Search

Objective: Delay discounting is the tendency to prefer smaller, sooner rewards to larger, later ones. Poor adherence in type 2 diabetes could be partially explained by a discounted value of health, as a function of delay. Delay discounting can be described with a hyperbolic model characterized by a coefficient, k. The higher k, the less future consequences are taken into account when making decisions. This study aimed to determine whether k would be correlated with glycated hemoglobin and adherence in type 2 diabetes., Methods: Ninety-three patients were recruited in two diabetology departments. Delay discounting coefficients were measured with a computerized task. HbA1c was recorded and adherence was assessed by questionnaires. Potential socio-demographic and clinical confounding factors were collected., Results: There was a positive correlation between delay discounting of gains and HbA1c (r=0.242, P=0.023). This association remained significant after adjusting for potential confounding factors (F=4.807, P=0.031, η 2 =0.058). This association was partially mediated by adherence to medication (β=0.048, 95% CI [0.004-0.131])., Conclusions: Glycemic control is associated with delay discounting in patients suffering from type 2 diabetes. Should these findings be replicated with a prospective design, they could lead to new strategies to improve glycemic control among these patients., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Implanted insulin pumps using the peritoneal route provide long-term improvement of glucose control compared with subcutaneous insulin therapy in type 1 diabetes (T1D) patients. The stability of insulin preparation is critical for a safe use in implanted pumps. Insuman implantable(®) (400 IU/mL) (Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Frankfurt am Main, Germany), a recombinant human insulin, has been developed as a replacement for Insuplant(®) (Aventis Pharma, Frankfurt am Main, Germany), a semisynthetic insulin, the only one used so far. The aim of the study was to demonstrate the noninferiority of Insuman versus Insuplant, in terms of safety and effectiveness when used in implanted pumps., Subjects and Methods: The patients enrolled, currently treated for T1D by the Medtronic MiniMed (Northridge, CA) implantable pump model 2007 with Insuplant, were randomized into two study arms and received either Insuman or Insuplant for four pump refill cycles. Each pump refill cycle was 40±5 days. The co-primary end points included glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) change from baseline and pump infusion accuracy., Results: In total, 169 patients were randomized. Noninferiority of Insuman versus Insuplant was demonstrated both for the HbA1c change from baseline (as a percentage) with intergroup difference of 95% confidence interval (-0.36;+0.11) and for the infusion accuracy assessed by the measured percentage of error at pump refill, as shown by intergroup difference of 95% confidence interval (-5.81; -0.50), in per-protocol populations, although the insulin daily dose was similar. Severe hypoglycemia occurred at least once in 12 versus 11 patients, respectively, and metabolic or technical adverse events were comparable., Conclusions: Findings suggest that Insuman can safely and effectively replace Insuplant in implanted pumps.