Slentz Cris A, Bateman Lori A, Willis Leslie H, Granville Esther O, Piner Lucy W, Samsa Gregory P, Setji Tracy L, Muehlbauer Michael J, Huffman Kim M, Bales Connie W, Kraus William E
Duke Molecular Physiology Institute, Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, 300 North Duke Street, Durham, NC, 27701, USA.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Diabetologia. 2016 Oct;59(10):2088-98. doi: 10.1007/s00125-016-4051-z. Epub 2016 Jul 15.
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Although the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) established lifestyle changes (diet, exercise and weight loss) as the 'gold standard' preventive therapy for diabetes, the relative contribution of exercise alone to the overall utility of the combined diet and exercise effect of DPP is unknown; furthermore, the optimal intensity of exercise for preventing progression to diabetes remains very controversial. To establish clinical efficacy, we undertook a study (2009 to 2013) to determine: how much of the effect on measures of glucose homeostasis of a 6 month programme modelled after the first 6 months of the DPP is due to exercise alone; whether moderate- or vigorous-intensity exercise is better for improving glucose homeostasis; and to what extent amount of exercise is a contributor to improving glucose control. The primary outcome was improvement in fasting plasma glucose, with improvement in plasma glucose AUC response to an OGTT as the major secondary outcome.
The trial was a parallel clinical trial. Sedentary, non-smokers who were 45-75 year old adults (n = 237) with elevated fasting glucose (5.28-6.94 mmol/l) but without cardiovascular disease, uncontrolled hypertension, or diabetes, from the Durham area, were studied at Duke University. They were randomised into one of four 6 month interventions: (1) low amount (42 kJ kg body weight(-1) week(-1) [KKW])/moderate intensity: equivalent of expending 42 KKW (e.g. walking ∼16 km [8.6 miles] per week) with moderate-intensity (50% [Formula: see text]) exercise; (2) high amount (67 KKW)/moderate intensity: equivalent of expending 67 KKW (∼22.3 km [13.8 miles] per week) with moderate-intensity exercise; (3) high amount (67 KKW)/vigorous intensity: equivalent to group 2, but with vigorous-intensity exercise (75% [Formula: see text]); and (4) diet + 42 KKW moderate intensity: same as group 1 but with diet and weight loss (7%) to mimic the first 6 months of the DPP. Computer-generated randomisation lists were provided by our statistician (G. P. Samsa). The randomisation list was maintained by L. H. Willis and C. A. Slentz with no knowledge of or input into the scheduling, whereas all scheduling was done by L. A. Bateman, with no knowledge of the randomisation list. Subjects were automatically assigned to the next group listed on the randomisation sheet (with no ability to manipulate the list order) on the day that they came in for the OGTT, by L. H. Willis. All plasma analysis was done blinded by the individuals doing the measurements (i.e. lipids, glucose, insulin). Subjects and research staff (other than individuals analysing the blood) were not blinded to the group assignments.
Number randomised, completers and number analysed with complete OGTT data for each group were: low-amount/moderate-intensity (61, 43, 35); high-amount/moderate-intensity (61, 44, 40); high-amount/vigorous-intensity (61, 43, 38); diet/exercise (54, 45, 37), respectively. Only the diet and exercise group experienced a decrease in fasting glucose (p < 0.001). The means and 95% CIs for changes in fasting glucose (mmol/l) for each group were: high-amount/moderate-intensity -0.07 (-0.20, 0.06); high-amount/vigorous 0.06 (-0.07, 0.19); low-amount/moderate 0.05 (-0.05, 0.15); and diet/exercise -0.32 (-0.46, -0.18). The effects sizes for each group (in the same order) were: 0.17, 0.15, 0.18 and 0.71, respecively. For glucose tolerance (glucose AUC of OGTT), similar improvements were observed for the diet and exercise (8.2% improvement, effect size 0.73) and the 67 KKW moderate-intensity exercise (6.4% improvement, effect size 0.60) groups; moderate-intensity exercise was significantly more effective than the same amount of vigorous-intensity exercise (p < 0.0207). The equivalent amount of vigorous-intensity exercise alone did not significantly improve glucose tolerance (1.2% improvement, effect size 0.21). Changes in insulin AUC, fasting plasma glucose and insulin did not differ among the exercise groups and were numerically inferior to the diet and exercise group.
CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: In the present clinical efficacy trial we found that a high amount of moderate-intensity exercise alone was very effective at improving oral glucose tolerance despite a relatively modest 2 kg change in body fat mass. These data, combined with numerous published observations of the strong independent relation between postprandial glucose concentrations and prediction of future diabetes, suggest that walking ∼18.2 km (22.3 km prescribed with 81.6% adherence in the 67 KKW moderate-intensity group) per week may be nearly as effective as a more intensive multicomponent approach involving diet, exercise and weight loss for preventing the progression to diabetes in prediabetic individuals. These findings have important implications for the choice of clinical intervention to prevent progression to type 2 diabetes for those at high risk.
