Abstract
Abstract
Background
Wide variability in response to lifestyle interventions has been recognized for many years, and researchers have begun to disentangle sources of error from inherent differences in individual responsiveness. The objective of this secondary analysis of an intensive lifestyle intervention (diet and exercise) for metabolic syndrome (MetS) was to identify potentially important differences among study completers grouped by treatment response as measured by change in a continuous metabolic syndrome (Gurka/MetS) score.
Methods
All study completers from a 12-month primary care study were categorized into one of five groups according to change in the Gurka/MetS score. A change of 0.4 in z-score defined clinically relevant change in line with results of previous studies. Repeated measures analysis of covariance was used to examine the Gurka/MetS score over 12 months, looking for differences in response over time by the five groups.
Results
Of 176 participants, 50% (n = 88) had stable scores, 10% (n = 18) had relevant change scores in the first 3 months only and reverted toward baseline, 20% (n = 35) achieved meaningful change over the whole study, 11% (n = 20) had a delayed response at 3–12 months, and 9% (n = 15) demonstrated worsening scores. Significant response group*time differences were noted (p < 0.001). Improvement in diet quality and fitness scores were similar across all groups. Available other variables did not account for the differences.
Conclusion
Work is needed to identify key factors that account for differences in responses to lifestyle interventions that can be used to guide treatment decisions for intensive lifestyle interventions for this common condition.
Trial Registration
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01616563; first registered June 12, 2012.
Publisher
Research Square Platform LLC
Reference53 articles.
1. Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 84 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017;GBD 2017 Risk Factor Collaborators;Lancet,2018
2. The Global Epidemic of the Metabolic Syndrome;Saklayen MG;Curr Hypertens Rep,2018
3. Metabolic Syndrome and clinical outcomes in patients infected with COVID-19: Does age, sex and race of the patient with Metabolic Syndrome matter?;Lohia P;J Diabetes,2021
4. Alberti KG, Eckel RH, Grundy SM, Zimmet PZ, Cleeman JI, Donato KA et al. Harmonizing the metabolic syndrome: a joint interim statement of the International Diabetes Federation Task Force on Epidemiology and Prevention; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; American Heart Association; World Heart Federation; International Atherosclerosis Society; and International Association for the Study of Obesity. Circulation. 2009;120(16):1640-5.
5. Kelly West Lecture 1991. Challenges in diabetes epidemiology–from West to the rest;Zimmet PZ;Diabetes Care,1992