Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 18, 2026

Digital Home-Monitoring of Patients after Kidney Transplantation: The MACCS Platform
Published on: April 12, 2021
Comparing Glycaemic Benefits of Active Versus Passive Lifestyle Intervention in Kidney Allograft Recipients: A
Kulli Kuningas1, Joanne Driscoll2, Reena Mair2
1Department of Nephrology and Transplantation, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Edgbaston, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Background:
New-onset diabetes is common after kidney transplantation, but the benefit of lifestyle intervention to improve glucose metabolism posttransplantation is unproven.
Methods:
We conducted a single-center, randomized controlled trial involving 130 nondiabetic kidney transplant recipients with stable function between 3 and 24 months post-transplantation. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive active intervention (lifestyle advice delivered by renal dietitians using behavior change techniques) versus passive intervention (leaflet advice alone). Primary outcome was 6-month change in insulin secretion, insulin sensitivity, and disposition index. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported outcomes, cardiometabolic parameters, clinical outcomes, and safety endpoints.
Results:
Between August 17, 2015 and December 18, 2017, 130 individuals were recruited, of whom 103 completed the study (drop-out rate 20.8%). Active versus passive intervention was not associated with any change in glucose metabolism: insulin secretion (mean difference, -446; 95% confidence interval [CI], -3184 to 2292; P = 0.748), insulin sensitivity (mean difference, -0.45; 95% CI, -1.34 to 0.44; P = 0.319), or disposition index (mean difference, -940; 95% CI, -5655 to 3775; P = 0.693). Clinically, active versus passive lifestyle intervention resulted in reduced incidence of posttransplantation diabetes (7.6% versus 15.6%, respectively, P = 0.123), reduction in fat mass (mean difference, -1.537 kg; 95% CI, -2.947 to -0.127; P = 0.033), and improvement in weight (mean difference, -2.47 kg; 95% CI, -4.01 to -0.92; P = 0.002). No serious adverse events were noted.
Conclusions:
Active lifestyle intervention led by renal dietitians did not improve surrogate markers of glucose metabolism. Further investigation is warranted to determine if clinical outcomes can be improved using this methodology.
Insights
Lifestyle intervention after kidney transplant did not improve glucose metabolism markers. However, it did lead to reduced fat mass and weight, with a trend toward lower posttransplantation diabetes incidence.
Area of Science:
- Nephrology
- Endocrinology
- Metabolic Syndrome
Background:
- New-onset diabetes is a frequent complication following kidney transplantation.
- The efficacy of lifestyle interventions in improving posttransplant glucose metabolism remains unconfirmed.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the impact of a structured lifestyle intervention on glucose metabolism in kidney transplant recipients.
Main Methods:
- A single-center randomized controlled trial was conducted with 130 non-diabetic kidney transplant recipients.
- Participants received either active intervention (dietitian-led lifestyle advice) or passive intervention (leaflet advice).
- Primary outcomes included changes in insulin secretion, insulin sensitivity, and disposition index at 6 months.
Main Results:
- The active lifestyle intervention did not significantly alter insulin secretion, insulin sensitivity, or disposition index.
- Significant reductions in fat mass (P=0.033) and weight (P=0.002) were observed in the active intervention group.
- A trend towards a reduced incidence of posttransplantation diabetes was noted (7.6% vs. 15.6%).
Conclusions:
- Active lifestyle intervention by renal dietitians did not enhance surrogate markers of glucose metabolism post-kidney transplantation.
- Further research is needed to ascertain if this intervention can improve clinical outcomes.
Related Concept Videos
Kidney Transplant I: Introduction
Kidney Transplant II: Surgical Procedure
Kidney Transplant III: Nursing Management
Bioavailability Study Design: Healthy Subjects Versus Patients

