Cargando…

Efficacy of Primary Prevention Interventions When Fasting and Postglucose Dysglycemia Coexist: Analysis of the Indian Diabetes Prevention Programmes (IDPP-1 and IDPP-2)

OBJECTIVE: Impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) and impaired fasting glucose (IFG) have different pathophysiological abnormalities, and their combination may influence the effectiveness of the primary prevention tools. The hypothesis was tested in this analysis, which was done in a pooled sample of two...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ramachandran, Ambady, Arun, Nanditha, Shetty, Ananth Samith, Snehalatha, Chamukuttan
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: American Diabetes Association 2010
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2945153/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20519663
http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/dc09-1150
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: Impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) and impaired fasting glucose (IFG) have different pathophysiological abnormalities, and their combination may influence the effectiveness of the primary prevention tools. The hypothesis was tested in this analysis, which was done in a pooled sample of two Indian Diabetes Prevention Programmes (IDPP-1 and IDPP-2). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Researchers analyzed and followed up on the details of 845 of the 869 IGT subjects in the two studies for 3 years. Incidence of diabetes and reversal to normoglycemia (normal glucose tolerance [NGT]) were assessed in group 1 with baseline isolated IGT (iIGT) (n = 667) and in group 2 with IGT + IFG (n = 178). The proportion developing diabetes in the groups were analyzed in the control arm with standard advice (IDPP-1) (n = 125), lifestyle modification (LSM) (297 from both), metformin (n = 125, IDPP-1), and LSM + metformin (n = 121, IDPP-1) and LSM + pioglitazone (n = 298, IDPP-2). Cox regression analysis was used to assess the influence of IGT + IFG versus iIGT on the effectiveness of the interventions. RESULTS: Group 2 had a higher proportion developing diabetes in 3 years (56.2 vs. 33.6% in group 1, P = 0.000) and a lower rate of reversal to NGT (18 vs. 32.1%, P = 0.000). Cox regression analysis showed that effectiveness of intervention was not different in the presence of fasting and postglucose glycemia after adjusting for confounding variables. CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of primary prevention strategies appears to be similar in subjects with iIGT or with combined IGT + IFG. However, the possibility remains that a larger study might show that the effectiveness is lower in those with the combined abnormality.