Video

PARIS – An accelerated rule-out pathway, reliant upon a single high-sensitivity cardiac troponin test upon presentation to the ED with suspected acute coronary syndrome, reduced length of stay and hospital admission rates without increasing cardiac events at 30 days or 1 year in a major Scottish study.

“We conclude that implementation of this early rule-out pathway is both effective and safe, and adoption of this pathway will have major benefits for patients and health care systems,” Nicholas L. Mills, MBChB, PhD, said in presenting the results of the HiSTORIC (High-Sensitivity Cardiac Troponin at Presentation to Rule Out Myocardial Infarction) trial at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Indeed, in the Unites States, where more than 20 million people per year present to EDs with suspected ACS, the 3.3-hour reduction in length of stay achieved in the HiSTORIC trial by implementing the accelerated rule-out pathway would add up to a $3.6 billion annual savings in bed occupancy alone, according to Dr. Mills, who is chair of cardiology at the University of Edinburgh.

The HiSTORIC pathway incorporates separate thresholds for risk stratification and diagnosis. This strategy is based on an accumulation of persuasive evidence that the major advantage of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin testing is to rule out MI, rather than to rule it in, Dr. Mills explained.

HiSTORIC was a 2-year, prospective, stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized, controlled trial including 31,492 consecutive patients with suspected ACS who presented to seven participating hospitals in Scotland. Patients were randomized, at the hospital level, to one of two management pathways. The control group got a standard guideline-recommended strategy involving high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I testing upon presentation and again 6-12 hours later, with MI being ruled out if the troponin levels were not above the 99th percentile.

In contrast, the novel early rule-out strategy worked as follows: If the patient presented with at least 2 hours of symptoms and the initial troponin I level was below 5 ng/L, then MI was ruled out and the patient was triaged straightaway for outpatient management. If the level was above the 99th percentile, the patient was admitted for serial testing to be done 6-12 hours after symptom onset. And for an intermediate test result – that is, a troponin level between 5 ng/L and the 99th percentile – patients remained in the ED for retesting 3 hours from the time of presentation, and were subsequently admitted only if their troponin level was rising.

Using the accelerated rule-out strategy, two-thirds of patients were quickly discharged from the ED on the basis of a troponin level below 5 ng/mL, and another 7% were ruled out for MI and discharged from the ED after a 3-hour stay on the basis of their second test.

The primary efficacy outcome was length of stay from initial presentation to the ED to discharge. The duration was 10.1 hours with the guideline-recommended pathway and 6.8 hours with the accelerated rule-out pathway, for a statistically significant and clinically meaningful 3.3-hour difference. Moreover, the proportion of patients discharged directly from the ED without hospital admission increased from 53% to 74%, a 57% jump.

The primary safety outcome was the rate of MI or cardiac death post discharge. The rates at 30 days and 1 year were 0.4% and 2.6%, respectively, in the standard-pathway group, compared with 0.3% and 1.8% with the early rule-out pathway. Those between-group differences favoring the accelerated rule-out pathway weren’t statistically significant, but they provided reassurance that the novel pathway was safe.

Of note, this was the first-ever randomized trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of an early rule-out pathway. Other rapid diagnostic pathways are largely based on observational experience and expert opinion, Dr. Mills said.

The assay utilized in the HiSTORIC trial was the Abbott Diagnostics Architect high sensitivity assay. The 5-ng/L threshold for early rule-out was chosen for the trial because an earlier study by Dr. Mills and coinvestigators showed that a level below that cutoff had a 99.6% negative predictive value for MI (Lancet. 2015 Dec 19;386[10012]:2481-8)

The early rule-out pathway was deliberately designed to be simple and pragmatic, according to the cardiologist. “One of the most remarkable observations in this trial was the adherence to the pathway. We prespecified three criteria to evaluate this and demonstrated adherence rates of 86%-92% for each of these criteria. This was despite the pathway being implemented in all consecutive patients at seven different hospitals and used by many hundreds of different clinicians.”

Discussant Hugo A. Katus, MD, called the HiSTORIC study “a really urgently needed and very well-conducted trial.”

