likely to benefit from metformin or a structured lifestyle modification program.

Design

Post hoc analysis of the Diabetes Prevention Program, a randomized controlled trial.

Setting

Ambulatory care patients.

Participants

3060 people without diabetes but with evidence of impaired glucose metabolism.

Intervention

Intervention groups received metformin or a lifestyle modification program with the goals of weight loss and physical activity.

Main outcome measure

Development of diabetes, stratified by the risk of developing diabetes according to a diabetes risk prediction model.

Results

Of the 3081 participants with impaired glucose metabolism at baseline, 655 (21%) progressed to diabetes over a median 2.8 years' follow-up. The diabetes risk model had good discrimination (C statistic=0.73) and calibration. Although the lifestyle intervention provided a sixfold greater absolute risk reduction in the highest risk quarter than in the lowest risk quarter, patients in the lowest risk quarter still received substantial benefit (three year absolute risk reduction 4.9% v 28.3% in highest risk quarter; numbers needed to treat of 20.4 and 3.5, respectively). The benefit of metformin, however, was seen almost entirely in patients in the top quarter of risk of diabetes. No benefit was seen in the lowest risk quarter. Participants in the highest risk quarter averaged a 21.4% three year absolute risk reduction (number needed to treat 4.6).

Conclusions

Patients at high risk of diabetes have substantial variation in their likelihood of receiving benefit from diabetes prevention treatments. Using this knowledge could decrease overtreatment and make prevention of diabetes far more efficient, effective, and patient centered, provided that decision making is based on an accurate risk prediction tool.

SUBMITTER: Sussman JB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4353279 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEconomic evaluation of school-based obesity interventions could provide support for public health decision of obesity prevention. This study is to perform cost-utility and cost-benefit assessment of three school-based childhood obesity interventions including nutrition education intervention (NE), physical activity intervention (PA) and comprehensive intervention (both NE and PA, CNP) with secondary data analysis of one randomized controlled trial.MethodsThe standard cost-effectiveness analysis methods were employed from a societal perspective to the health outcome and costs that are attributable to the intervention. NE, PA and CNP were carried out separately for 2 semesters for childhood obesity interventions in primary schools. The additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) resulting from the interventions were measured as the health outcome. A cost-utility ratio (CUR) and A cost-benefit ratio (CBR) was calculated as the ratio of implementation costs to the total medical and productivity loss costs averted by the interventions.ResultsThe CUR and CBR were ¥11,505.9 ($1646.0) per QALY and ¥1.2 benefit per ¥1 cost respectively, and the net saving was ¥73,659.6 ($10,537.9). The CUR and CBR for nutrition education and physical activity interventions were ¥21,316.4 ($3049.6) per QALY and ¥0.7 benefit per ¥1 cost, ¥28,417.1 ($4065.4) per QALY and ¥0.4 benefit per ¥1 cost, respectively (in 2019 RMB). Compared with PA intervention, the ICERs were ¥10,335.2 ($1478.6) and 4626.3 ($661.8) for CNP and NE respectively. The CBR was ¥1.2, 0.7, and 0.4 benefits per ¥1 cost for CNP, NE, and PA interventions, respectively. Net estimated savings were achieved only through CNP intervention, amounting to ¥73,659.6 ($10,537.9).ConclusionsComprehensive school-based obesity intervention is a beneficial investment that is both cost-effective and cost saving. Compared with PA intervention, both CNP and NE intervention were more cost-effective.

Project description:The largest and longest clinical trial of metformin for the prevention of diabetes is the Diabetes Prevention Program/Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study (DPP/DPPOS). In this review, we summarise data from the DPP/DPPOS, focusing on metformin for diabetes prevention, as well as its long-term glycaemic and cardiometabolic effects and safety in people at high-risk of developing diabetes. The DPP (1996-2001) was a RCT of 3234 adults who, at baseline, were at high-risk of developing diabetes. Participants were assigned to masked placebo (n = 1082) or metformin (n = 1073) 850 mg twice daily, or intensive lifestyle intervention (n = 1079). The masked metformin/placebo intervention phase ended approximately 1 year ahead of schedule because of demonstrated efficacy. Primary outcome was reported at 2.8 years. At the end of the DPP, all participants were offered lifestyle education and 88% (n = 2776) of the surviving DPP cohort continued follow-up in the DPPOS. Participants originally assigned to metformin continued to receive metformin, unmasked. The DPP/DPPOS cohort has now been followed for over 15 years with prospective assessment of glycaemic, cardiometabolic, health economic and safety outcomes. After an average follow-up of 2.8 years, metformin reduced the incidence of diabetes by 31% compared with placebo, with a greater effect in those who were more obese, had a higher fasting glucose or a history of gestational diabetes. The DPPOS addressed the longer-term effects of metformin, showing a risk reduction of 18% over 10 and 15 years post-randomisation. Metformin treatment for diabetes prevention was estimated to be cost-saving. At 15 years, lack of progression to diabetes was associated with a 28% lower risk of microvascular complications across treatment arms, a reduction that was no different among treatment groups. Recent findings suggest metformin may reduce atherosclerosis development in men. Originally used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, metformin, now proven to prevent or delay diabetes, may serve as an important tool in battling the growing diabetes epidemic. Long-term follow-up, currently underway in the DPP/DPPOS, is now evaluating metformin's potential role, when started early in the spectrum of dysglycaemia, on later-stage comorbidities, including cardiovascular disease and cancer.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT00038727 and NCT00004992.

Project description:BackgroundAdherence to core type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) treatment behaviors is suboptimal, and nonadherence is generally not limited to one treatment behavior. The internet holds promise for programs that aim to improve adherence. We developed a computer-tailored eHealth program for patients with T2DM to improve their treatment adherence, that is, adherence to both a healthy lifestyle and medical behaviors.ObjectiveThe objective of this study is to examine the effectiveness of the eHealth program in a randomized controlled trial.MethodsPatients with T2DM were recruited by their health professionals and randomized into either the intervention group, that is, access to the eHealth program for 6 months, or a waiting-list control group. In total, 478 participants completed the baseline questionnaire, of which 234 gained access to the eHealth program. Of the 478 participants, 323 were male and 155 were female, the mean age was 60 years, and the participants had unfavorable BMI and HbA1c levels on average. Outcome data were collected through web-based assessments on physical activity (PA) levels, caloric intake from unhealthy snacks, and adherence to oral hypoglycemic agents (OHAs) and insulin therapy. Changes to separate behaviors were standardized and summed into a composite change score representing changes in the overall treatment adherence. Further standardization of this composite change score yielded the primary outcome, which can be interpreted as Cohen d (effect size). Standardized change scores observed in separate behaviors acted as secondary outcomes. Mixed linear regression analyses were conducted to examine the effectiveness of the intervention on overall and separate treatment behavior adherence, accommodating relevant covariates and patient nesting.ResultsAfter the 6-month follow-up assessment, 47.4% (111/234) of participants in the intervention group and 72.5% (177/244) of participants in the control group were retained. The overall treatment adherence improved significantly in the intervention group compared with the control group, reflected by a small effect size (d=0.27; 95% CI 0.032 to 0.509; P=.03). When considering changes in separate treatment behaviors, a significant decrease was observed only in caloric intake from unhealthy snacks in comparison with the control group (d=0.36; 95% CI 0.136 to 0.584; P=.002). For adherence to PA (d=-0.14; 95% CI -0.388 to 0.109; P=.27), OHAs (d=0.27; 95% CI -0.027 to 0.457; P=.08), and insulin therapy (d=0.35; 95% CI -0.066 to 0.773; P=.10), no significant changes were observed. These results from the unadjusted analyses were comparable with the results of the adjusted analyses, the per-protocol analyses, and the sensitivity analyses.ConclusionsOur multibehavior program significantly improved the overall treatment adherence compared with the control group. To further enhance the impact of the intervention in the personal, societal, and economic areas, a wide-scale implementation of our eHealth intervention is suggested.Trial registrationNetherlands Trial Register NL664; https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/6664.

Project description:BackgroundThe Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) was a randomized, controlled clinical trial. It demonstrated that among high-risk individuals with impaired glucose tolerance, diabetes incidence was reduced by 58 % with lifestyle intervention and 31 % with metformin compared to placebo. During the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study (DPPOS), all DPP participants were unmasked to their treatment assignments, the original lifestyle intervention group was offered additional lifestyle support, the metformin group continued metformin, and all three groups were offered a group-implemented lifestyle intervention. Over the 10 years of combined DPP/DPPOS follow-up, diabetes incidence was reduced by 34 % in the lifestyle group and 18 % in the metformin group compared to placebo. The purpose of this article is to review and synthesize analyses published by the DPP/DPPOS Research Group that have described the cost-effectiveness of diabetes prevention.MethodsWe describe the resource utilization and costs of the DPP and DPPOS interventions, the costs of non-intervention-related medical care, the impact of the interventions on diabetes progression and quality-of-life, and the cost-effectiveness of the interventions from health system and societal perspectives. Cost-effectiveness analyses were performed with a 3-year time horizon using DPP data, a lifetime time horizon that simulated 3-year DPP data, and a 10-year time horizon using combined DPP/DPPOS data.ResultsAlthough more expensive than the placebo intervention, the greater costs of the lifestyle and metformin interventions were offset by reductions in the costs of nonintervention-related medical care. Every year after randomization, quality-of-life was better for participants in the lifestyle intervention compared to those in the metformin or placebo intervention. In both the simulated lifetime analysis and the 10-year within trial economic analysis, lifestyle and metformin were extremely cost-effective (that is, improved outcomes at a low incremental cost) or even cost-saving (that is, improved outcomes and reduced total costs) compared to the placebo intervention.ConclusionsThe implementation of diabetes prevention programs in high-risk individuals will result in important health benefits and represents a good value for money.Trial registrationNCT00004992 (DPP) and NCT00038727 (DPPOS).