• Indexing List

Kour, Goudar, and A Kothiwale: Impact of lifestyle modifications on obesity and biochemical parameters at different time intervals in newly diagnosed patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus – A randomized controlled trial


Introduction

The prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus is in rise among adult population. There is a paradigm shift as type 2 diabetes mellitus was called as disease of elderly and currently include huge amount of adult population also. The pathophysiology of type 2 diabetes mellitus is multifactorial but insulin resistance remains the predominant characteristic. India had almost 31.7 million population diagnosed with type 2 diabetes mellitus in the year 2000 and it is estimated to be more than doubled viz; around 79.4 million in year 2030. Now India is known as Capital of Diabetes. This actually is an alarming scenario for Indian health care system to be more vigilant for adequate management of type 2 diabetes mellitus.1,2

The main cause of increasing prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus includes overweight and obesity among adult population due to westernization, consumption of more junk food, sedentary lifestyles, high calories intake etc. Recently a new term has been coined as “diabesity” emphasizing the strong link between diabetes and obesity.3,4 High body mass index (BMI), waist circumference (WC), waist-hip ratio (WHR), Hyperglycemia and lipid profile derangements are reported in diabetic population.5,6,7

The lifestyle modification along with dietary therapy and medications are important part of management of cases with type 2 diabetes mellitus. There is growing body of evidence suggesting benefits of various forms of exercises for good blood glucose control and overall management of diabetes mellitus. Targeting young type 2 diabetic patients may delay the onset and complications of diabetes and provide them with better quality of life.8,9,10,11,12 Therefore, present study has assessed, in a randomized manner, the impact of life style modification in form of structured exercise therapy on anthropometric and biochemical parameters in young adults newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

We hypothesized that six months of structured exercise therapy with diet control and anti-diabetic drugs have better improvement among various study parameters. The lesser amount of cost, non pharmalogical characteristics will further enhance its therapeutic utility.

Objectives of the study

  1. To study the effect of six months of structured exercise therapy on anthropometric and biochemical profile in young adults with newly diagnosed T2DM.

  2. To study the effect of structured exercise therapy on study variables at different time intervals among young diabetic patients enrolled in the interventional group.

Materials and Methods

The present randomized controlled study was conducted in the Department of Physiology, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College attached to KLES Dr. Prabhakar Kore Hospital & MRC, Belagavi. All patients diagnosed newly with T2DM from April 2017 to October 2018, from Medicine OPD of Dr. Prabhakar Kore Hospital and Research Centre formed the study material. The study was approved by the Institutional Ethical Committe, and all participants gave informed consent.

Inclusion criteria

All the patients diagnosed newly with type 2 diabetes mellitus (April 2017 – October 2018)13 of age group 20-45 years were enrolled. The patients who were treated with only diet and oral anti-diabetics were enrolled.

Exclusion criteria

Subject with history of Diabetes more than a year or with known chronic diseases restricting physical activity, subjects with prior regimen of physical exercise and also patients who were on any other medication (e.g. antihypertensive, systemic steroid medication etc).

Sample Size

Was calculated by using the below mentioned formula,

(Z1-β+ Z1-α)2(SD12+SD22)(x¯1-x¯2)2

Where, Z = Standard for test = X- X¯/SD, Z1 -α = at 95%, Confidence Interval = 1.96, Z1-b = at 80%, Power of the test = 1.64, Mean and SD is taken from by review of literature for study and control were taken as 29.3 + 0.84 and 28.7 + 1.69. X1-X2 = Expected impact size. Calculations: n = (1.64 +1.96)2 (0.842615 2 + 1.6970562) / (29.3 + 28.7)2 = 130 Accounting drop out cases as 10%, then the calculated sample size was = 132/ 0.9 = 144.4 - rounded to 146. So total of 146 diabetic patients were enrolled.

Randomization: The patients were then randomly divided into Diabetic group and Interventional Group by computer generated, randomized number sequence. This randomization allocation was placed in Opaque Sealed Envelopes.

