OBJECTIVE—To assess the efficacy of a lifestyle intervention program that can be readily translated into clinical practice for obese patients with type 2 diabetes.

### Outcome measures

The primary outcome measures were weight and waist circumference. Secondary measures included glycemic control (HbA1c), lipid levels, use of prescription medications, and HRQOL (Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 [SF-36]) (24). Trained personnel recorded all measures. Body weight, height, and waist circumference were measured at baseline and at 4, 6, 8, and 12 months. HbA1c was measured at baseline and at 4, 8, and 12 months and fasting lipid levels at baseline and at 12 months by the University of Virginia laboratory using standardized protocols. At baseline and at 6 and 12 months, study personnel transcribed medication name, dose prescribed, and quantity taken daily from participant prescription containers. Medications were characterized by indication/disease: diabetes, cardiovascular, antihypertensives, and other. “Other” medications included pain, asthma, and psychiatric medications. Use was defined as either total or unique number of medications. “Total” included various doses of the same medication and assessed changes in dose. “Unique” counted individual medications once and evaluated changes in type.

### Statistical analysis

Group differences were analyzed using intention-to-treat methods. Repeated-measures models compared groups regarding changes in weight, waist circumference, HbA1c, and use of medications. F tests were used to make overall comparisons. Contrasts were used to make comparisons between groups at specific follow-up times. Repeated-measures models used REML estimation, an unstructured covariance matrix, and the Kenward-Roger approximation to the degrees of freedom. The repeated-measures models used all the available data on subjects, including those who dropped out of the study or had intermittently missing data. Regression models were used to compare 12-month HRQOL between groups.

In repeated-measures models, baseline values of outcomes were used as covariates. Subsequent analyses were adjusted for additional baseline characteristics. For HbA1c, models were adjusted for age, sex, duration of diabetes, and change in diabetes medications. For weight and waist circumference, models were adjusted for age, sex, and smoking. Adjusting for these covariates did not affect the results for comparing treatment groups. Secondary analyses were adjusted for use of outside behavioral resources, but this did not alter results. Statistical analyses were performed using SAS statistical software (version 8.2; SAS Institute, Cary, NC).

A total of 147 participants were randomized into usual care (n = 73) or case management (n = 74). After three patients withdrew before baseline assessment, the intention-to-treat analysis population comprised 71 usual care participants and 73 case management participants. A total of 29 participants (20%) withdrew from the study (usual care = 10, case management = 19; 22 by 4 months, 24 by 6 months, 27 by 8 months, and 29 by 12 months). Reasons given for dropping out were time (n = 13), assignment group (n = 6), illness (n = 1), or no reason (n = 9). A total of 118 individuals (80%) completed the 12-month intervention. Of case management participants remaining in the study, 100% attended all individual sessions and 78% attended four or more group classes. Number of classes attended was not associated with outcomes.

### Baseline characteristics

Groups were similar in all demographic and clinical measures at baseline (Table 1). A total of 6% of participants reported seeing a health professional for weight control, and 0.7% were taking antiobesity medications. Less than 13% used outside behavioral resources for diabetes or weight management during the intervention. On average, participants reported 2.6 (SD 1.6) “health problems” (e.g., hypertension) besides diabetes. Mean HbA1c suggested moderately good control (7.7% [SD 1.6]). Participants were taking a mean of 1.79 unique and 1.98 total diabetes medications daily at baseline. Lipid levels indicated that many participants did not meet the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Adult Treatment Panel (ATP) III targets (25) for HDL cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and triglyceride levels; 92 (64%) participants were taking cardiovascular medications. Based on health plan data for glycemic control and LDL cholesterol levels, our population seemed to be at lower risk of diabetes and cardiovascular complications than the general health plan membership with diabetes.

### Body weight and waist circumference

Mean weight changes differed significantly between the case management and usual care groups (P < 0.001) (Fig. 1A). The greatest weight loss in the intervention group (–4.0 kg, 95% CI −5.6 to −2.5) and net weight loss between groups (−5.0 kg, −7.2 to −2.9) occurred at 8 months. By 12 months, participants in the case management group lost an average of −2.4 kg (−4.1 to −0.6), whereas participants in the usual care group gained 0.6 kg (−1.0 to 2.2), a net difference of −3.0 kg (−5.4 to −0.6). More participants in the case management group than the usual care group lost up to 5% (53 vs. 32%) and ≥5% (20 vs. 14%) of initial weight (χ2 = 8.7, P = 0.03).

