DM: Effectiveness of MNT Provided by RD/RDN (2015)
Al-Shookri A, Khor GL, Chan YM, Loke SC, Al-Maskari M. Effectiveness of medical nutrition treatment delivered by dietitians on glycaemic outcomes and lipid profiles of Arab, Omani patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabet Med. 2012; 29(2): 236-244.
PubMed ID: 21824187To investigate the effectiveness of practice guideline nutritional care compared with usual nutrition care on medical and clinical outcomes for patients with type 2 diabetes in Oman.
- Age between 30 years and 70 years
- Diagnosed with having type 2 diabetes
- Free of diabetic complications (such as gastroparesis and renal disease)
- Consented to participate in the study.
- A recent heart attack or stroke (within the previous six months)
- A serious illness (such as cancer or surgery within the previous four weeks)
- Illnesses requiring corticosteroid therapy
- Became pregnant.
Recruitment
Two hundred subjects were invited to participate.
- This number was estimated based on the power calculation to detect a 1.0 percentage point difference in the amount of change in HbA1c levels between the groups
- A total of 77 subjects were required in each group. To account for sample dropout during the period of the study, 23 subjects (approximately 25%) were added to each group.
Design
Randomized controlled trial.
Blinding Used
Implied with measurements.
Intervention
- A total of 200 subjects were assigned randomly to the usual nutrition care group or the group receiving practice guidelines nutritional care
- Each patient was given a number, which was put in a box
- By random selection, the first 100 numbers were assigned to the usual nutrition care group.
- Usual Nutrition Care Group (UNC):
- Before the first visit (after the referral is made) the dietitian obtains the referral data
- First visit was approximately one hour:
- A dietitian discusses the general principles of nutrition management of diabetes, nutrition education and nutrition prescription
- Summary to referral physical
- A physical will decide if the patient requires a follow-up visit six months after the first visit.
- Practice Guidelines Nutritional Care Group (PGC):
- Initial visit was a minimum of one to 1.5 hours:
- Assessment: Medical, lifestyle and psychological issues
- Intervention: Nutrition prescription, education and goal setting.
- First follow-up visit was a minimum of 30 minutes to 45 minutes (within two weeks of initial visit):
- Assessment: Progress to stated short-term goals and intervention
- Intervention: Change in medical nutritional treatment if the goals sited at the initial visit were not achieved; ongoing skills and education.
- Second follow-up visit was a minimum of 30 minutes to 45 minutes (within two weeks to four weeks of the initial visit):
- Assessment: Progress to target blood glucose goals
- Intervention: Make medical nutritional treatment changes; recommend medical therapy changes as needed.
- Ongoing follow-up visit was at minimum once every six to 12 months:
- Communication: Long-term goals and plans for ongoing care, such as controlling blood glucose, having a healthy lifestyle and controlling risk factors of long-term complications.
- Summary to referral source.
- Initial visit was a minimum of one to 1.5 hours:
Statistical Analysis
- Continuous variables between the two groups were analyzed by ANOVA
- The changes in variables between at entry, at three months and at six months in each group were analyzed by paired T-test
- The level for significance for all tests was P<0.05
- All of the analyses were carried out using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences, version 15.0 (SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL, USA).
Timing of Measurements
- The study was conducted during the period from April 2009 to September 2009. The Muslim fasting month of Ramadan was not included in the study period.
- All subjects were assessed at the time of enrollment and three and six months later.
Dependent Variables
- Anthropometric measurements:
- Weight: Measured with patients wearing light clothing and without shoes, by dietitians using an electric scale or beam-balance scale
- Height: Measured using a wall measure
- BMI: Calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in square meters (kg/m2)
- Waist circumference: Measured by dietitians using a cloth tape measure with subjects standing in a relaxed position. Subjects were measured at the horizontal level that yielded the minimum measurement.
- Glucose levels:
- Were measured after a 12-hour fast at baseline, three months and six months
- With the patient in a seated position, 30ml of venous blood was drawn from the antecubital vein
- Assessment was made for:
- Fasting plasma glucose: By the hexokinase method using Baxter Paramax
- HbA1c levels: By ion exchange high-performance liquid chromatography on a Bio-Rad Diamat analyzer
- Lipid profile:
- Assessment of:
- Serum total cholesterol
- LDL-cholesterol
- HDL-cholesterol
- Serum triglyceride values.
- Lipid values were determined by enzymatic methods on the Baxter Paramax
- Assessment of:
- Outcomes were considered successful if:
- Weight loss of 1.5kg to 3.0kg at four weeks to six weeks and a weight loss of 4.5kg to 9kg at six months
- BMI 25 or less
- Fasting plasma glucose level of 4.4mmol to 7.8mmol per L or a minimum 20% decrease from entry to six months
- A HbA1c value of 58 mmol per mol [7.5% or less, with a normal measurement less than 42mmol per mol (6%)]
- Minimum 20% decrease from initial appointment to six-month appointment
- Total cholesterol of 5.2mmol per L or less
- LDL-cholesterol of 3.38mmol per L or less
- Triglyceride levels of less than 2.26mmol per L.
Independent Variables
- Practice guidelines for medical nutrition treatment
- Usual nutrition care.
- Initial N: N=200 subjects
- Attrition (final N): N=170 subjects (85% of the original enrollees).
Age
UNC Group (N=85) Mean±SD | PGC Group (N=85) Mean±SD | All (N=170) Mean±SD | P | |
Age (years) | 52.0±9.2 | 49.5±11.3 | 50.7±10.4 | 0.122 |
Ethnicity
Described as Arab patients.
Other Relevant Demographics
UNC Group (N=85) | PGC Group (N=85) | All (N=170) | |
Gender | |||
Male |
N=33 (38.8%) | N=38 (44.7%) | N=71 (41.8%) |
Female |
N=52 (61.2%) | N=47 (55.3%) | N=99 (58.2%) |
Diabetes duration | |||
Less than four years |
N=10 (11.8%) | N=22 (25.9%) | N=32 (37.6%) |
More than four years |
N=75 (88.2%) | N=63 (74.1%) | N=53 (62.4%) |
Medical nutrition therapy (MNT) | |||
MNT alone |
N=11 (13%) | N=10 (11.8%) | N=21 (12.4%) |
MNT and oral agents |
N=37 (43.5%) | N=45 (52.9%) | N=82 (48.2%) |
MNT and combination therapy (oral agents and insulin) |
N=37 (43.5%) | N=30 (35.3%) | N=67 (39.4%) |
Education | |||
Less than high school |
N=50 (58.8%) | N=48 (56.5%) | N=98 (57.6%) |
High school |
N=15 (17.6%) | N=17 (20%) | N=32 (18.8%) |
College |
N=20 (23.5%) | N=20 (23.5) | N=40 (23.5%) |
Anthropometrics
There was no significant difference between groups at baseline.
UNC group (n=85) Mean±SD | PGC group (n=85) Mean±SD | All (n=170) Mean±SD | p | |
Weight (kg) | 72.2±12.9 | 73.3±13.6 | 72.7±13.0 | 0.586 |
Body mass index (kg/m2) | 28.4±5.2 | 27.6±5.3 | 28.0±5.2 | 0.313 |
Waist circumference (cm) | 97.9±8.3 | 97.2±7.5 | 97.5±7.9 | 0.554 |
Fasting plasma glucose (mmol per L) | 12.1±3.3 | 12.4±3.1 | 12.3±3.2 | 0.466 |
HbA1c | ||||
(mmol per L) |
88 | 89 | 89 | 0.632 |
(Percentage) |
10.2±2.4 | 10.3±1.8 | 10.3±2.1 | |
Cholesterol (mmol per L) | 5.4±0.9 | 5.3±1.0 | 5.4±1.0 | 0.825 |
LDL-cholesterol (mmol per L) | 3.46±0.88 | 3.57±0.93 | 3.52±0.90 | 0.437 |
HDL-cholesterol (mmol per L) | 1.08±0.22 | 1.05±0.23 | 1.07±0.23 | 0.345 |
Triglycerides (mmol per L) | 1.80±0.87 | 1.64±0.70 | 1.72±0.79 | 0.187 |
Urea (mmol per L) | 5.3±1.4 | 5.6±1.2 | 5.5±1.3 | 0.084 |
Creatinine (mcgmol per L) | 62.8±17.0 | 62.4±12.8 | 62.6±15.0 | 0.839 |
White blood cells (109 per L) | 6.2±2.1 | 6.0±1.5 | 6.1±1.8 | 0.459 |
Hemoglobin (g per dL) | 12.5±0.86 | 12.3±1.4 | 12.4±1.1 | 0.224 |
Platelets (109 per L) | 280±68 | 291±61 | 286±65 | 0.309 |
Location
Muscat, Oman.