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“There were very consistently low MI and cardiac death rates at 30 days and 1 year. So this really works,” commented Dr. Katus, who is chief of internal medicine and director of the department of cardiovascular medicine at Heidelberg (Germany) University.

“Accelerated rule-out high-sensitivity cardiac troponin protocols are here to stay,” he declared.

However, Dr. Katus voiced a concern: “By early discharge as rule out, are other life-threatening conditions ignored?”

He raised this issue because of what he views as the substantial 1-year all-cause mortality and return-to-hospital rates of 5.8% and 39.2% in the standard-pathway group and 5.2% and 38.9% in the accelerated rule-out patients in HiSTORIC. An accelerated rule-out strategy should not prohibit a careful clinical work-up, he emphasized.

Dr. Mills discussed the results in a video interview.

The HiSTORIC trial was funded by the British Heart Foundation. Dr. Mills reported receiving research grants from Abbott Diagnostics and Siemens.

Simultaneous with Dr. Mills’ presentation of the HiSTORIC trial results at the ESC congress, an earlier study that formed the scientific basis for the investigators’ decision to employ distinct risk stratification and diagnostic thresholds for cardiac troponin testing was published online (Circulation. 2019 Sep 1. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.042866). The actual HiSTORIC trial results will be published later.

Dr. Katus reported holding a patent for a cardiac troponin T test and serving as a consultant to AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novo Nordisk.

[email protected]

PARIS – An accelerated rule-out pathway, reliant upon a single high-sensitivity cardiac troponin test upon presentation to the ED with suspected acute coronary syndrome, reduced length of stay and hospital admission rates without increasing cardiac events at 30 days or 1 year in a major Scottish study.

“We conclude that implementation of this early rule-out pathway is both effective and safe, and adoption of this pathway will have major benefits for patients and health care systems,” Nicholas L. Mills, MBChB, PhD, said in presenting the results of the HiSTORIC (High-Sensitivity Cardiac Troponin at Presentation to Rule Out Myocardial Infarction) trial at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Indeed, in the Unites States, where more than 20 million people per year present to EDs with suspected ACS, the 3.3-hour reduction in length of stay achieved in the HiSTORIC trial by implementing the accelerated rule-out pathway would add up to a $3.6 billion annual savings in bed occupancy alone, according to Dr. Mills, who is chair of cardiology at the University of Edinburgh.

The HiSTORIC pathway incorporates separate thresholds for risk stratification and diagnosis. This strategy is based on an accumulation of persuasive evidence that the major advantage of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin testing is to rule out MI, rather than to rule it in, Dr. Mills explained.

HiSTORIC was a 2-year, prospective, stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized, controlled trial including 31,492 consecutive patients with suspected ACS who presented to seven participating hospitals in Scotland. Patients were randomized, at the hospital level, to one of two management pathways. The control group got a standard guideline-recommended strategy involving high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I testing upon presentation and again 6-12 hours later, with MI being ruled out if the troponin levels were not above the 99th percentile.

In contrast, the novel early rule-out strategy worked as follows: If the patient presented with at least 2 hours of symptoms and the initial troponin I level was below 5 ng/L, then MI was ruled out and the patient was triaged straightaway for outpatient management. If the level was above the 99th percentile, the patient was admitted for serial testing to be done 6-12 hours after symptom onset. And for an intermediate test result – that is, a troponin level between 5 ng/L and the 99th percentile – patients remained in the ED for retesting 3 hours from the time of presentation, and were subsequently admitted only if their troponin level was rising.

Using the accelerated rule-out strategy, two-thirds of patients were quickly discharged from the ED on the basis of a troponin level below 5 ng/mL, and another 7% were ruled out for MI and discharged from the ED after a 3-hour stay on the basis of their second test.

The primary efficacy outcome was length of stay from initial presentation to the ED to discharge. The duration was 10.1 hours with the guideline-recommended pathway and 6.8 hours with the accelerated rule-out pathway, for a statistically significant and clinically meaningful 3.3-hour difference. Moreover, the proportion of patients discharged directly from the ED without hospital admission increased from 53% to 74%, a 57% jump.

The primary safety outcome was the rate of MI or cardiac death post discharge. The rates at 30 days and 1 year were 0.4% and 2.6%, respectively, in the standard-pathway group, compared with 0.3% and 1.8% with the early rule-out pathway. Those between-group differences favoring the accelerated rule-out pathway weren’t statistically significant, but they provided reassurance that the novel pathway was safe.

Of note, this was the first-ever randomized trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of an early rule-out pathway. Other rapid diagnostic pathways are largely based on observational experience and expert opinion, Dr. Mills said.

The assay utilized in the HiSTORIC trial was the Abbott Diagnostics Architect high sensitivity assay. The 5-ng/L threshold for early rule-out was chosen for the trial because an earlier study by Dr. Mills and coinvestigators showed that a level below that cutoff had a 99.6% negative predictive value for MI (Lancet. 2015 Dec 19;386[10012]:2481-8)

The early rule-out pathway was deliberately designed to be simple and pragmatic, according to the cardiologist. “One of the most remarkable observations in this trial was the adherence to the pathway. We prespecified three criteria to evaluate this and demonstrated adherence rates of 86%-92% for each of these criteria. This was despite the pathway being implemented in all consecutive patients at seven different hospitals and used by many hundreds of different clinicians.”

Discussant Hugo A. Katus, MD, called the HiSTORIC study “a really urgently needed and very well-conducted trial.”

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“There were very consistently low MI and cardiac death rates at 30 days and 1 year. So this really works,” commented Dr. Katus, who is chief of internal medicine and director of the department of cardiovascular medicine at Heidelberg (Germany) University.

“Accelerated rule-out high-sensitivity cardiac troponin protocols are here to stay,” he declared.

However, Dr. Katus voiced a concern: “By early discharge as rule out, are other life-threatening conditions ignored?”

He raised this issue because of what he views as the substantial 1-year all-cause mortality and return-to-hospital rates of 5.8% and 39.2% in the standard-pathway group and 5.2% and 38.9% in the accelerated rule-out patients in HiSTORIC. An accelerated rule-out strategy should not prohibit a careful clinical work-up, he emphasized.

Dr. Mills discussed the results in a video interview.

The HiSTORIC trial was funded by the British Heart Foundation. Dr. Mills reported receiving research grants from Abbott Diagnostics and Siemens.

Simultaneous with Dr. Mills’ presentation of the HiSTORIC trial results at the ESC congress, an earlier study that formed the scientific basis for the investigators’ decision to employ distinct risk stratification and diagnostic thresholds for cardiac troponin testing was published online (Circulation. 2019 Sep 1. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.042866). The actual HiSTORIC trial results will be published later.

Dr. Katus reported holding a patent for a cardiac troponin T test and serving as a consultant to AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novo Nordisk.

[email protected]

PARIS – An accelerated rule-out pathway, reliant upon a single high-sensitivity cardiac troponin test upon presentation to the ED with suspected acute coronary syndrome, reduced length of stay and hospital admission rates without increasing cardiac events at 30 days or 1 year in a major Scottish study.

“We conclude that implementation of this early rule-out pathway is both effective and safe, and adoption of this pathway will have major benefits for patients and health care systems,” Nicholas L. Mills, MBChB, PhD, said in presenting the results of the HiSTORIC (High-Sensitivity Cardiac Troponin at Presentation to Rule Out Myocardial Infarction) trial at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Indeed, in the Unites States, where more than 20 million people per year present to EDs with suspected ACS, the 3.3-hour reduction in length of stay achieved in the HiSTORIC trial by implementing the accelerated rule-out pathway would add up to a $3.6 billion annual savings in bed occupancy alone, according to Dr. Mills, who is chair of cardiology at the University of Edinburgh.

The HiSTORIC pathway incorporates separate thresholds for risk stratification and diagnosis. This strategy is based on an accumulation of persuasive evidence that the major advantage of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin testing is to rule out MI, rather than to rule it in, Dr. Mills explained.

HiSTORIC was a 2-year, prospective, stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized, controlled trial including 31,492 consecutive patients with suspected ACS who presented to seven participating hospitals in Scotland. Patients were randomized, at the hospital level, to one of two management pathways. The control group got a standard guideline-recommended strategy involving high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I testing upon presentation and again 6-12 hours later, with MI being ruled out if the troponin levels were not above the 99th percentile.

In contrast, the novel early rule-out strategy worked as follows: If the patient presented with at least 2 hours of symptoms and the initial troponin I level was below 5 ng/L, then MI was ruled out and the patient was triaged straightaway for outpatient management. If the level was above the 99th percentile, the patient was admitted for serial testing to be done 6-12 hours after symptom onset. And for an intermediate test result – that is, a troponin level between 5 ng/L and the 99th percentile – patients remained in the ED for retesting 3 hours from the time of presentation, and were subsequently admitted only if their troponin level was rising.

Using the accelerated rule-out strategy, two-thirds of patients were quickly discharged from the ED on the basis of a troponin level below 5 ng/mL, and another 7% were ruled out for MI and discharged from the ED after a 3-hour stay on the basis of their second test.

The primary efficacy outcome was length of stay from initial presentation to the ED to discharge. The duration was 10.1 hours with the guideline-recommended pathway and 6.8 hours with the accelerated rule-out pathway, for a statistically significant and clinically meaningful 3.3-hour difference. Moreover, the proportion of patients discharged directly from the ED without hospital admission increased from 53% to 74%, a 57% jump.

The primary safety outcome was the rate of MI or cardiac death post discharge. The rates at 30 days and 1 year were 0.4% and 2.6%, respectively, in the standard-pathway group, compared with 0.3% and 1.8% with the early rule-out pathway. Those between-group differences favoring the accelerated rule-out pathway weren’t statistically significant, but they provided reassurance that the novel pathway was safe.

Of note, this was the first-ever randomized trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of an early rule-out pathway. Other rapid diagnostic pathways are largely based on observational experience and expert opinion, Dr. Mills said.

The assay utilized in the HiSTORIC trial was the Abbott Diagnostics Architect high sensitivity assay. The 5-ng/L threshold for early rule-out was chosen for the trial because an earlier study by Dr. Mills and coinvestigators showed that a level below that cutoff had a 99.6% negative predictive value for MI (Lancet. 2015 Dec 19;386[10012]:2481-8)

The early rule-out pathway was deliberately designed to be simple and pragmatic, according to the cardiologist. “One of the most remarkable observations in this trial was the adherence to the pathway. We prespecified three criteria to evaluate this and demonstrated adherence rates of 86%-92% for each of these criteria. This was despite the pathway being implemented in all consecutive patients at seven different hospitals and used by many hundreds of different clinicians.”

Discussant Hugo A. Katus, MD, called the HiSTORIC study “a really urgently needed and very well-conducted trial.”

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“There were very consistently low MI and cardiac death rates at 30 days and 1 year. So this really works,” commented Dr. Katus, who is chief of internal medicine and director of the department of cardiovascular medicine at Heidelberg (Germany) University.

“Accelerated rule-out high-sensitivity cardiac troponin protocols are here to stay,” he declared.

However, Dr. Katus voiced a concern: “By early discharge as rule out, are other life-threatening conditions ignored?”

He raised this issue because of what he views as the substantial 1-year all-cause mortality and return-to-hospital rates of 5.8% and 39.2% in the standard-pathway group and 5.2% and 38.9% in the accelerated rule-out patients in HiSTORIC. An accelerated rule-out strategy should not prohibit a careful clinical work-up, he emphasized.

Dr. Mills discussed the results in a video interview.

The HiSTORIC trial was funded by the British Heart Foundation. Dr. Mills reported receiving research grants from Abbott Diagnostics and Siemens.

Simultaneous with Dr. Mills’ presentation of the HiSTORIC trial results at the ESC congress, an earlier study that formed the scientific basis for the investigators’ decision to employ distinct risk stratification and diagnostic thresholds for cardiac troponin testing was published online (Circulation. 2019 Sep 1. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.042866). The actual HiSTORIC trial results will be published later.