Groups: Two groups were made. First one was Diabetic controls which included patients with dietary control and anti- diabetic drugs. Second group was Interventional Group which included patients with dietary control, anti-diabetic drug and structured exercise therapy. Figure 1

Lifestyle Modification Programme included six months of individually designed structured exercise therapy including aerobic and resistance exercises. The aerobic exercises included 30 minutes of activity, five days per week. Resistance exercise included nine sets viz: seated single leg extension, dumbbell flies, dumbbell bent over row, dumbbell shoulder press, dumbbell upright row, standing leg curls, dumbbell biceps curls, abdominal curls and dumbbells triceps kick bags. All the patients enrolled in interventional group were given printed individualized instructions and dumbbells of 2kgs weight. The patients were also taught stretching exercise and were instructed to perform the same after very session.14,15

Study variable

Socio-demographic

Age in years was noted to the nearest completed year as determined from their Ration card/ Driving License/Adhar Card.

Socio economic status

Was evaluated by taking education, occupation and family income into account and scoring them as per Kuppuswamy’s score card.

Anthropometric measurements

Height in cms, weight in kgs Body Mass Index in kg/m2(BMI), Body Fat %, Skin fold thickness in mm (SFT), Waist Circumference in cms (WC), Hip circumference in cms (HC) and Waist Hip ratio (WHR) were measured as per standard protocols. The categorization of the BMI was done according to the BMI criteria for the Indian population and was calculated by quelets Index. Body Fat was calculated using Siri’s Equation. Skin Fold Thickness from seven sites was measured by Herpenden skin fold calipers (Anand agencies, Pune). Waist-Hip Ratio (WHR) was calculated with the corresponding values of waist circumference divided by the hip circumference. Waist-Hip ratio of ≥ 1.0 for males and ≥ 0.85 for females was considered as truncal obesity. Waist circumference ≥ 90 cm in males and ≥ 80 cm in females was considered as central Obesity/ abdominal obesity.

Biochemical parameters

Venous blood was drawn for Glucose Profile included Fasting Blood Glucose mg/dl (FBG), Post Prandial Blood Glucose mg/dl (PPBG) and Glycated Hemoglobion% (HbA1c). Lipid Profile included Total Cholesterol mg/dl (TC), Low Density Lipoprotein mg/dl (LDL), High Density Lipoprotein mg/dl (HDL), Total Triglycerides mg/dl (TG) and Very low Density Lipoproteins mg/dl (VLDL). All the parameters were determined in the serum of the subjects by using commercially available reagent kits. The lipid profile of the subjects was classified, based on the Adult Treatment Panel III model of National Cholesterol Educational Program and glycemic control as per criteria laid by American Diabetes Association 2018. The American Diabetes Association (ADA) proposed HbA1 C ≥6.5% for the diagnosis of diabetes and 5.7-6.4% for the highest risk to progress to diabetes.16,17

Statistical methods

Descriptive analysis was carried out by mean and standard deviation.. For normally distributed Quantitative parameters the mean values were compared between study groups using Independent sample t-test. The change in the quantitative parameters, before and after the intervention was assessed by paired t-test (In case of two time periods) or one-way repeated measures ANOVA (In case of comparison across more than 2 time periods). One-way repeated measures ANOVA was used to assess the statistical significance of differences in the normally distributed quantitative variables, measured within intervention group, at different time periods. P value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. IBM SPSS version 22 was used for statistical analysis.

Figure 1
https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/typeset-media-server/33eb7faf-c1b2-464e-ac43-39a7b64da011image2.png

Results

Table 1
Parameter Diabetic control at baseline (N=74) Intervention group at baseline (N=74) P Value
Age (mean ± SD) 37.46 ± 4.06 36.95 ± 4.13 0.447
Gender
Male 40 (54.05%) 42 (56.75%) 0.741
Female 34 (45.94%) 32 (43.24%)
Socio economic status
Upper Middle 28 (37.83%) 25 (33.78%) 0.865
Lowe Middle 30 (40.54%) 35 (47.29%)
Upper Lower 12 (16.21%) 10 (13.51%)
Lower 4 (5.405%) 4 (5.405%)
Religion
Hindu 37 (50%) 41 (55.40%) 0.364
Muslim 33 (44.59%) 32 (43.24%)
Christian 4 (5.405%) 1 (1.351%)

Socio-demographic parameters between Diabetic control and intervention groups

[i] All the demographic variables including age, gender, socio economic status and religion were comparable between intervention group and diabetic controls group at baseline (P value >0.005). (Table 1)

Table 2
Parameters Diabetic Control baseline (DC) (N=74) Intervention group at baseline (N=74) P Value
Height (cms) (mean ± SD) 161.85 ± 6.25 162.49 ± 6.39 0.542
Weight (Kgs) (mean ± SD) 83.62 ± 6.51 80.32 ± 8.15 0.007
BMI (kg/m2)(mean ± SD) 32.03 ± 3.22 30.5 ± 3.33 0.005
Skin Fold Thickness (mm) (median) 241.5 (236.75, 248.25) 246 (239, 253) 0.034
Body fat (%) (Median IQR) 32.85(31.55, 39.19) 33.01 (31.68, 39.35) 0.565
Waist circumferences (cms) 92.45 ± 6.28 93.22 ± 5.89 0.443
Hip circumferences (cms) 92.12 ± 8.3 91.98 ± 8.21 0.917
Waist hip ratio 1.01 ± 0.07 1.02 ± 0.06 0.368
Biochemical
Hb (%) 13.49 ± 1.37 13.58 ± 1.29 0.662
FBG (mg/dl) 104.8 ± 11.96 106.09 ± 10.49 0.484
PPBG (mg/dl) (Median) 138.5 (130, 146) 140 (138, 146.5) 0.118
HbA1c (%) 5.97 ± 0.48 5.93 ± 0.46 0.542
Triglycerides (mg/dl 156.92 ± 14.53 156.64 ± 15.14 0.908
Total Cholesterol (mg/dl) 220.61 ± 25.88 218.54 ± 27.32 0.637
HDL (mg/dl) 43.34 ± 7.53 41.12 ± 6.91 0.064
LDL (mg/dl) 145.89 ± 27.92 146.09 ± 29.87 0.966
VLDL (mg/dl) 31.38 ± 2.91 31.33 ± 3.03 0.908

Anthropometryand Biochemical parameters between diabetic controlgroup and intervention group at baseline after randomization

[i] Among the anthropometric parameters, BMI and Skin Fold Thickness (cms) were significantly higher among the control group, as compared to intervention group. (Table 2)

Out of the secondary outcome variables height, Body density, Body fat (%), Waist circumferences, Hip circumferences, waits hip ratio, Physical Fitness Index, VO2 Max, Basel heart rate, Max. HR beats/min, SBP, DBP and biochemical parameter (Hb (%), FBS (mg/dl), PPBS, HbA1c(mg/dl), Triglycerides (mg/dl), Total Cholesterol (Mg/Dl), HDL (Mg/Dl), LDL (Mg/Dl) and VLDL (Mg/Dl)) were comparable between intervention group and diabetic control group at baseline (P value >0.005). (Table 2)

Table 3
Parameter Diabetic Control at the end of 6th month (NC) (N=68) Intervention group at end of 6th month (N=63) P Value Parameter
Anthropometry
Height (cms) (mean ± SD) 161.62 ± 6.44 162.49 ± 6.39 0.414
Weight (Kgs) (mean ± SD) 80.76 ± 6.57 72.32 ± 8.31 0.001
BMI (kg/m2) (mean ± SD) 31.04 ± 3.39 27.45 ± 3.29 0.001
Skin Fold Thickness (mm) (median) 241 (236, 248.25) 235 (230, 242) 0.001
Body fat (%) (Median IQR) 32.81 (31.53, 39.24) 32.5 (30.81, 39.01) 0.169
Waist circumferences (cms) 91.17 ± 5.89 88.65 ± 6.26 0.013
Hip circumferences (cms) 91.01 ± 8.19 91.14 ± 7.87 0.919
Waist hip ratio 1.01 ± 0.07 0.98 ± 0.05 0.003

Comparison of anthropometry parameters between diabetes control group and intervention group at end of 6th months

The mean weight, BMI, skin fold thickness, waist circumference, hip circumference and waist hip ration were significantly improved in the intervention group at the end of six months of exercise therapy. Body fat % did not show any statistically significant difference between diabetic controls and intervention groups. (Table 3)

Table 4
Parameter Diabetic Control at the end of 6th month (NC) (N=68 Intervention group at end of 6th month (N=63) P Value
Biochemical parameters
Hb (%) 13.3 ± 1.3 13.5 ± 1.35 0.372
FBG (mg/dl) 104.74 ± 11.44 89.88 ± 5.69 <0.001
PPBG (mg/dl) (Median) 140 (131.5, 144.5) 132 (127, 137) <0.001
HbA1c (%) 5.86 ± 0.37 5.14 ± 0.36 <0.001
Triglycerides (mg/dl) 158.18 ± 14.66 151.36 ± 12.6 0.003
Total Cholesterol (mg/dl) 218.73 ± 26.95 215.61 ± 20.54 0.429
HDL (mg/dl) 43 ± 7.42 45.39 ± 7.24 0.049
LDL (mg/dl) 144.09 ± 28.84 139.94 ± 21.31 0.321
VLDL (mg/dl) 31.64 ± 2.93 30.27 ± 2.52 0.003

Comparisonof Biochemical parameters between diabetes control group and intervention group at end of 6thmonths

[i] *Mean ± SD of Normally distributed quantitative variables were compared using independent sample t-test, median & Inter quartile rage (IQR) of non-normally distributed quantitative variables were compared using Mann-Whitney U test. Categorical variables were compared using Chi-square test

Out of the laboratory parameters, total Cholesterol and LDL were comparable between the diabetic control at end of 6th month and intervention at end of 6th month which have shown no statistically significant (P value >0.05). Out of the biochemical parameters, Hb%, total Cholesterol and LDL were comparable between the diabetic control at end of 6th month and intervention at end of 6th month which have shown no statistically significant (P value >0.05). The mean FBS (104.74 ± 11.44 Vs 89.88 ± 5.69, P value <0.001), the median PPBS (140 Vs 132, P value <0.001) and the mean HbA1c (5.86 ± 0.37 Vs 5.14 ± 0.36. P value <0.001) were significantly lower in the intervention group, as compared to control group, at the end of 6 months follow up period. The mean Triglycerides (151.36 ± 12.6 Vs 158.18 ± 14.66, P value =0.001) and VLDL ( 30.27 ± 2.52 Vs 30.27 ± 2.52, P value= 0.003) were lower and the mean HDL was higher ( 45.39 ± 7.24 Vs 31.64 ± 2.93, P value 0.049) among the intervention group, at the end of 6th month follow up period. (Table 4)

Table 5
Parameter Interventional Group Baseline (IG) (N=74) Interventional Group, At the end of 2 months (IG) (N=72) Interventional Group, At the end of 4 months (IG) (N=66) Interventional Group, At the end of 6 months (IG) (N=63)
Anthropometry
Height (cms) (mean ± SD) 162.49 ± 6.39 162.49 ± 6.39 162.49 ± 6.39 162.49 ± 6.39 1.000
Weight (Kgs ) (mean ± SD) 80.32 ± 8.15 76.73 ± 8.12 74.42 ± 8.29 72.32 ± 8.31 <0.001
BMI (kg/m2 ) (mean ± SD) 30.5 ± 3.33 29.13 ± 3.25 28.25 ± 3.27 27.45 ± 3.29 <0.001
Skin Fold Thickness (mm) (median) 246.68 ± 11.41 242.69 ± 10.91 239.84 ± 11.1 236.65 ± 11.65 <0.001
Body fat (%) 35.22 ± 4 34.88 ± 3.98 34.71 ± 4.06 34.66 ± 4.35 0.840
Waist circumferences (cms) 93.22 ± 5.89 91.93 ± 6 90.42 ± 5.91 88.65 ± 6.26 <0.001
Hip circumferences (cms) 91.98 ± 8.21 91.94 ± 8.17 91.64 ± 7.98 91.14 ± 7.87 0.916
Waist hip ratio 1.02 ± 0.06 1.02 ± 0.06 1.02 ± 0.06 1.02 ± 0.06 <0.001
Biochemical parameters
Hb (%) 106.09 ± 10.49 92.31 ± 5.35 89.41 ± 5.47 89.88 ± 5.69 <0.001
FBG (mg/dl) 141.99 ± 9.92 128.84 ± 8.63 133.3 ± 7.72 132.14 ± 7.01 <0.001
PPBG (mg/dl) (Median) 5.93 ± 0.46 5.15 ± 0.38 5.16 ± 0.37 5.14 ± 0.36 <0.001
HbA1c (%) 156.64 ± 15.14 150.07 ± 11.71 154.22 ± 14.69 151.36 ± 12.6 0.017
Triglycerides (mg/dl) 218.54 ± 27.32 215.19 ± 22.92 215.19 ± 22.92 215.61 ± 20.54 0.790
Total Cholesterol (mg/dl) 41.12 ± 6.91 45.5 ± 6.58 46.22 ± 6.65 45.39 ± 7.24 <0.001
HDL (mg/dl) 146.09 ± 29.87 139.68 ± 25.2 138.13 ± 24.75 139.94 ± 21.31 0.240
LDL (mg/dl) 31.33 ± 3.03 30.01 ± 2.34 30.84 ± 2.94 30.27 ± 2.52 0.017

Comparison of trend of various secondary outcome parameters in the intervention group from baseline to post intervention

[i] *One-way repeated measures ANOVA was used to compute the statistical significance of differences in normally distributed quantitative variables at different follow up periods

Table 6
Significant variables Baseline Vs 2 months Baseline Vs 4 months Baseline Vs 6 months 2 months Vs 4 months 2 months Vs 6 months 4 months Vs 6months
Weight (kgs) 0.008 <0.001 <0.001 0.088 0.001 0.122
BMI (kg/m2 ) 0.012 <0.001 <0.001 0.104 0.002 0.142
Skin Fold Thickness (mm) 0.032 <0.001 <0.001 0.125 0.001 0.086
Waist circumferences (cms) 0.193 0.005 <0.001 0.129 0.001 0.075
Waist Hip Ratio 0.126 0.003 <0.001 0.153 0.003 0.112
FBS (mg/dl) <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.013 0.038 0.685
PPBS (mg/dl) (Median) <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.001 0.017 0.400
HbA1c % <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.983 0.852 0.836
Triglycerides (mg/dl) 0.004 0.281 0.019 0.065 0.562 0.204
HDL (mg/dl) <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.525 0.924 0.465
VLDL (mg/dl) 0.004 0.281 0.019 0.065 0.562 0.204

Significance of pairwise differences between at different follow up peiods in secondary outcome variables

[i] *Statistical significance of Pairwise differences was computed by paired t-test for normally distributed quantitative variables and Wilcoxon-signed rank test for non-normally distributed quantitative variables.

Among the anthropometric parameters and laboratory parameters, which have shown statistically significant improvement, all the components, except waist circumference and waist hip ratio had shown statistically significant improvement in the first 2 months following the intervention. No statistically significant decline/change was observed in BMI, HbA1c, waist circumference, triglycerides, VLDL and HDL levels between 2nd to 4th month and 4th to 6th month post intervention period. But Skinfold thickness had shown a statistically significant decline between 2nd to 4th month and 4th to 6th month post intervention period. Few parameters like waist hip ratio, basal heart rate and PPBS have shown statistically significant improvement between 2nd to 4th month, and not much significant change after 4th month. (Table 5,Table 6)