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00962962 FUNDING: The study was funded by National Institutes for Health National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIH-NDDK) (R01DK081559).
目的/假设:尽管糖尿病预防计划(DPP)已将生活方式改变(饮食、运动和体重减轻)确立为糖尿病的“金标准”预防性治疗方法,但仅运动对DPP饮食和运动综合效果的总体效用的相对贡献尚不清楚;此外,预防糖尿病进展的最佳运动强度仍存在很大争议。为了确定临床疗效,我们开展了一项研究(2009年至2013年),以确定:一项模仿DPP前6个月的6个月计划,对葡萄糖稳态指标的影响中有多少仅归因于运动;中等强度或高强度运动对改善葡萄糖稳态是否更好;运动总量在多大程度上有助于改善血糖控制。主要结局是空腹血糖的改善,以口服葡萄糖耐量试验(OGTT)后血浆葡萄糖曲线下面积(AUC)的改善作为主要次要结局。
该试验为平行临床试验。对来自达勒姆地区、年龄在45 - 75岁、空腹血糖升高(5.28 - 6.94 mmol/l)但无心血管疾病、未控制的高血压或糖尿病的久坐、不吸烟成年人(n = 237)在杜克大学进行研究。他们被随机分为四个6个月干预组之一:(1)低运动量(42 kJ·kg体重⁻¹·周⁻¹[KKW])/中等强度:相当于以中等强度(50%[公式:见原文])运动消耗42 KKW(例如每周步行约16公里[8.6英里]);(2)高运动量(67 KKW)/中等强度:相当于以中等强度运动消耗67 KKW(约22.3公里[13.8英里]/周);(3)高运动量(67 KKW)/高强度:与第2组相当,但为高强度运动(75%[公式:见原文]);(4)饮食 + 42 KKW中等强度:与第1组相同,但伴有饮食和体重减轻(7%),以模仿DPP的前6个月。由我们的统计学家(G.P. Samsa)提供计算机生成的随机分组列表。随机分组列表由L.H. Willis和C.A. Slentz保存,他们对日程安排不知情或未参与,而所有日程安排由L.A. Bateman完成,其对随机分组列表不知情。受试者在进行OGTT当天由L.H. Willis自动分配到随机分组表上列出的下一组(无法操纵列表顺序)。所有血浆分析由进行测量的人员(即脂质、葡萄糖、胰岛素)进行盲法操作。受试者和研究人员(除分析血液的人员外)对分组情况不设盲。
每组随机分组、完成试验及有完整OGTT数据可供分析的人数分别为:低运动量/中等强度组(61、43、35);高运动量/中等强度组(61、44、40);高运动量/高强度组(61、43、38);饮食/运动组(54、45、37)。只有饮食和运动组的空腹血糖有所下降(p < 0.001)。每组空腹血糖变化(mmol/l)的均值及95%置信区间分别为:高运动量/中等强度组 -0.07(-0.20,0.06);高运动量/高强度组0.06(-0.07,0.19);低运动量/中等强度组0.05(-0.05,0.15);饮食/运动组 -0.32(-0.46,-0.18)。每组的效应量(按相同顺序)分别为:0.17、0.15、0.18和0.71。对于葡萄糖耐量(OGTT的葡萄糖AUC),饮食和运动组(改善8.2%,效应量0.73)以及67 KKW中等强度运动组(改善6.4%,效应量0.60)观察到类似的改善;中等强度运动比相同运动量的高强度运动显著更有效(p < 0.0207)。仅同等运动量的高强度运动并未显著改善葡萄糖耐量(改善1.2%,效应量0.21)。胰岛素AUC、空腹血糖和胰岛素的变化在各运动组之间无差异,且在数值上低于饮食和运动组。
结论/解读:在本临床疗效试验中,我们发现仅大量中等强度运动就能非常有效地改善口服葡萄糖耐量,尽管体脂量仅相对适度地减少了2 kg。这些数据,结合众多已发表的关于餐后血糖浓度与未来糖尿病预测之间强烈独立关系的观察结果,表明每周步行约18.2公里(在67 KKW中等强度组中规定为22.3公里,依从性为81.6%)对于预防糖尿病前期个体进展为糖尿病可能几乎与更强化的包括饮食、运动和体重减轻的多组分方法一样有效。这些发现对于为高危人群选择预防进展为2型糖尿病的临床干预措施具有重要意义。
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00962962 资助:本研究由美国国立卫生研究院国立糖尿病、消化和肾脏疾病研究所(NIH - NDDK)(R01DK081559)资助。