Effect of Conventional Lifestyle Interventions on Type 2 Diabetes Incidence by Glucose-Defined Prediabetes Phenotype: An Individual Participant Data Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Authors' conclusion
Conventional lifestyle interventions reduced diabetes incidence in people with IGT (with or without IFG) but not in those with i-IFG.
Study context
- Population
- People with prediabetes (isolated impaired fasting glucose (i-IFG), isolated impaired glucose tolerance (i-IGT) or IFG+IGT) in RCTs of conventional lifestyle interventions; mean age 53.0 years, 60.7% men
- Participants
- 2,794 people4 RCTs
- Comparison
- Conventional lifestyle interventions vs control, by glucose-defined prediabetes phenotype
- i-IFGn = 1,240
- i-IGTn = 796
- IFG+IGTn = 758
- Outcome
- T2D incidence
- Follow-up
- Median 2.5 years
Methodological detailsrandom-effects models, within-trial interactions approach, Databases searched until 1 April 2023
- Random-effects models
- Within-trial interactions approach
- Databases searched until 1 April 2023
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
Diabetes incidence, lifestyle intervention effect by phenotype
| Group | Pooled HR |
|---|---|
| i-IFG | 0.97 (95% CI 0.66, 1.44) |
| i-IGT | 0.65 (0.44, 0.96) |
| IFG+IGT | 0.51 (0.38, 0.68) |
Pooled HR
i-IFG0.97 (95% CI 0.66, 1.44)
i-IGT0.65 (0.44, 0.96)
IFG+IGT0.51 (0.38, 0.68)
- Between i-IFG and i-IGT: P for interaction = 0.01 — heterogeneity of effect across all three phenotypes
Original publication
Effect of Conventional Lifestyle Interventions on Type 2 Diabetes Incidence by Glucose-Defined Prediabetes Phenotype: An Individual Participant Data Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Diabetes Care. Published 31 August 2023. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →