No abstract

Objective: To examine the persistence of the original treatment effects 10 years after the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) in the follow-up Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (EDIC) study. In the DCCT, intensive therapy aimed at nearnormal glycemia reduced the risk of microvascular complications of type 1 diabetes mellitus compared with conventional therapy.Methods: Retinopathy was evaluated by fundus photography in 1211 subjects at EDIC year 10. Further 3-step progression on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study scale from DCCT closeout was the primary outcome.Results: After 10 years of EDIC follow-up, there was no significant difference in mean glycated hemoglobin levels (8.07% vs 7.98%) between the original treatment groups. Nevertheless, compared with the former conven-tional treatment group, the former intensive group had significantly lower incidences from DCCT close of further retinopathy progression and proliferative retinopathy or worse (hazard reductions, 53%-56%; PϽ.001). The risk (hazard) reductions at 10 years of EDIC were attenuated compared with the 70% to 71% over the first 4 years of EDIC (PϽ.001). The persistent beneficial effects of former intensive therapy were largely explained by the difference in glycated hemoglobin levels during DCCT. Conclusion:The persistent difference in diabetic retinopathy between former intensive and conventional therapy ("metabolic memory") continues for at least 10 years but may be waning.

Implementation science has great potential to improve the health of communities and individuals who are not achieving health equity. However, implementation science can exacerbate health disparities if its use is biased toward entities that already have the highest capacities for delivering evidence-based interventions. In this article, we ex­amine several methodologic approaches for conducting implementation research to ad­vance equity both in our understanding of what historically disadvantaged populations would need—what we call scientific equi­ty—and how this  knowledge can be applied to produce health equity. We focus on rapid ways to gain knowledge on how to engage, design research, act, share, and sustain successes in partnership with communities. We begin by describing a principle-driven partnership process between community members and implementation researchers to overcome disparities. We then review three innovative implementation method paradigms to improve scientific and health equity and provide examples of each. The first paradigm involves making efficient use of existing data by applying epidemiologic and simulation modeling to understand what drives disparities and how they can be overcome. The second paradigm involves designing new research studies that include, but do not focus exclusively on, popula­tions experiencing disparities in health domains such as cardiovascular disease and co-occurring mental health conditions. The third paradigm involves implementation research that focuses exclusively on popula­tions who have experienced high levels of disparities. To date, our scientific enterprise has invested disproportionately in research that fails to eliminate health disparities. The implementation research methods discussed here hold promise for overcoming barri­ers and achieving health equity.Ethn Dis. 2019;29(Suppl 1):83-92; doi:10.18865/ed.29.S1.83.