Effectiveness of Lifestyle Intervention for Type 2 Diabetes in Primary Care: the REAL HEALTH-Diabetes Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Intensive lifestyle interventions (LI) improve outcomes in obesity and type 2 diabetes but are not currently available in usual care. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness and costs of two group LI programs, in-person LI and telephone conference call (telephone LI), to medical nutrition therapy (MNT) on weight loss in primary care patients with type 2 diabetes. DESIGN: A randomized, assessor-blinded, practice-based clinical trial in three community health centers and one hospital-based practice affiliated with a single health system. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 208 primary care patients with type 2 diabetes, HbA1c 6.5 to < 11.5, and BMI > 25 kg/m2 (> 23 kg/m2 in Asians). INTERVENTIONS: Dietitian-delivered in-person or telephone group LI programs with medication management or MNT referral. MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcome: mean percent weight change. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: 5% and 10% weight loss, change in HbA1c, and cost per kilogram lost. KEY RESULTS: Participants' mean age was 62 (SD 10) years, 45% were male, and 77% were White, with BMI 35 (SD 5) kg/m2 and HbA1c 7.7 (SD 1.2). Seventy were assigned to in-person LI, 72 to telephone LI, and 69 to MNT. The mean percent weight loss (95% CI) at 6 and 12 months was 5.6% (4.4-6.8%) and 4.6% (3.1-6.1%) for in-person LI, 4.6% (3.3-6.0%) and 4.8% (3.3-6.2%) for telephone LI, and 1.1% (0.2-2.0%) and 2.0% (0.9-3.0%) for MNT, with statistically significant differences between each LI arm and MNT (P < 0.001) but not between LI arms (P = 0.63). HbA1c improved in all participants. Compared with MNT, the incremental cost per kilogram lost was $789 for in-person LI and $1223 for telephone LI. CONCLUSIONS: In-person LI or telephone group LI can achieve good weight loss outcomes in primary care type 2 diabetes patients at a reasonable cost. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02320253.

Medical Nutrition Therapy, In-Person, or Telephone Group Lifestyle Intervention for Type 2 Diabetes? A Qualitative Study of Patient Perceptions and Treatment Preferences.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to explore the thoughts, feelings, motivations, and assignment preferences of community health center patients with type 2 diabetes considering participation in a 2-year lifestyle intervention trial aimed at weight loss and increased physical activity. The reasons for patients' delivery mode preferences were also explored to aid in the design of future interventions for controlled trials. METHODS: Using structured telephone interview guides, 57 patients with type 2 diabetes receiving primary care at 3 community health centers affiliated with an academic medical center were interviewed regarding the perceived pros and cons of each of the 3 possible treatment assignments: telephone conference group, in-person group, or individual medical nutrition therapy. The interview data were organized using NVIVO and analyzed using content analysis. Findings on whether preferences varied by age, gender, or diabetes duration were also examined. RESULTS: Six categories related to patient treatment preferences were identified: (1) perception of time, (2) learning style, (3) comfort, (4) prior experience with weight loss programs and conference calls, (5) desire for support/idea exchange, and (6) accountability. Preferences did not seem to vary by age, gender, or diabetes duration. CONCLUSIONS: Key factors influencing preference of treatment assignment included schedule demands, belief about learning style, and past experiences. These findings demonstrate the importance of having a variety of nutrition and lifestyle treatment options available to meet the needs of people with type 2 diabetes.

Results of a 2-year lifestyle intervention for type 2 diabetes: the Reach Ahead for Lifestyle and Health-Diabetes randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: The Reach Ahead for Lifestyle and Health (REAL HEALTH)-Diabetes study assessed the comparative effectiveness of two Look AHEAD (Action for Health in Diabetes)-adapted lifestyle intervention (LI) arms targeting weight loss in type 2 diabetes compared with medical nutrition therapy (MNT) referral. At 1 year, LI had greater weight loss than MNT. This study reports outcomes at 24 (end of LI) and 36 months. METHODS: Participants (N = 211) with type 2 diabetes and BMI > 25 kg/m2 were randomly assigned to in-person LI, telephone conference call LI, or MNT. The primary outcome was percentage weight change. Secondary outcomes included 5% and 10% weight loss, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), and patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: Participants were 61.7 (SD 10.2) years old; 55% were female; 77% were non-Hispanic White; and had mean (SD) weight of 98 (18.9) kg and mean (SD) HbA1c of 7.7% (1.2%). Mean (SD) weight change at 24 and 36 months was -4.4% (5.9%) and -4.4% (5.4%) in in-person LI, -4.0% (5.8%) and -5.3% (6.4%) in telephone LI, and -3.1% (5.2%) and -5.8% (7.1%) in MNT, with no statistically significant difference in weight or HbA1c at 24 and 36 months. Compared with MNT, LI arms had favorable changes in patient-reported outcomes related to learned dietary skills. CONCLUSIONS: There were no differences in weight outcomes among LI participants compared with referral to MNT at the end of intervention or 1 year after its conclusion.

Effective recruitment for practice-based research: Lessons from the REAL HEALTH-Diabetes Study.

BACKGROUND: Aims: The REAL HEALTH Diabetes Study is a practice-based randomized clinical trial that compares the effectiveness of lifestyle intervention aimed at weight reduction to medical nutrition therapy in primary care patients with type 2 diabetes. This paper describes a tiered approach to recruitment, the resultant enrollment rates of sequentially more intensive recruitment strategies, and identifies barriers to participation. METHODS: Potential participants were identified using patient health registries and classified by recruitment site. Four recruitment strategies were used to achieve target enrollment: (1) mail/telephone outreach; (2) direct referral from providers; (3) orientation sessions; and (4) media/advertising. Reasons for ineligibility and non-participation were tracked. RESULTS: Fifteen thousand two hundred sixty-nine (15,269) potential participants were identified from all sources, with the clear majority coming from patient registries. Mail/telephone outreach alone had the lowest enrollment rate (1.2%). Direct referral and orientation sessions superimposed on mail/telephone outreach was used for fewer participants but had greater enrollment rates (27% and 52%.) Media/advertising was ineffective. The most commonly reported reasons for non-participation were not wanting to be in a research (30%) or a weight loss program (22%); time commitment (20%); and distance/transportation (14%). CONCLUSIONS: The use of population registries to identify potential participants coupled with successively more intensive recruitment strategies, executed in a tiered approach moving toward personal engagement to establish trust and credibility, maximized recruitment enrollment rates. Our findings regarding facilitators and barriers to recruitment could be used to inform other practice-based research or to engage patients in group interventions in usual care settings. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02320253.