Dataset Information

Does Type 2 Diabetes Genetic Testing and Counseling Reduce Modifiable Risk Factors? A Randomized Controlled Trial of Veterans.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:We examined the clinical utility of supplementing type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) risk counseling with DM genetic test results and counseling. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS:In this randomized controlled trial, non-diabetic overweight/obese veteran outpatients aged 21 to 65 years received DM risk estimates for lifetime risk, family history, and fasting plasma glucose, followed by either genetic test results (CR+G; N = 303) or control eye disease counseling (CR+EYE; N = 298). All participants received brief lifestyle counseling encouraging weight loss to reduce the risk of DM. RESULTS:The mean age was 54 years, 53% of participants were black, and 80% were men. There was no difference between arms in weight (estimated mean difference between CR+G vs. CR+EYE at 3 months = 0.2 kg, 95% CI: -0.3 to 0.7; at 6 months = 0.4 kg, 95 % CI: -0.3 to 1.1), insulin resistance, perceived risk, or physical activity at 3 or 6 months. Calorie and fat intake were lower in the CR+G arm at 3 months (p's ? 0.05) but not at 6 months (p's > 0.20). CONCLUSIONS:Providing patients with genetic test results was not more effective in changing patient behavior to reduce the risk of DM compared to conventional risk counseling. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01060540 http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01060540.

SUBMITTER: Voils CI

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4617940 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Does Type 2 Diabetes Genetic Testing and Counseling Reduce Modifiable Risk Factors? A Randomized Controlled Trial of Veterans.

Voils Corrine I CI Coffman Cynthia J CJ Grubber Janet M JM Edelman David D Sadeghpour Azita A Maciejewski Matthew L ML Bolton Jamiyla J Cho Alex A Ginsburg Geoffrey S GS Yancy William S WS

Journal of general internal medicine 20150416 11

<h4>Objective</h4>We examined the clinical utility of supplementing type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) risk counseling with DM genetic test results and counseling.<h4>Research design and methods</h4>In this randomized controlled trial, non-diabetic overweight/obese veteran outpatients aged 21 to 65 years received DM risk estimates for lifetime risk, family history, and fasting plasma glucose, followed by either genetic test results (CR+G; N = 303) or control eye disease counseling (CR+EYE; N = 298). ...[more]

PMID: 25876740

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Studies have consistently indicated that the majority of individuals meeting the US Prevention Services Task Force guidelines for genetic testing have not had genetic counseling or testing. Despite increased availability and lower costs of multiplex cancer gene panels, there remains a gap in genetics services that has not been addressed by the current care delivery models. Lower cost of DNA sequencing with online patient-initiated ordering could increase test availability, but the ideal quantity and delivery method of patient education is not known. We hypothesized that online genetic education and testing with access to board certified genetic counselors could improve access to genetic testing while maintaining test quality and clinical utility. The MAGENTA (MAking GENetic Testing Accessible) trial is a nationwide randomized study designed to compare the effectiveness of online genetic education with pre- and post-test telephone genetic counseling to three potentially more accessible alternative approaches: online genetic education with optional telephone counseling, online genetic education with required pre-test telephone genetic counseling, and online genetic education with required post-test telephone genetic counseling. METHODS:3000 women nationwide will undergo genetic testing for 19 hereditary cancer genes. This is a randomized four-arm non-inferiority study with equal randomization. The four study arms were selected to independently assess the delivery of genetic information both before and after genetic testing (pre-test and post-test) by either requiring telephone genetic counseling or providing only online education with optional telephone counseling. Patients have post-test telephone counseling when testing positive for a pathogenic inherited mutation in all four arms. Surveys measuring psychological, behavioral and cognitive state are completed online at baseline, 3?months, 12?months and 24?months post-results disclosure. The primary study outcome is cancer-risk distress at 3?months post-result disclosure. DISCUSSION:This trial will assess the use of a genetic service model using online access and electronic education, while evaluating the need for personal pre- and post-test genetic counseling. Data from this study may lead to increased options for delivery of genetic testing and possibly increase access to genetic testing. Identifying more individuals with inherited cancer susceptibility will allow targeted cancer prevention. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02993068 (registered December 14, 2016).