Dr. Katus reported holding a patent for a cardiac troponin T test and serving as a consultant to AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Novo Nordisk.

[email protected]

PARIS – Beta-blocking drugs were as effective for improving survival in patients with moderately severe renal dysfunction as they were in patients with normal renal function in a meta-analysis of more than 13,000 patients, a finding that seemed to solidify the role for this drug class for essentially all similar heart failure patients, regardless of their renal function.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

This evidence could reshape usual care because “renal impairment is often considered a barrier in clinical practice” for starting a beta-blocker drug in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), Dipak Kotecha, MBChB, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“We have shown with sufficient sample size that beta-blockers are effective in reducing mortality in patient with HFrEF and in sinus rhythm, even in those with an eGFR [estimated glomerular filtration rate] of 30-44 mL/min per 1.73 m²,” said Dr. Kotecha, a cardiologist at the University of Birmingham (England). “The results suggest that renal impairment should not obstruct the prescription and maintenance of beta-blockers in patients with HFrEF.”

“This important study was a novel attempt to look at [HFrEF] patients with renal insufficiency to see whether they received the same benefit from beta-blockers as other patients, and they did. So renal insufficiency is not a reason to withhold beta-blockers” from these patients, commented Mariell Jessup, MD, a heart failure physician and chief science and medical officer for the American Heart Association in Dallas. “The onus is on clinicians to find a reason not to give a beta-blocker to a patient with HFrEF because they are generally well tolerated and they can have enormous benefit, as we saw in this study,” she said in a video interview.

The analysis run by Dr. Kotecha and associates used data collected in 11 of the pivotal randomized, controlled trial run for beta-blockers during the 1990s and early 2000s, with each study comparing bucindolol, bisoprolol, carvedilol, metoprolol XL, or nebivolol against placebo. The studies collectively enrolled 18,637 patients, which the investigators whittled down in their analysis to 17,433 after excluding patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction below 50% or who were undocumented. The subgroup with HFrEF included 13,861 patient in sinus rhythm at entry, 2,879 with atrial fibrillation, and 693 with an unknown atrial status. The main analysis ran in the 13,861 patients with HFrEF and in sinus rhythm; 14% of this cohort had an eGFR of 30-44 mL/min per 1.73 m² and 27% had an eGFR of 45-59 mL/min per 1.73 m². The median age of all patients in the main analysis was 65 years, 23% were women, and their median left ventricular ejection fraction was 27%.

During follow-up of about 3 years, the impact of beta-blocker treatment on survival, compared with placebo, was “substantial” for all strata of patients by renal function, except for those with eGFRs below 30 mL/min per 1.73 m². (Survival was similar regardless of beta-blocker treatment in the small number of patients with severe renal dysfunction.) The number needed to treat to prevent 1 death in patients with an eGFR of 30-44 mL/min per 1.73 m² was 21, the same as among patients with an eGFR of 90 mL/min per 1.73 m² or more, Dr. Kotecha said.

Among the subgroup of patients with atrial fibrillation, beta-blockers appeared to exert no survival benefit, compared with placebo. The investigators did not assess the survival benefits exerted by any individual beta-blocker, compared with the others, and Dr. Kotecha stressed that “my belief is that this is a class effect” and is roughly similar across all the beta-blockers used in the studies.

The analysis also showed good safety and tolerability of the beta-blockers in patients with renal dysfunction. The incidence of adverse events leading to treatment termination was very similar in the beta-blocker and placebo arms, and more than three-quarters of patients in each of the two subgroups with renal dysfunction were maintained on more than 50% of their target beta-blocker dosage.

Dr. Kotecha has been an advisor to Bayer, a speaker on behalf of Atricure, and has received research funding from GlaxoSmithKline and Menarini. Dr. Jessup had no disclosures.

