Effect of a lifestyle intervention to prevent weight gain at initiation of insulin pump therapy in type 2 diabetes: A randomized, controlled, multicentre trial.

Insulin pump therapy improves glycaemic control in individuals with type 2 diabetes. However, it may be associated with weight gain. AIM: To test the effectiveness of a six-month dietary and physical activity intervention, compared to usual care, on weight gain prevention after initiation of insulin pump. METHODS: Multicentre randomized, controlled trial of 54 individuals. Primary endpoint was between group difference in weight gain at six-months. RESULTS: Weight gain after 6 months of insulin pump treatment did not differ between groups: mean 3.2 (3.9) kg in the control group and 3.9 (3.8) kg in the intervention group, (p = 0.56). HbA1c improved without difference between groups. Post-hoc multivariate analysis of all participants found that weight gain was independently associated with younger age, active smoking, and the magnitude of HbA1c reduction. A 1 % decrease in HbA1c was associated with an increase of 0.94 kg [95 % Confidence Interval 0.47; 1.41], p < 0.001. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment intensification by insulin pump therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes is effective to improve glycaemic control. A gain of about 1 kg per 1 % drop in HbA1c can be expected after insulin treatment intensification. This weight gain was not prevented by a home-base, individualized, 6-months lifestyle intervention program.

[Transfer from chronic haemodialysis to peritoneal dialysis]. / Transfert en dialyse péritonéale après traitement par hémodialyse chronique.

Peritoneal dialysis patients are frequently transferred from peritoneal dialysis to haemodialysis. In contrary transfer from chronic haemodialysis to peritoneal dialysis is rare. The aim of this study is to describe the main characteristics and the outcome of the dialysis patients transferred from haemodialysis to peritoneal dialysis. We retrospectively analyzed the files of 25 patients treated by haemodialysis for more than 3 months between 1992 and 2002 and subsequently transferred on peritoneal dialysis. Technique survival was 56% at 1 year and 40% at two years in haemodialysis. Technique survival was lower in the group starting haemodialysis in emergency compared with the group of patients who did not need emergent haemodialysis (33 vs 77% at 1 year, P<0.05). The reasons for transfer from haemodialysis to peritoneal were vascular access problems (13/25), cardiovascular problems (7/25), and patient's choice (5/25). Automated peritoneal dialysis was used in 9 cases and continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis in 16 cases. In 13 cases peritoneal dialysis was performed by a home care nurse. At the initiation of peritoneal dialysis the mean age was 58+/-18 years, the mean Charlson's comorbidity score was 6.1+/-2.5 and 15 patients had a cardiovascular disease. The median time on peritoneal dialysis was 5.2 months. During the time on peritoneal dialysis sixteen patients presented at least one complication related to peritoneal dialysis. In addition fourteen patients were hospitalized for a reason which was not associated with peritoneal dialysis. Survival on peritoneal dialysis was 61% at six months and 35% at one year. In conclusion, in our study, patients transferred from haemodialysis to peritoneal dialysis have had a poor outcome on peritoneal dialysis. However, these patients presented numerous comorbid conditions at peritoneal dialysis initiation which could explain the poor outcome on peritoneal dialysis.