Responses to lifestyle interventions among individuals with distinct pre-diabetes phenotypes: A systematic review and Meta-Analysis
Authors' conclusion
LIs are effective for IGT (with or without IFG), but tailored LIs are needed for i-IFG to prevent diabetes.
Study context
- Population
- Adults with i-IFG, i-IGT or IFG + IGT in RCTs of lifestyle interventions (LIs) (diet and/or physical activity); databases searched until December 6th, 202327 studies
- Comparison
- Lifestyle interventions by pre-diabetes phenotype
- Outcome
- Diabetes incidence with LIs, by phenotype (10 studies with stratified analyses)
Methodological detailsrandom-effects meta-analysis
- Random-effects meta-analysis
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
I2
| Outcome | i-IFG | i-IGT | IFG + IGT |
|---|---|---|---|
| RR | 0.85 [0.66; 1.11] | 0.69 [0.56; 0.85] | 0.56 [0.48; 0.66] |
- Between i-IGT and i-IFG: psubgroup = 0.02 — across i-IFG, i-IGT and IFG + IGT
Further pooled results
Studies using IGT for recruitment (20 studies)
- LIs significantly decreased diabetes incidence, increased normoglycemia incidence, and improved fasting plasma glucose (FPG), 2 h-PG, fasting insulin (FI) and homeostasis model assessment-insulin resistance (HOMA-IR)
Original publication
Responses to lifestyle interventions among individuals with distinct pre-diabetes phenotypes: A systematic review and Meta-Analysis. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. Published 4 December 2024. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →