Cited by 532Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsDiabetes Management and ResearchDiabetes Treatment and Management

Effect of regression from prediabetes to normal glucose regulation on long-term reduction in diabetes risk: results from the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study

Open access
Perreault, Leigh, Pan, Qing, Mather, Kieren J, Watson, Karol E, Hamman, Richard F, Kahn, Steven E·2012·The Lancet

Abstract

Background Our objective was to quantify and predict diabetes risk reduction during the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study (DPPOS) in participants who returned to normal glucose regulation at least once during the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) compared with those who consistently met criteria for prediabetes.Methods DPPOS is an ongoing observational study of participants from the DPP randomised trial. For this analysis, diabetes cumulative incidence in DPPOS was calculated for participants with normal glucose regulation or prediabetes status during DPP with and without stratification by previous randomised treatment group. Cox proportional hazards modelling and generalised linear mixed models were used to quantify the effect of previous (DPP) glycaemic status on risk of later (DPPOS) diabetes and normal glucose regulation status, respectively, per SD in change. Included in this analysis were 1990 participants of DPPOS who had been randomly assigned to treatment groups during DPP (736 intensive lifestyle intervention, 647 metformin, 607 placebo). These studies are registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00004992 (DPP) and NCT00038727 (DPPOS).Findings Diabetes risk during DPPOS was 56% lower for participants who had returned to normal glucose regulation versus those who consistently had prediabetes (hazard ratio [HR] 0·44, 95% CI 0·37-0·55, p<0·0001) and was unaffected by previous group assignment (interaction test for normal glucose regulation and lifestyle intervention, p=0·1722; normal glucose regulation and metformin, p=0·3304). Many, but not all, of the variables that increased diabetes risk were inversely associated with the chance of a participant reaching normal glucose regulation status in DPPOS. Specifically, previous achievement of normal glucose regulation (odds ratio [OR] 3·18, 95% CI 2·71-3·72, p<0·0001), increased β-cell function (OR 1·28; 95% CI 1·18-1·39, p<0·0001), and insulin sensitivity (OR 1·16, 95% CI 1·08-1·25, p<0·0001) were associated with normal glucose regulation in DPPOS, whereas the opposite was true for prediction of diabetes, with increased β-cell function (HR 0·80, 95% CI 0·71-0·89, p<0·0001) and insulin sensitivity (HR 0·83, 95% CI 0·74-0·94, p=0·0001) having a protective effect. Among participants who did not return to normal glucose regulation in DPP, those assigned to the intensive lifestyle intervention had a higher diabetes risk (HR 1·31, 95% CI 1·03-1·68, p=0·0304) and lower chance of normal glucose regulation (OR 0·59, 95% CI 0·42-0·82, p=0·0014) than did the placebo group in DPPOS.Interpretation We conclude that prediabetes is a high-risk state for diabetes, especially in patients who remain with prediabetes despite intensive lifestyle intervention. Reversion to normal glucose regulation, even if transient, is associated with a significantly reduced risk of future diabetes independent of previous treatment group.Funding US National Institutes of Health.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0140-6736(12)60525-x

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study, returning from prediabetes to normal glucose levels, even briefly, was linked to a 56% lower risk of future diabetes over 5.7 years, regardless of whether the return was spontaneous or occurred with lifestyle or metformin treatment.

    “The Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study found that reversion from prediabetes to normoglycaemia during the randomised phase of the study, even if transient, was associated with a 56% reduced risk of future diabetes independent of whether the reversion occurred spontaneously or during lifestyle or metformin therapy during the 5.7 year follow-up.”

    From Prediabetes: a high-risk state for diabetes development (2012) · cites this paper as [120]

  • In the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study, people who stayed prediabetic despite intensive lifestyle treatment faced a greater diabetes risk than those given metformin or placebo.

    “Those who remained prediabetic despite intensive lifestyle treatment had an even higher risk of developing diabetes than those on metformin or placebo treatment.120”

    From Prediabetes: a high-risk state for diabetes development (2012) · cites this paper as [120]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Perreault, L., Pan, Q., Mather, K. J., Watson, K. E., Hamman, R. F., & Kahn, S. E.
Affiliations
  • University of Colorado Anschutz (US)
  • George Washington University (US)
  • Indiana University School of Medicine (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • Colorado School of Public Health (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
Venue
The Lancet
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-06
Volume
379
Issue
9833
Pages
2243-2251
ISSN
  • 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
  • 0140-6736
OpenAlex
W2153700877
Cited by
532
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 31 · 2025: 42 · 2024: 43 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 48 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 33 · 2017: 28 · 2016: 43 · 2015: 31 · 2014: 44 · 2013: 42 · 2012: 14
FWCI
33.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Lancet (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • IUScholarWorks (Indiana University) (submittedVersion)
  • University Libraries (University of Maryland) (submittedVersion)
  • Digital Repository at the University of Maryland (University of Maryland College Park)
Funders
  • American Diabetes Association
  • U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
  • Bristol-Myers Squibb
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (U01DK048375, U01DK048406, 5U01-DK-048375-12, P30DK079637, U01DK048489, P30DK017047)
  • National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
  • National Center for Research Resources
  • Office of Research on Women's Health
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
Keywords
prediabetes, diabetes prevention, Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study, Diabetes Prevention Program, lifestyle intervention, metformin, beta-cell function, insulin sensitivity, HOMA-IR, HOMA-β
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Blood Glucose, Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Glucose Tolerance Test, Humans, Hypoglycemic Agents, Life Style, Male, Middle Aged, Prediabetic State, Remission Induction, Weight Loss

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review