[email protected]

PARIS – Beta-blocking drugs were as effective for improving survival in patients with moderately severe renal dysfunction as they were in patients with normal renal function in a meta-analysis of more than 13,000 patients, a finding that seemed to solidify the role for this drug class for essentially all similar heart failure patients, regardless of their renal function.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

This evidence could reshape usual care because “renal impairment is often considered a barrier in clinical practice” for starting a beta-blocker drug in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), Dipak Kotecha, MBChB, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“We have shown with sufficient sample size that beta-blockers are effective in reducing mortality in patient with HFrEF and in sinus rhythm, even in those with an eGFR [estimated glomerular filtration rate] of 30-44 mL/min per 1.73 m²,” said Dr. Kotecha, a cardiologist at the University of Birmingham (England). “The results suggest that renal impairment should not obstruct the prescription and maintenance of beta-blockers in patients with HFrEF.”

“This important study was a novel attempt to look at [HFrEF] patients with renal insufficiency to see whether they received the same benefit from beta-blockers as other patients, and they did. So renal insufficiency is not a reason to withhold beta-blockers” from these patients, commented Mariell Jessup, MD, a heart failure physician and chief science and medical officer for the American Heart Association in Dallas. “The onus is on clinicians to find a reason not to give a beta-blocker to a patient with HFrEF because they are generally well tolerated and they can have enormous benefit, as we saw in this study,” she said in a video interview.

The analysis run by Dr. Kotecha and associates used data collected in 11 of the pivotal randomized, controlled trial run for beta-blockers during the 1990s and early 2000s, with each study comparing bucindolol, bisoprolol, carvedilol, metoprolol XL, or nebivolol against placebo. The studies collectively enrolled 18,637 patients, which the investigators whittled down in their analysis to 17,433 after excluding patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction below 50% or who were undocumented. The subgroup with HFrEF included 13,861 patient in sinus rhythm at entry, 2,879 with atrial fibrillation, and 693 with an unknown atrial status. The main analysis ran in the 13,861 patients with HFrEF and in sinus rhythm; 14% of this cohort had an eGFR of 30-44 mL/min per 1.73 m² and 27% had an eGFR of 45-59 mL/min per 1.73 m². The median age of all patients in the main analysis was 65 years, 23% were women, and their median left ventricular ejection fraction was 27%.

During follow-up of about 3 years, the impact of beta-blocker treatment on survival, compared with placebo, was “substantial” for all strata of patients by renal function, except for those with eGFRs below 30 mL/min per 1.73 m². (Survival was similar regardless of beta-blocker treatment in the small number of patients with severe renal dysfunction.) The number needed to treat to prevent 1 death in patients with an eGFR of 30-44 mL/min per 1.73 m² was 21, the same as among patients with an eGFR of 90 mL/min per 1.73 m² or more, Dr. Kotecha said.

Among the subgroup of patients with atrial fibrillation, beta-blockers appeared to exert no survival benefit, compared with placebo. The investigators did not assess the survival benefits exerted by any individual beta-blocker, compared with the others, and Dr. Kotecha stressed that “my belief is that this is a class effect” and is roughly similar across all the beta-blockers used in the studies.

The analysis also showed good safety and tolerability of the beta-blockers in patients with renal dysfunction. The incidence of adverse events leading to treatment termination was very similar in the beta-blocker and placebo arms, and more than three-quarters of patients in each of the two subgroups with renal dysfunction were maintained on more than 50% of their target beta-blocker dosage.

Dr. Kotecha has been an advisor to Bayer, a speaker on behalf of Atricure, and has received research funding from GlaxoSmithKline and Menarini. Dr. Jessup had no disclosures.

[email protected]

PARIS – Beta-blocking drugs were as effective for improving survival in patients with moderately severe renal dysfunction as they were in patients with normal renal function in a meta-analysis of more than 13,000 patients, a finding that seemed to solidify the role for this drug class for essentially all similar heart failure patients, regardless of their renal function.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

This evidence could reshape usual care because “renal impairment is often considered a barrier in clinical practice” for starting a beta-blocker drug in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), Dipak Kotecha, MBChB, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“We have shown with sufficient sample size that beta-blockers are effective in reducing mortality in patient with HFrEF and in sinus rhythm, even in those with an eGFR [estimated glomerular filtration rate] of 30-44 mL/min per 1.73 m²,” said Dr. Kotecha, a cardiologist at the University of Birmingham (England). “The results suggest that renal impairment should not obstruct the prescription and maintenance of beta-blockers in patients with HFrEF.”

“This important study was a novel attempt to look at [HFrEF] patients with renal insufficiency to see whether they received the same benefit from beta-blockers as other patients, and they did. So renal insufficiency is not a reason to withhold beta-blockers” from these patients, commented Mariell Jessup, MD, a heart failure physician and chief science and medical officer for the American Heart Association in Dallas. “The onus is on clinicians to find a reason not to give a beta-blocker to a patient with HFrEF because they are generally well tolerated and they can have enormous benefit, as we saw in this study,” she said in a video interview.

The analysis run by Dr. Kotecha and associates used data collected in 11 of the pivotal randomized, controlled trial run for beta-blockers during the 1990s and early 2000s, with each study comparing bucindolol, bisoprolol, carvedilol, metoprolol XL, or nebivolol against placebo. The studies collectively enrolled 18,637 patients, which the investigators whittled down in their analysis to 17,433 after excluding patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction below 50% or who were undocumented. The subgroup with HFrEF included 13,861 patient in sinus rhythm at entry, 2,879 with atrial fibrillation, and 693 with an unknown atrial status. The main analysis ran in the 13,861 patients with HFrEF and in sinus rhythm; 14% of this cohort had an eGFR of 30-44 mL/min per 1.73 m² and 27% had an eGFR of 45-59 mL/min per 1.73 m². The median age of all patients in the main analysis was 65 years, 23% were women, and their median left ventricular ejection fraction was 27%.

During follow-up of about 3 years, the impact of beta-blocker treatment on survival, compared with placebo, was “substantial” for all strata of patients by renal function, except for those with eGFRs below 30 mL/min per 1.73 m². (Survival was similar regardless of beta-blocker treatment in the small number of patients with severe renal dysfunction.) The number needed to treat to prevent 1 death in patients with an eGFR of 30-44 mL/min per 1.73 m² was 21, the same as among patients with an eGFR of 90 mL/min per 1.73 m² or more, Dr. Kotecha said.

Among the subgroup of patients with atrial fibrillation, beta-blockers appeared to exert no survival benefit, compared with placebo. The investigators did not assess the survival benefits exerted by any individual beta-blocker, compared with the others, and Dr. Kotecha stressed that “my belief is that this is a class effect” and is roughly similar across all the beta-blockers used in the studies.

The analysis also showed good safety and tolerability of the beta-blockers in patients with renal dysfunction. The incidence of adverse events leading to treatment termination was very similar in the beta-blocker and placebo arms, and more than three-quarters of patients in each of the two subgroups with renal dysfunction were maintained on more than 50% of their target beta-blocker dosage.

Dr. Kotecha has been an advisor to Bayer, a speaker on behalf of Atricure, and has received research funding from GlaxoSmithKline and Menarini. Dr. Jessup had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Can receiving all posttransplant care at home benefit patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT)? Researchers are conducting phase 2 trials to find out.

Nelson Chao, MD, and colleagues at Duke University in Durham, N.C., completed a phase 1 trial that suggested post-HSCT care at home was feasible and safe (Blood. 2017;130:745).

Now, the team is conducting phase 2 trials – NCT01725022 and NCT02218151 – comparing patients who receive all posttransplant care at home with patients treated in the hospital or in the outpatient setting with daily visits to the clinic.

The main goal is to determine if allogeneic HSCT recipients treated at home can maintain their normal microbiome and, as a result, have a lower risk of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). The researchers are also looking at other outcomes such as quality of life, treatment-related morbidities and mortality, and the cost of care for both allogeneic and autologous transplant recipients.

To be eligible for home care after HSCT, a patient must live within a 90-minute driving distance of Duke and have a caregiver available at home. The patient’s home must pass an inspection, showing it to be free of sources for potential infection, such as mold or pets that sleep in the patient’s bed.