Key Findings
PGC (N=85) | UNC (N=85) | |||||
Variables |
Entry Mean±SD |
Three Months Mean±SD |
Six Months Mean±SD |
Entry Mean±SD | Three Months Mean±SD | Six Months Mean±SD |
Weight (kg) |
73.3±13.6 |
68.7±13.9 Zero vs. three months* |
68.2±13.4 Zero vs. six months* |
72.2±12.9 | 69.7±12.2 | 69.6±12.1 |
BMI (kg/m2) | 27.6±5.3 |
26.3±5.7 Zero vs. three months* |
26.2±5.3 | 28.4±5.2 | 27.4±4.9 | 27.4±5.0 |
Waist circumference (cm) |
97.2±7.5 |
96.9±7.6 |
96.9±7.9 ¥ |
97.9±8.3 | 99.0±8.7 | 100.0±8.7 |
Fasting plasma glucose (mmol per L) |
12.4±3.2 |
10.4±2.5§ Zero vs. three months*** |
11.1±2.8 Zero vs. six months** |
12.1±3.3 | 11.2±3.0 | 11.9±3.2 |
HbA1c | ||||||
mmol per mol |
89 | 75 | 80 | 88 | 79 | 84 |
Percentage |
10.3±1.8 |
9.0±1.8 Zero vs. three months*** |
9.5±1.4 Zero vs. six months** Three vs. six months* |
10.2±2.4 | 9.4±2.0 | 9.8±1.8 |
Cholesterol (mmol per L) | 5.3±1.0 | 5.1±1.0 | 5.1±0.97 | 5.4±0.9 |
5.1±0.8 Zero vs. three months* |
5.5±0.9 Three vs. six months** |
LDL-cholesterol (mmol per L) | 3.57±0.93 | 3.74±1.01 | 3.58±0.98 | 3.37±0.88 | 3.63±0.75 | 3.66±0.87 |
HDL-cholesterol (mmol per L) | 1.05±0.23 | 1.01±0.33 | 1.09±0.32 | 1.08±0.22 | 1.05±0.25 |
1.01±0.22 Zero vs. six months* |
Triglycerides (mmol per L) | 1.64±0.70 |
1.39±0.62 Zero vs. three months* |
1.42±0.58¥ Zero vs. six months* |
1.80±0.87 | 1.70±0.75 |
1.98±0.96 Three vs. six months* |
- *P<0.05
- **P<0.01
- ***P<0.001
- § P=Significant difference between two groups at three-month point
- ¥ P=Significant difference between two groups at six-month point
- Compared with entry time, the mean weight values of the PGC group decreased significantly at the three-month point of the study and these levels were sustained at six months
- At six months, 55.3% (N=47) of the group receiving PGC had achieved the target outcome of 4.5kg or more weight loss
- At three months, participants of PGC had reduced their entry fasting plasma glucose mean levels by 16.7% and their HbA1c mean levels by 13.1%
- At six months, those in the PGC group had reduced their mean fasting plasma glucose level by 11.2% and their HbA1c level by 8.2% compared with levels at entry to the study
- The waist circumference measurements of the group of patients receiving PGC show a significant decrease compared with patients in the UNC group at the six-month point.
UNC Group
- At 6 months, 14% (N=12) of the UNC group had achieved a successful weight loss of 4.5kg or more
- The UNC group showed an insignificant decrease at three months and then an upward trend at six months for both HbA1c and fasting plasma glucose
- The UNC group demonstrated a mean 7.3% reduction in fasting plasma glucose level and an 8% reduction of HbA1c level at the three-month point.
Both Groups
Approximately 57% (N=97) of all participants (N=170) achieved their target goal of a fasting plasma glucose level of 7.8mmol or less per L and a HbA1c values of 58mmol or less per mol (7.5%) or a 20% decrease after six months.Other Findings
- By the end of the six-month point:
- A total of 18.2% (N=31) of the total study group were treated by medical nutritional treatment alone [compared to 12.4% (N=21) at baseline]
- A total of 47.1% (N=80) were treated by medical nutritional treatment and oral agent [compared to 48.2% (N=82) at baseline]
- A total of 34.7% (N=59) by medical nutritional treatment with a combination therapy of insulin and oral agents [compared to 39.4% (N=67) at baseline].
- The group treated with medical nutritional treatment alone and the group treated with medical nutritional treatment and oral hypoglycemic agents experienced a greater weight loss than the other therapy groups (from baseline weight of 73.4±13.8kg to 68.2±13.2kg at six months)
- The group receiving medical nutritional treatment and a combination therapy of insulin and oral agents also experienced a weight loss from baseline (73.1±13.5kg to 68.4±14.5kg) at six months
- In the total group (N=170), 20 changes in therapy (12% subjects) were reported:
- N=6 (7%) in the UNC group
- N=14 (16.5%) in the PCG group (all recommended by the dietitian to the treating physician for implementation).
- Medical nutrition therapy provided by dietitians to Arab patients with type 2 diabetes in Oman resulted in significant improvements in anthropometric and biochemical outcomes in both the UNC group and the PCG group
- Subjects with type 2 diabetes tended to do better with PGC than UNC
- Ongoing medical counseling in nutrition by a trained dietitian is important for better long-term metabolic control.
Other: | not described |
Quality Criteria Checklist: Primary Research
|
|||
Relevance Questions | |||
1. | Would implementing the studied intervention or procedure (if found successful) result in improved outcomes for the patients/clients/population group? (Not Applicable for some epidemiological studies) | Yes | |
2. | Did the authors study an outcome (dependent variable) or topic that the patients/clients/population group would care about? | Yes | |
3. | Is the focus of the intervention or procedure (independent variable) or topic of study a common issue of concern to dieteticspractice? | Yes | |
4. | Is the intervention or procedure feasible? (NA for some epidemiological studies) | Yes | |
Validity Questions | |||
1. | Was the research question clearly stated? | Yes | |
1.1. | Was (were) the specific intervention(s) or procedure(s) [independent variable(s)] identified? | Yes | |
1.2. | Was (were) the outcome(s) [dependent variable(s)] clearly indicated? | Yes | |
1.3. | Were the target population and setting specified? | Yes | |
2. | Was the selection of study subjects/patients free from bias? | Yes | |
2.1. | Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified (e.g., risk, point in disease progression, diagnostic or prognosis criteria), and with sufficient detail and without omitting criteria critical to the study? | Yes | |
2.2. | Were criteria applied equally to all study groups? | Yes | |
2.3. | Were health, demographics, and other characteristics of subjects described? | Yes | |
2.4. | Were the subjects/patients a representative sample of the relevant population? | Yes | |
3. | Were study groups comparable? | Yes | |
3.1. | Was the method of assigning subjects/patients to groups described and unbiased? (Method of randomization identified if RCT) | Yes | |
3.2. | Were distribution of disease status, prognostic factors, and other factors (e.g., demographics) similar across study groups at baseline? | Yes | |
3.3. | Were concurrent controls or comparisons used? (Concurrent preferred over historical control or comparison groups.) | Yes | |
3.4. | If cohort study or cross-sectional study, were groups comparable on important confounding factors and/or were preexisting differences accounted for by using appropriate adjustments in statistical analysis? | N/A | |
3.5. | If case control study, were potential confounding factors comparable for cases and controls? (If case series or trial with subjects serving as own control, this criterion is not applicable.) | N/A | |
3.6. | If diagnostic test, was there an independent blind comparison with an appropriate reference standard (e.g., "gold standard")? | N/A | |
4. | Was method of handling withdrawals described? | Yes | |
4.1. | Were follow-up methods described and the same for all groups? | Yes | |
4.2. | Was the number, characteristics of withdrawals (i.e., dropouts, lost to follow up, attrition rate) and/or response rate (cross-sectional studies) described for each group? (Follow up goal for a strong study is 80%.) | Yes | |
4.3. | Were all enrolled subjects/patients (in the original sample) accounted for? | Yes | |
4.4. | Were reasons for withdrawals similar across groups? | Yes | |
4.5. | If diagnostic test, was decision to perform reference test not dependent on results of test under study? | N/A | |
5. | Was blinding used to prevent introduction of bias? | Yes | |
5.1. | In intervention study, were subjects, clinicians/practitioners, and investigators blinded to treatment group, as appropriate? | N/A | |
5.2. | Were data collectors blinded for outcomes assessment? (If outcome is measured using an objective test, such as a lab value, this criterion is assumed to be met.) | Yes | |
5.3. | In cohort study or cross-sectional study, were measurements of outcomes and risk factors blinded? | N/A | |
5.4. | In case control study, was case definition explicit and case ascertainment not influenced by exposure status? | N/A | |
5.5. | In diagnostic study, were test results blinded to patient history and other test results? | N/A | |
6. | Were intervention/therapeutic regimens/exposure factor or procedure and any comparison(s) described in detail? Were interveningfactors described? | Yes | |
6.1. | In RCT or other intervention trial, were protocols described for all regimens studied? | Yes | |
6.2. | In observational study, were interventions, study settings, and clinicians/provider described? | N/A | |
6.3. | Was the intensity and duration of the intervention or exposure factor sufficient to produce a meaningful effect? | Yes | |
6.4. | Was the amount of exposure and, if relevant, subject/patient compliance measured? | Yes | |
6.5. | Were co-interventions (e.g., ancillary treatments, other therapies) described? | Yes | |
6.6. | Were extra or unplanned treatments described? | N/A | |
6.7. | Was the information for 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6 assessed the same way for all groups? | Yes | |
6.8. | In diagnostic study, were details of test administration and replication sufficient? | N/A | |
7. | Were outcomes clearly defined and the measurements valid and reliable? | Yes | |
7.1. | Were primary and secondary endpoints described and relevant to the question? | Yes | |
7.2. | Were nutrition measures appropriate to question and outcomes of concern? | Yes | |
7.3. | Was the period of follow-up long enough for important outcome(s) to occur? | Yes | |
7.4. | Were the observations and measurements based on standard, valid, and reliable data collection instruments/tests/procedures? | Yes | |
7.5. | Was the measurement of effect at an appropriate level of precision? | Yes | |
7.6. | Were other factors accounted for (measured) that could affect outcomes? | Yes | |
7.7. | Were the measurements conducted consistently across groups? | Yes | |
8. | Was the statistical analysis appropriate for the study design and type of outcome indicators? | Yes | |
8.1. | Were statistical analyses adequately described and the results reported appropriately? | Yes | |
8.2. | Were correct statistical tests used and assumptions of test not violated? | Yes | |
8.3. | Were statistics reported with levels of significance and/or confidence intervals? | Yes | |
8.4. | Was "intent to treat" analysis of outcomes done (and as appropriate, was there an analysis of outcomes for those maximally exposed or a dose-response analysis)? | N/A | |
8.5. | Were adequate adjustments made for effects of confounding factors that might have affected the outcomes (e.g., multivariate analyses)? | Yes | |
8.6. | Was clinical significance as well as statistical significance reported? | Yes | |
8.7. | If negative findings, was a power calculation reported to address type 2 error? | N/A | |
9. | Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? | Yes | |
9.1. | Is there a discussion of findings? | Yes | |
9.2. | Are biases and study limitations identified and discussed? | Yes | |
10. | Is bias due to study's funding or sponsorship unlikely? | Yes | |
10.1. | Were sources of funding and investigators' affiliations described? | No | |
10.2. | Was the study free from apparent conflict of interest? | Yes | |