Discussion

The study population consisted of adult subjects aged 20-45 years newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabetes mellitus, more simply called diabetes, is a “chronic condition that occurs when there are raised levels of glucose in the blood because the body cannot produce any or enough of the hormone insulin or use insulin effectively.18 Diabetes has emerged as a major global public health problem and is a major contributor for global mortality. Along with other three major noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) (cardiovascular disease, cancer and respiratory disease) it contributes to more than 80% premature NCD related mortality.19 As per the estimates, there are 451 million (age 18-99 years) people with diabetes globally in the year 2017, which is expected to raise to 693 million by 2045. This is in addition to approximately 374 million people with impaired glucose tolerance (IGT). In 2017, close 5 million deaths globally were attributed to diabetes among people aged between, 20-99 years. The global economic burden was estimated to be USD 850 billion in 2017.20

Anthropometric parameters

In the current study, the mean weight and BMI were significantly lesser in the intervention group at 6-month period following the intervention. The mean weight in control group was at end of 6th month was 80.7 ± 6.57, and in intervention group it was 72.32 ± 8.35(P value <0.001). The mean BMI of subjects in control group was 31.04 ± 3.39, and in intervention group it was 27.45 ± 3.29. (P value <0.001). The other parameters, which have shown statistically significant difference between the intervention and control groups were median skin fold thickness (241 (IQR 236 to 248.25 Vs 235 (IQR 230 to 242), P value < 0.001), Waist circumference (91.17 ± 5.89 Vs 88.65 ± 6.26, P value 0.013) and waits hip ratio (1.01 ± 0.07 Vs 0.98 ± 0.045 P value 0.003). Body density and body fat % did not show any statistically significant difference between control and intervention groups Body density and body fat % did not show any statistically significant difference between control and intervention groups. Among the anthropometric parameters, which have shown statistically significant improvement, all the components, except waist circumference and waist hip ratio had shown statistically significant improvement in the first 2 months following the intervention. No statistically significant decline/change was observed in BMI, waist circumference, between 2nd to 4th month and 4th to 6th month post intervention period. But skinfold thickness had shown a statistically significant decline between 2nd to 4th month and 4th to 6th month post intervention period. Few parameters like waist hip ratio had shown statistically significant improvement between 2nd to 4th month, but not much significant change after 4th month.

Kwon, H. R., et al.,21 in their study have compared the aerobic and resistance training program on various aspects, among women with Type 2 Diabetes mellitus. Significant reduction in weight was observed with both aerobic (2.8+/-2.5%, P=0.002) and resistance (1.6+/-2.0%, P=0.017) exercises.

A study by Dos Anjos, D., et al.22 had reported a significant reduction in the anthropometric measures of body mass, BMI and hip circumference, following an aerobic exercise program among diabetic elderly women. A systematic review by Kuhle, C. L., et al.23 had reported a significant reduction in BMI (-1.01 kg/m(2), 95% CI -2.00 to -0.01) and WC (3.09 cm, 95% CI -4.14 to -2.04) among older adults following with structured exercise programme. Mshunqane, N., et al.24 have reported significant reduction in weight, BMI, waist circumference following exercise therapy, similar to current study findings. In contrast to the current study findings, Kadoglou, N. P., et al.25 have reported no significant reduction in any of the anthropometric parameters among diabetic patients following exercise therapy.

Even though there are differences across the studies in the amount of reduction in body weight, BMI and waist circumference, the overall evidence is consistent with respect to impact of exercise on these parameters. These differences again can be partially attributed to variability in terms of nature and intensity of exercise, duration of follow up and the population composition of each study.

