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 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.Impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) and impaired fasting glucose (IFG) have a high potential to convert to type 2 diabetes. While an elevated basal hepatic glucose output and impaired early phase insulin secretion are the major abnormalities in IFG, IGT is characterized by more severe muscle insulin resistance (IR) and defects in late insulin secretion (1). Among Asian Indians, higher degrees of IR and β-cell dysfunction are seen in IFG than in IGT (2).Analysis of six prospective studies among subjects with IGT showed that the incidence of diabetes varied widely from 23 to 62% within two to twenty-seven years of follow-up (3). The incidence was higher among populations with high prevalence of diabetes than in white populations. Incidence rates of diabetes in subjects with IFG or IGT or with a combined abnormality were varied in different populations (4–8).Primary prevention studies have been done among subjects with IGT in different ethnic populations (9–14). Among these, only the Diabetes Reduction Assessment with Ramipril and Rosiglitazone Medication (DREAM) trial (12) recruited subjects with either isolated IFG (iIFG) or isolated IGT (iIGT) or both. Rosiglitazone was found to be a potent agent in preventing diabetes in this trial (12). The Diabetes Prevention Programme (DPP) (9) recruited subjects with a fasting glucose in the range of 5.3–6.9 mmol/l (95–125 mg/dl) and 2-h postglucose of 7.8–11 mmol/l (140–199 mg/dl) and nearly one-third of the participants had IFG by the present criteria (15).Results of the Indian Diabetes Prevention Programme-1 (IDPP-1) showed that a moderate lifestyle modification (LSM) or a small dose of metformin (500 mg/day) reduced the risk of diabetes in a relatively nonobese but insulin resistant Asian Indian population (13). In the IDPP-2 study, we noted that pioglitazone did not improve the efficacy of LSM in Asian Indians (14). In both studies, subjects with persistent IGT and fasting glucose levels below 6.9 mmol/l were recruited. Therefore, some participants also had IFG. In view of the higher degree of biochemical abnormalities occurring when fasting and postprandial dysglycemia coexisted, it was considered important to study whether the combined abnormalities influenced the cumulative incidence of diabetes in comparison with subjects with iIGT. To increase the sample size, data from both IDPP studies were pooled. The participants'' baseline characteristics were identical in the two studies.