1.
Randomized trial of a novel lifestyle intervention compared with the Diabetes Prevention Program for weight loss in adult dependents of military service members.
Das, SK, Bukhari, AS, Taetzsch, AG, Ernst, AK, Rogers, GT, Gilhooly, CH, Hatch-McChesney, A, Blanchard, CM, Livingston, KA, Silver, RE, et al
The American journal of clinical nutrition. 2021;(4):1546-1559
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Lifestyle interventions are the first-line treatment for obesity, but participant weight loss is typically low. OBJECTIVES We evaluated the efficacy of an alternative lifestyle intervention [Healthy Weight for Living (HWL)] compared with a modified Diabetes Prevention Program (m-DPP). HWL was based on a revised health behavior change model emphasizing hunger management and the development of healthy food preferences. m-DPP was a standard Diabetes Prevention Program implemented with counselor time matched to HWL. Participants were adult dependents of military personnel and had overweight or obesity. METHODS Participants were randomly assigned to HWL (n = 121) or m-DPP (n = 117), delivered primarily by group videoconference with additional midweek emails. The primary outcome was 12-mo weight change. Secondary outcomes included 6-mo changes in cardiometabolic risk factors and diet. Intention-to-treat (ITT) and complete case (CC) analyses were performed using linear mixed models. RESULTS Retention did not differ between groups (72% and 66% for HWL and m-DPP at 12 mo, respectively; P = 0.30). Mean ± SE adjusted 12-mo weight loss in the ITT cohort was 7.46 ± 0.85 kg for HWL and 7.32 ± 0.87 kg for m-DPP (P = 0.91); in the CC cohort, it was 7.83 ± 0.82 kg for HWL and 6.86 ± 0.88 kg for m-DPP (P = 0.43). Thirty-eight percent of HWL and 30% of m-DPP completers achieved ≥10% weight loss (P = 0.32). Improvements in systolic blood pressure, LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, fasting glucose, general health, sleep, and mood were similar across groups; improvements in diastolic blood pressure were greater in m-DPP. Adjusted group mean reductions in energy intake were not significantly different between groups, but HWL participants were more adherent to their dietary prescription for lower glycemic index and high fiber and protein (P = 0.05 to <0.001 for ITT). CONCLUSIONS HWL and m-DPP showed equivalent and clinically impactful mean weight loss with cardiometabolic benefits. These results identify an alternative approach for behavioral treatment of overweight and obesity.This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT02348853.
2.
The impact of integrating medical assistants and community health workers on diabetes care management in community health centers.
Rodriguez, HP, Friedberg, MW, Vargas-Bustamante, A, Chen, X, Martinez, AE, Roby, DH
BMC health services research. 2018;(1):875
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To compare the impact of implementing team-based diabetes care management involving community health workers (CHWs) vs. medical assistants (MA) in community health centers (CHCs) on diabetes care processes, intermediate outcomes, and patients' experiences of chronic care. DATA SOURCES Clinical and administrative data (n = 6111) and patient surveys (n = 698) pre-intervention and post-intervention. Surveys (n = 285) and key informant interviews (n = 48) of CHC staff assessed barriers and facilitators of implementation. STUDY DESIGN A three-arm cluster-randomized trial of CHC sites integrating MAs (n = 3) or CHWs (n = 3) for diabetes care management compared control CHC sites (n = 10). Difference-in-difference multivariate regression with exact matching of patients estimated intervention effects. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS Patients in the CHW intervention arm had improved annual glycated hemoglobin testing (18.5%, p < 0.001), while patients in the MA intervention arm had improved low-density lipoprotein cholesterol control (8.4%, p < 0.05) and reported better chronic care experiences over time (β=7.5, p < 0.001). Except for chronic care experiences (p < 0.05) for patients in the MA intervention group, difference-in-difference estimates were not statistically significant because control group patients also improved over time. Some diabetes care processes improved significantly more for control group patients than intervention group patients. Key informant interviews revealed that immediate patient care issues sometimes crowded out diabetes care management activities, especially for MAs. CONCLUSIONS Diabetes care improved in CHCs integrating CHWs and MAs onto primary care teams, but the improvements were no different than improvements observed among matched control group patients. Greater improvement using CHW and MA team-based approaches may be possible if practice leaders minimize use of these personnel to cover shortages that often arise in busy primary care practices.
3.
Diabetes mellitus and risk of age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Chen, X, Rong, SS, Xu, Q, Tang, FY, Liu, Y, Gu, H, Tam, PO, Chen, LJ, Brelén, ME, Pang, CP, et al
PloS one. 2014;(9):e108196
Abstract
Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a major cause of severe vision loss in elderly people. Diabetes mellitus is a common endocrine disorder with serious consequences, and diabetic retinopathy (DR) is the main ophthalmic complication. DR and AMD are different diseases and we seek to explore the relationship between diabetes and AMD. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched for potentially eligible studies. Studies based on longitudinal cohort, cross-sectional, and case-control associations, reporting evaluation data of diabetes as an independent factor for AMD were included. Reports of relative risks (RRs), hazard ratios (HRs), odds ratio (ORs), or evaluation data of diabetes as an independent factor for AMD were included. Review Manager and STATA were used for the meta-analysis. Twenty four articles involving 27 study populations were included for meta-analysis. In 7 cohort studies, diabetes was shown to be a risk factor for AMD (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.00-1.14). Results of 9 cross-sectional studies revealed consistent association of diabetes with AMD (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.00-1.45), especially for late AMD (OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.44-1.51). Similar association was also detected for AMD (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.13-1.49) and late AMD (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.11-1.21) in 11 case-control studies. The pooled ORs for risk of neovascular AMD (nAMD) were 1.10 (95% CI, 0.96-1.26), 1.48 (95% CI, 1.44-1.51), and 1.15 (95% CI, 1.11-1.21) from cohort, cross-sectional and case-control studies, respectively. No obvious divergence existed among different ethnic groups. Therefore, we find diabetes a risk factor for AMD, stronger for late AMD than earlier stages. However, most of the included studies only adjusted for age and sex; we thus cannot rule out confounding as a potential explanation for the association. More well-designed prospective cohort studies are still warranted to further examine the association.