Biochemical parameters

In the current study, out of the laboratory parameters, Hb%, total Cholesterol and LDL were comparable between the diabetic control at end of 6th month and intervention at end of 6th month which have shown no statistically significant (P value >0.05). Out of the biochemical parameters, Hb%, total Cholesterol and LDL were comparable between the diabetic control at end of 6th month and intervention at end of 6th month which have shown no statistically significant (P value >0.05). The mean FBS (104.74 ± 11.44 Vs 89.88 ± 5.69, P value <0.001), the median PPBS (140 Vs 132, P value <0.001) and the mean HbA1c (5.86 ± 0.37 Vs 5.14 ± 0.36. P value <0.001) were significantly lower in the intervention group, as compared to control group, at the end of 6 months follow up period. The mean Triglycerides (151.36 ± 12.6 Vs 158.18 ± 14.66, P value =0.001) and VLDL (30.27 ± 2.52 Vs 30.27 ± 2.52, P value= 0.003) were lower and the mean HDL was higher (45.39 ± 7.24 Vs 31.64 ± 2.93, P value 0.049) among the intervention group, at the end of 6th month follow up period. Among the laboratory parameters, which have shown statistically significant improvement, all had shown statistically significant improvement in the first 2 months following the intervention. No statistically significant decline/change was observed in Hba1c, triglycerides, VLDL and HDL levels between 2nd to 4th month and 4th to 6th month post intervention period. PPBS had shown statistically significant improvement between 2nd to 4th month, and not much significant change after 4th month. 25 have reported a significant reduction in HbA(1c) (P<0.05), following an exercise programme. But this study had also reported significant decline in LDL levels, which was in contrast to current study findings. Choi, K. M., et al.26 also have reported significant reduction in HbA1c level along with LDL levels and various inflammatory markers, as compared to control group following a 60 minute moderate intensity exercise programme, delivered for 5 times a week for 12 weeks. A recent systematic review Byrne, H., et al.26 had reported quite variable results, with respect to various metabolic outcomes following self-directed exercise therapy among diabetic population. Even though none of the studies have reported worsening of glycemic control as measured by HbA1C, there are few studies which have reported no significant changes in HbA1C values with self-directed exercise therapy. But majority of the studies have reported significant improvement in HbA1c values, following exercise therapy or with control group. Another key finding of the review was that, the beneficial effects, which were observed in the initial 6 months following the intervention, did not last during the maintenance phase in many studies. This phenomenon was observed for LDL, HDL and other metabolic parameters.

Conclusion

  1. BMI were significantly lesser in the intervention group at 6-month period following the intervention. The mean BMI of subjects in control group was 30.91 ± 3.12, and in intervention group it was 27.24 ± 3.14. (P value <0.001).

  2. The mean HbA1c (5.82 ± 0.31 Vs 5.14 ± 0.35. P value <0.001) were significantly lower in the intervention group, as compared to control group, at the end of 6 months follow up period.

  3. The mean Triglycerides (157.95 ± 14.25 vs 149.37 ± 11.16, P value <0.001) and VLDL (31.59 ± 2.85 Vs 29.87 ± 2.23, P value <0.001) were lower and the mean HDL was higher (42.58 ± 7.17 Vs 45.87 ± 7.05, P value 0.010) among the intervention group, at the end of 6th month follow up period.

  4. Majority of the parameters, which have shown statistically significant improvement within intervention groups, have done so in the first two months following the initiation of the intervention, with no statistically significant change after that.

  5. However, the improvement from the baseline value has persisted till the end of 6th month follow up period.

Disclosure

This Manuscript is a part of my project entitled “ Evaluation of the effect of structured exercise therapy on neuro-physiological and cognitive functions of young adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus – A Randomized Controlled Trial”

Sources of funding

I am grateful to Indian Council of Medical Research for funding this project.

References

1 

J E Shaw R A Sicree P Z Zimmet Diabetes Atlas-Global estimates of the prevalence of diabetes for 2010 and 2030Diabetes Res Clin Pract201087414

2 

S Wild G Roglic A Green R Sicree H King Global prevalence of diabetes: Estimates for the year 2000 and projections for 2030Diabetes Care20042710471053

3 

A Astrup N Finer Redefining type 2 diabetes:diabesity or obesity dependent diabetesObesity Rev200015759

4 

S Pincock Paul Zimmet Fighting the ‘diabesity’ pandemicLancet200636895481643

5 

A Kamath G Shivaprakash P Adhikari Body mass index and waist circumference in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients attending a diabetes clinicInt J Biol Med Res20112636638

6 

R Unnikrishnan R M Anjana V Mohan Diabetes in South Asians: Is the phenotype different?Diabetes2014635355

7 

L S Geiss J Wang Y J Cheng Prevalence and incidence trends for diagnosed diabetes among adults aged 20 to 79 yearsJAMA198031212181226

8 

C L Gostic The crucial role of exercise and physical activity in weight management and functional improvement for seniorsClin Geriatr Med200521747756

9 

C L Kuhle M W Steffen P J Anderson Effect of exercise on anthropometric measures and serum lipids in older individuals: a systematic review and meta-analysisBMJ Open201445283528310.1136/bmjopen-2014-005283.Lastaccessedon12th

10 

R Sheri Colberg J Ronald Sigal Exercise and Type 2 Diabetes. The American College of Sports Medicine and the American DiabetesDiabetes Care20103312147167

11 

P Nazni T Poongodi Vijayakumar K Angamuthu Effect of Exercise on BMI and Biochemical Profile of Selected Obese Diabetic WomenJ Exerc Sci Physiotherapy200626670

12 

American Diabetes Association Physical activity/exercise and diabetesDiabetes Care200427900011415

13 

C Castaneda J E Layne P L Munoz-Orians Lgordon J Walsmith M Foldvari A randomized controlled trial ofresistance exercise training to improveglycemic control in older adults with type 2 diabetesDiabetes care2002251223352376

14 

R J Lipsy The National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III guidelinesJ Manag Care Pharm20039125

15 

R S DeFronzo E Ferrannini P Zimmet G Alberti International Textbook of Diabetes Mellitus. J Clin ApplRes Educ

16 

R A Defronzo E Ferrannini P Zimmet G Alberti International Textbook of Diabetes Mellitus2015Wiley-BlackwellLast accessed on12th

17 

M H Forouzanfar A Afshin L T Alexander H R Anderson Z A Bhutta S Biryukov GBD 2015 Risk Factors Collaborators. Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 79 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks, 1990-2015: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease StudyLancet201538816591724

18 

N H Cho J E Shaw S Karuranga Y Huang J D Da Rocha Fernandes A W Ohlrogge IDF Diabetes Atlas: Global estimates of diabetes prevalence for 2017 and projections for 2045Diabetes Res Clin Pract2018138271281

19 

H R Min K W Ahn H J Seok H G Lee J H Park G S . Effects of Aerobic Exercise vs. Resistance Training on Endothelial Function in Women with Type 2 Diabetes MellitusDiabetes Metab J2011354364373

20 

D Anjos B S Moreira R N Kirkwood R C Dias D S Pereira L S M Pereira Effects of aerobic exercise on functional capacity, anthropometric measurements and inflammatory markers in diabetic elderly womenJ Bodyw Mov Ther2017213509516

21 

C L Kuhle M W Steffen P J Anderson M H Murad Effect of exercise on anthropometric measures and serum lipids in older individuals: a systematic review and meta-analysisBMJ Open201446e005283

22 

N CD Mshunqane J K Kalk Effects of an exercise programme on non-insulin dependant diabetes mellitusS Afr J Physiother20046042630

23 

N P Kadoglou I S Vrabas N Sailer A Kapelouzou G Fotiadis G Noussios Exercise ameliorates serum MMP-9 and TIMP-2 levels in patients with type 2 diabetesDiabetes Metab2010362144151

24 

K M Choi K A Han H J Ahn S Y Hwang H C Hong H Y Choi Effects of exercise on sRAGE levels and cardiometabolic risk factors in patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized controlled trialJ Clin Endocrinol Metab2012971037513758

25 

H Byrne B Caulfield G De Vito G . Effects of Self-directed Exercise Programmes on Individuals with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review Evaluating Their Effect on HbA1c and Other Metabolic Outcomes, Physical Characteristics, Cardiorespiratory Fitness and Functional OutcomesSports Med2017474717733



jats-html.xsl