Waist circumference decreased more in the case management group than in the usual care group by 12 months (P < 0.001) (Fig. 1B). By 12 months, participants in the case management group lost −5.5 cm (−7.4 to −3.6), whereas the usual care group lost −1.4 cm (−3.1 to 0.4).

### Glycemic and lipid control

HbA1c differed between groups over the intervention period (P = 0.02). This difference was greatest at 4 months (−0.57%, −1.0 to −0.2; P = 0.008) but drifted closer by 8 months (−0.35%, −0.8 to 0.1; P = 0.10) and 12 months (−0.20%, −0.7 to 0.3; P = 0.45). Change in weight did not predict change in HbA1c level.

Post hoc subanalyses indicated differential effects of treatment by initial glycemic control. Participants with better control (baseline HbA1c ≤7.45%, mean HbA1c = 6.54%) experienced significant HbA1c reduction at 4 and 8 months (P < 0.05); 12-month reductions approached significance (P = 0.07) (Fig. 2A, left panel). Among participants with poorer glucose control (baseline HbA1c >7.45%, mean HbA1c = 8.89%), case management resulted in an acute (–0.91%, −1.7 to −0.08; P = 0.032) but transient response (12-month change −0.07, −1.1 to 0.97; P = 0.9) (Fig. 2A, right panel).

The 12-month between-group (case management versus usual care) differences in lipid levels were not statistically significant: −8.6 mg/dl (−22.6 to 5.5; P = 0.23) for total cholesterol, −0.07 mg/dl (−9.4 to 9.3; P = 0.99) for LDL cholesterol, −0.40 mg/dl (−1.9 to 2.7; P = 0.73) for HDL cholesterol, and −36.0 mg/dl (–106 to 34; P = 0.31) for triglycerides.

### Prescription medication

By 12 months, participants in the case management group were taking 0.8 (0.05–1.1) fewer total medications per day than those in the usual care group (P = 0.03) (Fig. 2B). More individuals in the case management group decreased total medications compared with those in the usual care group (45 vs. 28%, respectively), and fewer individuals in the case management group increased medications compared with those in the usual care group (19 vs. 35%) (χ2 = 6.6, 2 df; P = 0.03) at 6 months. Although the magnitude of the differences remained similar (decrease: 57 vs. 39%; increase: 17 vs. 32%), these differences were no longer significant by 12 months (P = 0.13).

There was a decrease in unique medications primarily due to a decrease in diabetes medications (P = 0.003). By 12 months, the case management group reduced diabetes medications 0.46 medications per day more than those in the usual care group (P = 0.001). Insulin and sulfonylurea decreased most among participants in the case management group, whereas thiazolidinedione increased slightly among usual care.

### Quality of life

Baseline SF-36 scores were lower than national norms but consistent with scores reported among obese individuals (26). Change in SF-36 scores in the case management group was significantly different from usual care in seven of nine domains (Fig. 3). The domains with greatest improvement in the case management group were emotional role (15.1, 3.4–26.8) and physical role (10, 1.2–24.7).

ICAN results suggest that a modest cost, easily translated RD case management approach to lifestyle care can improve diverse indicators of health, including weight, waist circumference, HRQOL, and use of prescription medications, among obese persons with type 2 diabetes. This study also points out that those who did not receive lifestyle care but remained medically managed gained weight, had reduced quality of life, and sustained their need for medication.

The magnitude of the 12-month weight loss observed in ICAN was modest yet similar to other 1-year interventions among obese individuals both with and without type 2 diabetes (5,6,22,27,28). The U.S. Preventive Medicine Task Force’s evidence-based review of obesity interventions reported that intensive behavioral interventions produce weight loss between 3 and 5 kg by 1 year and made grade B recommendations to support intensive interventions (28). According to their definitions, the ICAN intervention was “moderate,” but the net weight loss observed was within the range of intensive treatment. Additionally, obese patients with diabetes lose approximately half the weight that obese patients without diabetes lose with the same intervention (29). Furthermore, many diabetes medications can lead to weight gain (30,31), so the magnitude of weight loss in this intervention was expected to be lower than other interventions that do not address this population. The weight loss observed within ICAN was more than half that observed in another low-cost, Internet-based intervention for people without diabetes (32).

During ICAN, maximal weight loss (4.7%) occurred in the period of more frequent contact with RD case managers. From 8 to 12 months, the period of modest weight regain in the intervention group, participants received only 30 min of individual time with case managers (12.5% of total individual therapeutic time) and 2 h of group classes. Although this decrease in intensity and support was intentional as a way to transition participants from intervention to maintenance, increased intensity has been positively related to amount of weight lost (33,34). Weight regain within the last 4 months of the intervention suggests the need for greater intensity during this time period and the need for ongoing lifestyle coaching to support maintenance. The weight regain may have been physiologically based. Maximal weight loss is typically observed at 6 months in obesity trials, regardless of intervention mode (behavioral, very-low-calorie diet, pharmacology) (5,6,27,35). After weight has been reduced, it takes a greater caloric deficit to maintain the lower weight. In addition, physical activity has been shown to improve weight maintenance (22). Although RD case managers supported increases in physical activity, other support for physical activity (e.g., fitness trainers) was not provided. Despite the weight regain from 8 to 12 months, almost twice as many participants in the case management group lost >5% of initial weight compared with participants in the usual care group. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute guideline on obesity treatment stresses the importance of a 5–10% weight loss (22).

Within this study population, the impact on laboratory parameters was modest and not significant by 1 year. The small changes may reflect already good medical management. By design, ICAN participants had health insurance. All were taking diabetes medications, and most were on antihypertensive (76%) and cardiovascular medications (64%). Average baseline values of HbA1c and lipid levels suggested generally good control. Despite such control, a modest-cost lifestyle intervention helped maintain lower HbA1c levels. Future interventions should consider baseline values in determining the intensity of the intervention. Additionally, as we begin to translate efficacy to practice, different criteria will be needed to define “success.” Instead of the magnitude of effect solely defining success, the reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance of the program (RE-AIM) must be addressed (17,18).

The main limitations of ICAN include generalizability, lack of a strong physical activity component, and no long-term maintenance. Most participants were Caucasian and employed. Therefore, study results may not be generalizable to multiethnic or uninsured populations. As with all clinical trials, volunteer participants may be healthier and more motivated to change behavior than eligible nonvolunteers. On the other hand, lifestyle interventions are always voluntary in practice and are likely to be attractive to more motivated patients. Finally, the RD collected the outcomes from the case management group, creating the potential for systematic bias, however not considerably different from that of clinical practice.

Both public health and clinical interventions are needed to stem the tide of obesity and diabetes. Although there is an important emphasis at a public health level on prevention, a sizable and growing portion of the population, currently 18.2 million adults, will seek clinical treatment for diabetes (36). Most of these individuals are overweight or obese. If this population is treated without a sustainable lifestyle component, their experience will be that of the ICAN usual care group: weight gain, increased waist circumference, and lower quality of life despite greater levels of medication. Although the magnitude of weight loss may not meet patients’ and physicians’ expectations, the benefits from the patient, clinical, and payer perspective outweigh the relatively low cost of such a program. If sustained, improvements of the magnitude achieved in ICAN could lead to reduced cardiovascular disease. Translation of lifestyle interventions into clinical care for obese patients with type 2 diabetes remains a challenge. An RD-led case management approach is one promising path toward achieving that goal.

Figure 1—

Mean changes in body weight (A) and waist circumference (B) by groups. Data shown are estimated changes ±1 SE. Results are based on n = 71, 67, 64, 63, and 63 subjects in the usual care group and n = 72, 58, 58, 56, and 54 subjects in the case management group at baseline and at 4, 6, 8, and 12 months postbaseline, respectively. A: Mean ± SE body weight (kg) over time of intervention in the case management (CM) and usual care (UC) groups. B: Mean ± SE waist circumference (cm) over time of intervention in the CM and UC groups. *P ≤ 0.05; **P ≤ 0.001.

Figure 1—

Mean changes in body weight (A) and waist circumference (B) by groups. Data shown are estimated changes ±1 SE. Results are based on n = 71, 67, 64, 63, and 63 subjects in the usual care group and n = 72, 58, 58, 56, and 54 subjects in the case management group at baseline and at 4, 6, 8, and 12 months postbaseline, respectively. A: Mean ± SE body weight (kg) over time of intervention in the case management (CM) and usual care (UC) groups. B: Mean ± SE waist circumference (cm) over time of intervention in the CM and UC groups. *P ≤ 0.05; **P ≤ 0.001.

Close modal
Figure 2—

Estimated changes in HbA1c by baseline HbA1c (A) and total medication changes by group (B). Points displayed are estimates of changes from baseline ±1 SE. A: Mean ± SE in HbA1c by group among participants with baseline HbA1c ≤7.45% (left panel) and participants with baseline HbA1c >7.45% (right panel). The left panel is based on n = 36, 28, 27, and 29 subjects in the usual care (UC) group and n = 36, 35, 33, and 34 subjects in the case management (CM) group at baseline and at 4, 8, and 12 months postbaseline, respectively. The right panel is based on n = 36, 34, 34, 34 subjects in the UC group and n = 33, 24, 22, and 19 subjects in the CM group at baseline and at 4, 8, and 12 months postbaseline, respectively. Left panel: Baseline HbA1c ≤7.45%. Right panel: Baseline HbA1c >7.45%. B: Mean ± SE change in total number of prescription medications taken daily in the case management and usual care groups. Estimates are based on n = 65 and 64 subjects in the UC group and n = 58 and 54 subjects in the CM group at 6 and 2 months postbaseline. *P ≤ 0.05; **P ≤ 0.001.

Figure 2—

Estimated changes in HbA1c by baseline HbA1c (A) and total medication changes by group (B). Points displayed are estimates of changes from baseline ±1 SE. A: Mean ± SE in HbA1c by group among participants with baseline HbA1c ≤7.45% (left panel) and participants with baseline HbA1c >7.45% (right panel). The left panel is based on n = 36, 28, 27, and 29 subjects in the usual care (UC) group and n = 36, 35, 33, and 34 subjects in the case management (CM) group at baseline and at 4, 8, and 12 months postbaseline, respectively. The right panel is based on n = 36, 34, 34, 34 subjects in the UC group and n = 33, 24, 22, and 19 subjects in the CM group at baseline and at 4, 8, and 12 months postbaseline, respectively. Left panel: Baseline HbA1c ≤7.45%. Right panel: Baseline HbA1c >7.45%. B: Mean ± SE change in total number of prescription medications taken daily in the case management and usual care groups. Estimates are based on n = 65 and 64 subjects in the UC group and n = 58 and 54 subjects in the CM group at 6 and 2 months postbaseline. *P ≤ 0.05; **P ≤ 0.001.

Close modal
Figure 3—

Difference (case management minus usual care) (95% CI) in the 12-month HRQOL scores. Estimates from regression model using baseline scale value as a covariate. Estimates are based on n = 64 and 53 in the usual care (UC) and case management (CM) groups, respectively. The CIs are not adjusted for multiple comparison.

Figure 3—

Difference (case management minus usual care) (95% CI) in the 12-month HRQOL scores. Estimates from regression model using baseline scale value as a covariate. Estimates are based on n = 64 and 53 in the usual care (UC) and case management (CM) groups, respectively. The CIs are not adjusted for multiple comparison.

Close modal
Table 1—

Baseline characteristics of participants by randomization group

VariablesUsual care groupCase management group
n 71 73
Categorical variables
Women 42 (58) 45 (62)
Caucasians 53 (74) 61 (85)
Smoking status
Never 40 (56) 41 (57)
Former 30 (42) 27 (38)
Current 2 (3) 4 (6)
Marital status
Never 9 (13) 4 (6)
Married 50 (69) 55 (76)
Divorced 11 (15) 9 (13)
Widowed 1 (1) 3 (4)
Other 1 (1) 1 (1)
Continuous variables
Age (years) 53.4 ± 8.0 53.3 ± 8.6
Weight (kg) 106.7 ± 24.3 107.1 ± 25.5
BMI (kg/m237.5 ± 6.4 37.6 ± 7.7
Waist circumference (cm) 118.1 ± 16.5 116.8 ± 15.5
HbA1c (%) 7.5 ± 1.5 7.9 ± 1.6
Cholesterol (mg/dl)
Total 181 ± 37.2 183 ± 43.4
LDL 105 ± 33.3 105 ± 33.7
HDL 44.6 ± 12.3 45.4 ± 12.8
Triglycerides (mg/dl) 167 ± 77.2 193 ± 76.7
Number of prescription medications/day 5.8 ± 2.6 6.3 ± 2.9
Number of diabetes medications/day 1.8 ± 0.85 1.8 ± 0.92
Insulin (%) 22 26
Biguanides (%) 69 60
Sulfonylurea (%) 51 49
Thiazolidinediones (%) 24 25
Other diabetes medications (%)
SF-36
Bodily pain 63.0 ± 22.8 62.6 ± 21.9
General health 53.2 ± 22.1 53.4 ± 20.4
Health transition 47.2 ± 25.4 52.8 ± 21.2
Mental health 73.7 ± 19.4 75.4 ± 16.2
Physical function 72.7 ± 25.1 71.6 ± 21.5
Role—emotional 79.6 ± 33.8 86.1 ± 28.4
Role—physical 67.6 ± 39.9 69.4 ± 38.3
Social functioning 78.8 ± 23.5 83.2 ± 23.3
Vitality 50.7 ± 21.8 44.9 ± 22.6
Average of SF-36 Scores 65.8 ± 18.4 66.0 ± 17.4
VariablesUsual care groupCase management group
n 71 73
Categorical variables
Women 42 (58) 45 (62)
Caucasians 53 (74) 61 (85)
Smoking status
Never 40 (56) 41 (57)
Former 30 (42) 27 (38)
Current 2 (3) 4 (6)
Marital status
Never 9 (13) 4 (6)
Married 50 (69) 55 (76)
Divorced 11 (15) 9 (13)
Widowed 1 (1) 3 (4)
Other 1 (1) 1 (1)
Continuous variables
Age (years) 53.4 ± 8.0 53.3 ± 8.6
Weight (kg) 106.7 ± 24.3 107.1 ± 25.5
BMI (kg/m237.5 ± 6.4 37.6 ± 7.7
Waist circumference (cm) 118.1 ± 16.5 116.8 ± 15.5
HbA1c (%) 7.5 ± 1.5 7.9 ± 1.6
Cholesterol (mg/dl)
Total 181 ± 37.2 183 ± 43.4
LDL 105 ± 33.3 105 ± 33.7
HDL 44.6 ± 12.3 45.4 ± 12.8
Triglycerides (mg/dl) 167 ± 77.2 193 ± 76.7
Number of prescription medications/day 5.8 ± 2.6 6.3 ± 2.9
Number of diabetes medications/day 1.8 ± 0.85 1.8 ± 0.92
Insulin (%) 22 26
Biguanides (%) 69 60
Sulfonylurea (%) 51 49
Thiazolidinediones (%) 24 25
Other diabetes medications (%)
SF-36
Bodily pain 63.0 ± 22.8 62.6 ± 21.9
General health 53.2 ± 22.1 53.4 ± 20.4
Health transition 47.2 ± 25.4 52.8 ± 21.2
Mental health 73.7 ± 19.4 75.4 ± 16.2
Physical function 72.7 ± 25.1 71.6 ± 21.5
Role—emotional 79.6 ± 33.8 86.1 ± 28.4
Role—physical 67.6 ± 39.9 69.4 ± 38.3
Social functioning 78.8 ± 23.5 83.2 ± 23.3
Vitality 50.7 ± 21.8 44.9 ± 22.6
Average of SF-36 Scores 65.8 ± 18.4 66.0 ± 17.4

Data are n (%) or means ± SD unless otherwise indicated. No statistically significant differences between groups were noted.

This protocol was funded by grants from the American Dietetic Association, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R18-DK-062942), and the University of Virginia General Clinical Research Center (MO1-RR-00847).

Any opinions, results, or conclusions set forth in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the policies or opinions of SHS or any subsidiaries or affiliate companies.

1
Flegal KM, Carroll MD, Ogden CL, Johnson CL: Prevalence and trends in obesity among US adults, 1999–2000.
JAMA
288
:
1723
–1727,
2002
2
Mokdad AH, Bowman BA, Ford ES, Vinicor F, Marks JS, Koplan JP: The continuing epidemics of obesity and diabetes in the United States.
JAMA
286
:
1195
–1200,
2001
3
Colditz GA, Willet W, Stampfer M, Manson J, Hennekens C, Arky RA, Speizer F: Weight as a risk factor for clinical diabetes in women.
Am J Epidemiol
132
:
501
–513,
1990
4
McAuley KA, Williams SM, Mann JI, Goulding A, Chrisholm A, Wilson N, Story G, McLay RT, Harper MJ, Jones IE: Intensive lifestyle changes are necessary to improve insulin sensitivity.
Diabetes Care
25
:
445
–452,
2002
5
Kelley DE, Bray GA, Pi-Sunyer FX, Klein S, Hill J, Miles J, Hollander P: Clinical efficacy of Orlistat therapy in overweight and obese patients with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes: a 1-year randomized controlled trial.
Diabetes Care
25
:
1033
–1041,
2002
6
Hollander PA, Elbein SC, Hirsch IB, Kelley D, McGill J, Taylor T, Weiss SR, Crockett SE, Kaplan RA, Comstock J, Lucas CP, Lodewick PA, Canovatchel W, Chung J, Hauptman J: Role of Orlistat in the treatment of obese patients with type 2 diabetes: a 1-year randomized double blind study.
Diabetes Care
21
:
1288
–1294,
1998
7
Wing R, Marcus M, Blair EH, Watanabe R, Bonomi P, Bergman RN: Caloric restriction per se is a significant factor in improvements in glycermic control and insulin sensitivity during weight loss in obese NIDDM patients.
Diabetes Care
17
:
30
–36,
1994
8
Appel LJ, Moore TJ, Obarzanek E, Vollmer WM, Svetkey LP, Sacks FM, Bray GA, Vogt TM, Cutler JA, Windhauser MM, Lin PH, Karanja N: A clinical trial of the effects of dietary patterns on blood pressure.
N Engl J Med
336
:
1117
–1124,
1997
9
Blankenhorn DH, Johnson RL, Mack WJ, El Zein HA, Vailas LI: The influence of diet on the appearance of new lesions inhuman coronary arteries.
JAMA
263
:
1646
–1652,
1990
10
Arntzenius AC, Kromhout JD, Barth JD, Reiber JH, Bruschke AV, Buis B, van Gent CM, Kempen-Vougd N, Strikwerda S, van der Velde EA: Diet, lipoproteins, and the progression of coronary artherosclerosis: the Leiden intervention trial.
N Engl J Med
312
:
805
–811,
1985
11
Ehnholm C, Huttunen JK, Pietinen P, Leinole, Mutanen M, Kostiainen E, Pikkarainen J, Dougherty R, Iacono J, Puska P: Effect of diet on serum lipoproteins in a population with a high risk of coronary heart disease.
N Engl J Med
307
:
850
–855,
1982
12
Diabetes Prevention Program: Reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes with lifestyle intervention or metformin.
N Engl J Med
346
:
393
–403,
2002
13
Tuomilehto J, Lindström J, Eriksson JG, Valle TT, Hamalainen H, Ilanne-Parikka P, Keinanen-Kiukaanniemis, Laakso M, Louheranta A, Rastas M, Salminen V, Uusitupa M, Finnish Diabetes Prevention Study Group: Prevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus by changes in lifestyle among subjects with impaired glucose tolerance.
N Engl J Med
344
:
1343
–1350,
2001
14
Pan XR, Li GW, Hu YH, Wang JX, Yang WY, An ZX, Hu ZX, Lin J, Xiao JZ, Cao HB, Liu PA, Jiang XG, Jiang YY, Wang JP, Zheng H, Zhang H, Bennett PH, Howard BV: Effects of diet and exercise in preventing NIDDM in people with impaired glucose tolerance: the Da Qing IGT and Diabetes Study.
Diabetes Care
20
:
537
–544,
1997
15
Anderson JW, Kendall CW, Jenkins D: Importance of weight management in type 2 diabetes: review with meta-analysis of clinical studies.
Am J Clin Nutr
22
:
331
–339,
2003
16
The Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group: Costs associated with the primary prevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus in the Diabetes Prevention Program.
Diabetes Care
26
:
36
–47,
2003
17
Glasgow RE: Translating research to practice: lessons learned, areas for improvement, and future directions.
Diabetes Care
26
:
2451
–2456,
2003
18
Glasgow RE, Lichtenstein E, Marcus AC: Whey don’t we see more translation of health promotion research to practice? Rethinking the efficacy to effectiveness transition.
Am J Public Health
93
:
1261
–1267,
2003
19
Cohen J:
Statistical Power Analyses for the Behavioral Sciences
. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Eerlbaum,
1988
20
Position of the American Dietetic Association: weight management:
J Am Diet Assoc
102
:
1145
–1155,
2002
21
Tinkler LF, Heins JM, Holler HJ: Commentary and translation: 1994 nutrition recommendations for diabetes. Diabetes Care and Education: a practice group of the American Dietetic Association.
J Am Diet Assoc
94
:
507
–511,
1994
22
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in cooperation with The National Institutes of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases:
The Clinical Guidelines on the Identification, Evaluation, and Treatment of Overweight and Obesity in Adults: The Evidence Report
. Washington, DC, U.S. Govt. Printing Office,
1998
(DHEW NIH publ. no. 98–4083)
23
Brownell KD:
The LEARN Program for Weight Management
. New Haven, CT, American Health Publishing,
2000
24
Ware JE, Snow KK, Kosinski M:
SF-36 Health Survey: Manual and Interpretation Guide
. Boston, MA, The Health Institute, New England Medical Center,
1993
25
National Institutes of Health:
Third Report of the National Cholesterol Education Program Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III)
. Washington, DC, U.S. Govt. Printing Office,
2001
(NIH publ. no. 01–3670)
26
Fontaine KR, Cheskin LJ, Barofsky I: Health-related quality of life in obese persons seeking treatment.
J Fam Pract
43
:
265
–270,
1996
27
Wing RR, Marcus MD, Epstein LH, Jawad A: A “family-based” approach to the treatment of obese type II diabetic patients.
J Consult Clin Psychol
59
:
156
–162,
1991
28
McTigue KM, Harris R, Hemphill B, Lux L, Sutton S, Bunton AJ, Lohr KN: Screening and interventions for obesity in adults: summary of the evidence for the U. S. Preventive Services Task Force.
Ann Intern Med
139
:
933
–949,
2003
29
Wing RR, Marcus MD, Epstein LH, Salata R: Type II diabetic subjects lose less weight than their overweight nondiabetic spouses.
Diabetes Care
10
:
563
–566,
1987
30
UKPDS Group: Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33).
Lancet
352
:
837
–853,
1998
31
DeFronzo RA: Pharmacologic therapy for type 2 diabetes mellitus.
Ann Intern Med
131
:
281
–303,
1999
32
Tate DF, Jackvony EH, Wing RR: Effects of internet behavioral counseling on weight loss in adults at risk for type 2 diabetes, a randomized trial.
JAMA
289
:
1833
–1836,
2003
33
Perri MG, McAllister DA, Gange JJ, Jordan C, McAdoo G, Nezu AM: Effects of four maintenance programs on the long-term management of obesity.
J Consult Clin Psychol
56
:
529
–534,
1988
34
Jakicic JM, Winters C, Lang W, Wing RR: Effects of intermittent exercise and use of home exercise equipment on adherence, weight loss, and fitness in overweight women: a randomized trial.
JAMA
282
:
1554
–1560,
1999
35
Wing RR, Marcus MD, Salata R, Epstein LH, Miaskiewicz S, Blair SH: Effects of a very-low-calorie diet on long-term glycemic control in obese type 2 diabetic subjects.
Arch Intern Med
151
:
1334
–1340,
1991
36
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:
National Diabetes Fact Sheet: General Information and National Estimates on Diabetes in the United States, 2003
. Atlanta, GA, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
2003

A.M.W. is a member of an advisory board for Slimfast, has received honoraria for speaking engagements from Roche Pharmaceuticals, and has received an unrestricted grant from Sanofi-Synthelabo.

A table elsewhere in this issue shows conventional and Système International (SI) units and conversion factors for many substances.