Project description:The efficacy of diabetes genetic risk testing to motivate behavior change for diabetes prevention is currently unknown.This paper presents key issues in the design and implementation of one of the first randomized trials (The Genetic Counseling/Lifestyle Change (GC/LC) Study for Diabetes Prevention) to test whether knowledge of diabetes genetic risk can motivate patients to adopt healthier behaviors.Because individuals may react differently to receiving 'higher' vs 'lower' genetic risk results, we designed a 3-arm parallel group study to separately test the hypotheses that: (1) patients receiving 'higher' diabetes genetic risk results will increase healthy behaviors compared to untested controls, and (2) patients receiving 'lower' diabetes genetic risk results will decrease healthy behaviors compared to untested controls. In this paper we describe several challenges to implementing this study, including: (1) the application of a novel diabetes risk score derived from genetic epidemiology studies to a clinical population, (2) the use of the principle of Mendelian randomization to efficiently exclude 'average' diabetes genetic risk patients from the intervention, and (3) the development of a diabetes genetic risk counseling intervention that maintained the ethical need to motivate behavior change in both 'higher' and 'lower' diabetes genetic risk result recipients.Diabetes genetic risk scores were developed by aggregating the results of 36 diabetes-associated single nucleotide polymorphisms. Relative risk for type 2 diabetes was calculated using Framingham Offspring Study outcomes, grouped by quartiles into 'higher', 'average' (middle two quartiles) and 'lower' genetic risk. From these relative risks, revised absolute risks were estimated using the overall absolute risk for the study group. For study efficiency, we excluded all patients receiving 'average' diabetes risk results from the subsequent intervention. This post-randomization allocation strategy was justified because genotype represents a random allocation of parental alleles ('Mendelian randomization'). Finally, because it would be unethical to discourage participants to participate in diabetes prevention behaviors, we designed our two diabetes genetic risk counseling interventions (for 'higher' and 'lower' result recipients) so that both groups would be motivated despite receiving opposing results.For this initial assessment of the clinical implementation of genetic risk testing we assessed intermediate outcomes of attendance at a 12-week diabetes prevention course and changes in self-reported motivation. If effective, longer term studies with larger sample sizes will be needed to assess whether knowledge of diabetes genetic risk can help patients prevent diabetes.We designed a randomized clinical trial designed to explore the motivational impact of disclosing both higher than average and lower than average genetic risk for type 2 diabetes. This design allowed exploration of both increased risk and false reassurance, and has implications for future studies in translational genomics.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The prevalence of diabetes mellitus continues to inexorably rise in the United States and throughout the world. Lower limb amputations are a devastating comorbid complication of diabetes mellitus. Osteomyelitis increases the risk of amputation fourfold and commonly presages death. Antimicrobial therapy for diabetic foot osteomyelitis (DFO) varies greatly, indicating that high quality data are needed to inform clinical decision making. Several small trials have indicated that the addition of rifampin to backbone antimicrobial regimens for osteomyelitis outside the setting of the diabetic foot results in 28 to 42% higher cure rates. METHODS/DESIGN:This is a prospective, randomized, double-blind investigation of the addition of 6 weeks of rifampin, 600 mg daily, vs. matched placebo (riboflavin) to standard-of-care, backbone antimicrobial therapy for DFO. The study population are patients enrolled in Veteran Health Administration (VHA), ages ≥18 and ≤ 89 years with diabetes mellitus and definite or probable osteomyelitis of the foot for whom an extended course of oral or intravenous antibiotics is planned. The primary endpoint is amputation-free survival. The primary hypothesis is that using rifampin as adjunctive therapy will lower the hazard rate compared with the group that does not use rifampin as adjunctive therapy. The primary hypothesis will be tested by means of a two-sided log-rank test with a 5% significance level. The test has 90% power to detect a hazard ratio of 0.67 or lower with a total of 880 study participants followed on average for 1.8 years. DISCUSSION:VA INTREPID will test if a rifampin-adjunctive antibiotic regimen increases amputation-free survival in patients seeking care in the VHA with DFO. A positive finding and its adoption by clinicians would reduce lower extremity amputations and their associated physical and emotional impact and reduce mortality for Veterans and for the general population with diabetic foot osteomyelitis. Given that rifampin-adjunctive regimens are currently employed for therapy for the majority of DFO cases in Europe, and only in a small minority of cases in the United States, the trial results will impact therapeutic decisions, even if the null hypothesis is not rejected. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Registered January 6, 2017 at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03012529.

Dataset Information

Does Type 2 Diabetes Genetic Testing and Counseling Reduce Modifiable Risk Factors? A Randomized Controlled Trial of Veterans.

Publications

Does Type 2 Diabetes Genetic Testing and Counseling Reduce Modifiable Risk Factors? A Randomized Controlled Trial of Veterans.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure