This site is intended for healthcare professionals only

Diabetes in
Practice

Are the results from the Look AHEAD study “futile”?

David Haslam

Diabesity Digest summarises recent key papers published in the area of coexistent diabetes and obesity – diabesity. To compile the digest a PubMed search was performed for the 3 months ending June 2013 using a range of search terms relating to type 2 diabetes, obesity and diabesity. Articles have been chosen on the basis of their potential interest to healthcare professionals involved in the care of people with diabesity. The articles were rated according to readability, applicability to practice, and originality.

Weight loss studies are widely diverse, but they always show that weight loss is tough and weight loss maintenance is tougher still unless surgeons become involved. The Counterweight programme shows that significant weight loss across populations is achievable, but extremely difficult (Counterweight Project Team, 2008); other studies have shown barely any benefit to weight loss at all. It is in this context that the Look AHEAD (Action for Health in Diabetes) Research Group demonstrated much superior weight loss that was well maintained and translated into significant improvements in cardiovascular risk factors. It was halted for “futility” after nearly 10 years.

Apart from the Swedish Obese Subjects study, and the SCOUT (Sibutramine Cardiovascular Outcome) study of the withdrawn drug sibutramine, there has never been evidence that a specific weight management regime reduces mortality (Sjöström, 2008; Caterson et al, 2012). Studies such as the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) and Diabetes Prevention Study have done the next best thing: both showed a massive 58% reduction in the cumulative incidence of diabetes with apparently minor weight loss (DPP Research Group, 2002; Lindström, 2003). Others, such as the Paris Prospective Study (Fontbonne and Eschwège, 1991), linked obesity with cardiovascular mortality, allowing the sensible assumption that weight loss reduces outcomes.

Look AHEAD was, therefore, exciting and eagerly anticipated, being a large, long, well-designed, decently funded trial of weight loss, cardiometabolic parameters and mortality. For the first time, a study (summarised alongside) would answer the question whether there was any point in losing weight. It recruited >5000 overweight or obese individuals with diabetes over a predicted 13.5 years, and offered intensive calorie restriction plus physical activity versus conventional management (outcomes being cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction/stroke or hospitalisation for angina).

The result was a resounding success: weight reduction of 8.6% at one year maintained at an unheard-of 6% at study end. This was particularly impressive given that spouse studies have shown that patients with diabetes lose approximately half as much weight as normoglycaemic patients on lifestyle regimes. Results also showed greater reductions in HbA1c, as well as improvements in fitness and all cardiovascular risk factors.

The use of antihypertensive agents, e.g. statins, and insulin was lower in the intervention group than the control group. Remarkably, after 9.6 years the study was prematurely halted for reasons of “futility”, demonstrating the gulf between the responsibility of researchers compared to clinicians. Pronouncing such impressive results as “futile” shows academics’ lack of respect and grasp of the efforts practitioners go to in order engage and motivate patients, and improve their glycaemic control and weight, alongside other cardiometabolic risk factors on a daily basis. 

Some commentators point to the fact that a hypocaloric rather than a low-carbohydrate or Mediterranean diet was used as the intervention as the reason for the lower than expected outcomes, but what is more likely is the fact that cohesive care of co-existing risk factors today is so good that long duration studies now seem universally underpowered because their design is based on contemporary mortality rates prior to the study starting.

Other benefits included reductions in urinary incontinence, sleep apnoea and depression, and improvements in quality of life, physical functioning and mobility. Are these results futile?

To view the summaries of each paper, please download the PDF of this article.

REFERENCES:

Caterson ID et al (2012) Diabetes Obes Metab 14: 523–30
Counterweight Project Team (2008) Br J Gen Pract 58: 548–54
Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group (2002) Diabetes Care 25: 2165–71
Fontbonne and Eschwège (1991) Diabetes Care 14: 461–9
Lindström J (2003) J Am Soc Nephrol 14(7 Suppl 2): S108–13
Sjöström L (2008) Int J Obes (Lond) 32(Suppl 7): S93–7

Related content
Post-bariatric surgery care
Complications and considerations after bariatric surgery
Is a local tier 3 weight management service effective in supporting people with type 2 diabetes to lose weight?
Barriers facing people with obesity and type 2 diabetes in weight control: A systematic review
;
Free for all UK & Ireland healthcare professionals

Sign up to all DiabetesontheNet journals

 

By clicking ‘Subscribe’, you are agreeing that DiabetesontheNet.com are able to email you periodic newsletters. You may unsubscribe from these at any time. Your info is safe with us and we will never sell or trade your details. For information please review our Privacy Policy.

Are you a healthcare professional? This website is for healthcare professionals only. To continue, please confirm that you are a healthcare professional below.

We use cookies responsibly to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your browser settings, we’ll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies on this website. Read about how we use cookies.