Effectiveness of a family-, school- and community-based intervention on physical activity and its correlates in Belgian families with an increased risk for type 2 diabetes mellitus: the Feel4Diabetes-study

BACKGROUND: The study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of the European Feel4Diabetes intervention, promoting a healthy lifestyle, on physical activity and its correlates among families at risk for type 2 diabetes mellitus (based on the Finnish Diabetes Risk Score) in Belgium. METHODS: The Feel4Diabetes intervention involved three components: family, school and community component, with the family component consisting of 6 counseling sessions for families at risk. Main outcomes were objectively measured physical activity levels and its subjectively measured correlates. The final sample consisted of 454 parents (mean age 39.4¿years; 72.0% women) and 444 children (mean age 8.0¿years; 50.1% girls). Multilevel repeated measures analyses were performed to assess intervention effectiveness after 1 year. RESULTS: In parents, there was no significant intervention effect. In children, there were only significant negative effects for moderate to vigorous physical activity (p¿=¿0.05; ¿p2¿=¿0.008) and steps (p¿=¿0.03; ¿p2¿=¿0.006%) on weekdays, with physical activity decreasing (more) in the intervention group. CONCLUSIONS: The F4D-intervention lacks effectiveness on high-risk families'' physical activity and its correlates in Belgium. This could partially be explained by low attendance rates and a large drop-out. To reach vulnerable populations, future interventions should invest in more appropriate recruitment (e.g. more face-to-face contact) and more bottom-up development of the intervention (i.e. co-creation of the intervention with the target group)

Lifestyle changes observed among adults participating in a family- and community-based intervention for diabetes prevention in Europe : the 1st year results of the Feel4Diabetes-study

The Feel4Diabetes intervention was a school and community-based intervention aiming to promote healthy lifestyle and tackle obesity and obesity-related metabolic risk factors for the prevention of type 2 diabetes (T2D) among families at risk of developing this disease. The current study aims to present the results on lifestyle behaviors obtained from parents during the first year of the Feel4Diabetes intervention. This multicomponent intervention had a cluster randomized design and was implemented in Belgium, Bulgaria, Finland, Greece, Hungary and Spain over two years (2016–2018). Standardized protocols and procedures were used by the participating centers in all countries to collect data on parents’ lifestyle behaviors (diet, physical activity, sedentary behavior). The Feel4Diabetes intervention was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (registration number: NCT02393872). In total, 2110 high-risk parents participated in the baseline and 12-month follow-up examination measurements. Participants allocated to the intervention group reduced their daily consumption of sugary drinks (p = 0.037) and sweets (p = 0.031) and their daily screen time (p = 0.032), compared with the control group. In addition, participants in the intervention group in Greece and Spain increased their consumption of breakfast (p = 0.034) and fruits (p = 0.029), while in Belgium and Finland they increased their water intake (p = 0.024). These findings indicate that the first year of the Feel4Diabetes intervention resulted in the improvement of certain lifestyle behaviors in parents from high-risk families

Efficacy and Safety Comparison of Liraglutide, Glimepiride, and Placebo, All in Combination With Metformin, in Type 2 Diabetes: The LEAD (Liraglutide Effect and Action in Diabetes)-2 study

OBJECTIVE—The efficacy and safety of adding liraglutide (a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist) to metformin were compared with addition of placebo or glimepiride to metformin in subjects previously treated with oral antidiabetes (OAD) therapy

Sitagliptin and risk of fractures in type 2 diabetes: Results from the TECOS trial

Aim: To examine fracture incidence among participants in the Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes with Sitagliptin (TECOS). Research design and methods: We used data from 14 671 participants in the TECOS study who were randomized double-blind to sitagliptin (n = 7332) or placebo (n = 7339). Cumulative fracture incidence rates were calculated and their association with study treatment assignment was examined using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression. Results: The baseline mean (standard deviation) participant age was 65.5 (8.0) years, diabetes duration was 11.6 (8.1) years and glycated haemoglobin level was 7.2 (0.5)% [55.2 (5.5) mmol/mol], and 29.3% of participants were women and 32.1% were non-white. During 43 222 person-years’ follow-up, 375 (2.6%; 8.7 per 1000 person-years) had a fracture; 146 were major osteoporotic fractures (hip, n = 34; upper extremity, n = 81; and clinical spine, n = 31). Adjusted analyses showed fracture risk increased independently with older age (P <.001), female sex (P <.001), white race (P <.001), lower diastolic blood pressure (P <.001) and diabetic neuropathy (P =.003). Sitagliptin, compared with placebo, was not associated with a higher fracture risk [189 vs 186 incident fractures: unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.23, P =.944; adjusted HR 1.03, P =.745], major osteoporotic fractures (P =.673) or hip fractures (P =.761). Insulin therapy was associated with a higher fracture risk (HR 1.40, 95% CI 1.02-1.91; P =.035), and metformin with a lower risk (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.59-0.98; P =.035). Conclusion: Fractures were common among people with diabetes in the TECOS study, but were not related to sitagliptin therapy. Insulin and metformin treatment were associated with higher and lower fracture risks, respectively

Microvascular and cardiovascular outcomes according to renal function in patients treated with once-weekly exenatide: Insights from the EXSCEL trial

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the impact of once-weekly exenatide (EQW) on microvascular and cardiovascular (CV) outcomes by baseline renal function in the Exenatide Study of Cardiovascular Event Lowering (EXSCEL). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Least squares mean difference (LSMD) in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) from baseline between the EQW and placebo groups was calculated for 13,844 participants. Cox regression models were used to estimate effects by group on incident macroalbuminuria, retinopathy, and major adverse CV events (MACE). Interval-censored time-to-event models estimated effects on renal composite 1 (40% eGFR decline, renal replacement, or renal death) and renal composite 2 (composite 1 variables plus macroalbuminuria). RESULTS EQW did not change eGFR significantly (LSMD 0.21 mL/min/1.73 m2 [95% CI 20.27 to 0.70]). Macroalbuminuria occurred in 2.2% of patients in the EQW group and in 2.5% of those in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0.87 [95% CI 0.70-1.07]). Neither renal composite was reduced with EQW in unadjusted analyses, but renal composite 2 was reduced after adjustment (HR 0.85 [95% CI 0.74-0.98]). Retinopathy rates did not differ by treatment group or in the HbA1c-lowering or prior retinopathy subgroups. CV outcomes in those with eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 did not differ by group. Those with eGFR ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2 had nominal risk reductions for MACE, all-cause mortality, and CV death, but interactions by renal function group were significant for only stroke (HR 0.74 [95% CI 0.58-0.93]; P for interaction 5 0.035) and CV death (HR 1.08 [95% CI 0.85-1.38]; P for interaction 5 0.031). CONCLUSIONS EQW had no impact on unadjusted retinopathy or renal outcomes. CV risk was modestly reduced only in those with eGFR ≥60 mL/min/1.73 m2 in analyses unadjusted for multiplicity

Feel4Diabetes healthy diet score: Development and evaluation of clinical validity

Background: The aim of this paper is to present the development of the Feel4Diabetes Healthy Diet Score and to evaluate its clinical validity. Methods: Study population consisted of 3268 adults (63% women) from high diabetes risk families living in 6 European countries. Participants filled in questionnaires at baseline and after 1 year, reflecting the dietary goals of the Feel4Diabetes intervention. Based on these questions the Healthy Diet Score was constructed, consisting of the following components: breakfast, vegetables, fruit and berries, sugary drinks, whole-grain cereals, nuts and seeds, low-fat dairy products, oils and fats, red meat, sweet snacks, salty snacks, and family meals. Maximum score for each component was set based on its estimated relative importance regarding T2DM risk, higher score indicating better quality of diet. Clinical measurements included height, weight, waist circumference, heart rate, blood pressure, and fasting blood sampling, with analyses of glucose, total cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol, and triglycerides. Analysis of (co) variance was used to compare the Healthy Diet Score and its components between countries and sexes using baseline data, and to test differences in clinical characteristics between score categories, adjusted for age, sex and country. Pearson''s correlations were used to study the association between changes from baseline to year 1 in the Healthy Diet Score and clinical markers. To estimate reproducibility, Pearson''s correlations were studied between baseline and 1 year score, within the control group only. Results: The mean total score was 52.8 ± 12.8 among women and 46.6 ± 12.8 among men (p < 0.001). The total score and its components differed between countries. The change in the Healthy Diet Score was significantly correlated with changes in BMI, waist circumference, and total and LDL cholesterol. The Healthy Diet Score as well as its components at baseline were significantly correlated with the values at year 1, in the control group participants. Conclusion: The Feel4Diabetes Healthy Diet Score is a reproducible method to capture the dietary information collected with the Feel4Diabetes questionnaire and measure the level of and changes in the adherence to the dietary goals of the intervention. It gives a simple parameter that associates with clinical risk factors in a meaningful manner

Metformin:historical overview

Metformin (dimethylbiguanide) has become the preferred first-line oral blood glucose-lowering agent to manage type 2 diabetes. Its history is linked to Galega officinalis (also known as goat's rue), a traditional herbal medicine in Europe, found to be rich in guanidine, which, in 1918, was shown to lower blood glucose. Guanidine derivatives, including metformin, were synthesised and some (not metformin) were used to treat diabetes in the 1920s and 1930s but were discontinued due to toxicity and the increased availability of insulin. Metformin was rediscovered in the search for antimalarial agents in the 1940s and, during clinical tests, proved useful to treat influenza when it sometimes lowered blood glucose. This property was pursued by the French physician Jean Sterne, who first reported the use of metformin to treat diabetes in 1957. However, metformin received limited attention as it was less potent than other glucose-lowering biguanides (phenformin and buformin), which were generally discontinued in the late 1970s due to high risk of lactic acidosis. Metformin's future was precarious, its reputation tarnished by association with other biguanides despite evident differences. The ability of metformin to counter insulin resistance and address adult-onset hyperglycaemia without weight gain or increased risk of hypoglycaemia gradually gathered credence in Europe, and after intensive scrutiny metformin was introduced into the USA in 1995. Long-term cardiovascular benefits of metformin were identified by the UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) in 1998, providing a new rationale to adopt metformin as initial therapy to manage hyperglycaemia in type 2 diabetes. Sixty years after its introduction in diabetes treatment, metformin has become the most prescribed glucose-lowering medicine worldwide with the potential for further therapeutic applications