When the time comes for treatment, the patient receives conditioning at the hospital but can return home the day before or the day of transplant. After discharge, the patient is visited by a nurse practitioner or physician assistant each morning for a physical examination and blood draw.

In the afternoon, the patient is visited by a clinic nurse who brings any necessary supplies or treatments, such as blood products or intravenous antibiotics. The patient also has daily video calls with an attending physician and can be admitted to the hospital for any events that cannot be managed in the home setting.

Patients can have visitors and spend time away from home, but precautions are necessary. Friends or family who are sick should not be allowed to visit, and patients should avoid crowds when they go out.

Vidyard Video

Initial findings

The Duke team has treated 41 HSCT recipients at home so far. Dr. Chao said it’s still too early to draw any conclusions about differences in outcomes between home care and inpatient/outpatient HSCT.

However, a preliminary analysis of costs suggests home care is cheaper than inpatient HSCT. The researchers found that, for the first several transplants, at day 60, the cost of home care was roughly half that of inpatient HSCT.

In addition, patients seem to be happy with posttransplant care at home.

“The patients love being at home, in their own environment, with their families,” Dr. Chao said. “Almost every single patient [in the phase 1 trial] said that he or she liked it much better. There was one patient in the phase 1 that felt a little isolated, and I can see why because we say, ‘You can stay home, but don’t have a whole lot of people in.’ ”

 

 

One patient’s experience

Beth Vanderkin said it was “a blessing” to receive care at home after undergoing HSCT at Duke.

Ms. Vanderkin was diagnosed with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in 2014. After two chemotherapy regimens failed to shrink the tumor in her chest, she underwent radiotherapy and responded well. When a PET scan revealed the tumor had gone completely, she proceeded to transplant.

She received a haploidentical HSCT using cells donated by her eldest daughter, Hannah Eichhorst. Ms. Vanderkin received the transplant in the hospital, and for 2 weeks after that, she made daily visits to the transplant clinic.

After those 2 weeks, Ms. Vanderkin continued her treatment at home. Like other patients eligible for home care, Ms. Vanderkin lived close to Duke, had a caregiver available, and had passed a home inspection. The Duke team shipped the needed medical supplies to her house and arranged twice-daily visits from nurses and daily video calls with a doctor.

Ms. Vanderkin said receiving care at home was “a game changer.” She derived comfort from recovering in her own environment, could spend more time with her family, and didn’t have to miss special events. While receiving care at home, Ms. Vanderkin attended the homecoming event where her son, Josiah, was part of the court. Wearing a face mask and carrying a portable pump in her purse, Ms. Vanderkin joined other mothers in escorting their children onto the football field.

“I got to escort my son out onto the field, and he was crowned king that night,” Ms. Vanderkin said. “I didn’t do a lot of things [while receiving care at home], but there were things I didn’t have to miss because I was at home and not in the hospital.”

Ms. Vanderkin said home care was also beneficial for her husband, who was her caregiver. Thomas Vanderkin was able to work from home while caring for his wife, and the daily nurses’ visits allowed him to run errands without having to leave Ms. Vanderkin alone.

Since her experience with home care, Ms. Vanderkin has spent many more days in the hospital and clinic. She experienced a relapse after the transplant and went on to receive more chemotherapy as well as ipilimumab. She responded to that treatment and has now been cancer-free for 3 years.

The ipilimumab did cause side effects, including intestinal problems that resulted in the need for parenteral nutrition. This side effect was made more bearable, Ms. Vanderkin said, because she was able to receive the parenteral nutrition at home. She and her husband were comfortable with additional home care because of their positive experience with posttransplant care.

“I think we’re conditioned to think that, to receive the best care, we have to be sitting in a hospital room or a clinic, but I think there’s a lot of things we can probably do at home,” Ms. Vanderkin said. “And we might fare a lot better as patients if we’re in an environment that we feel comfortable in.”

 

 

Experience at other centers

The team at Duke is not the first to study HSCT care at home. In fact, researchers in Sweden have been studying posttransplant home care since 1998.

A pilot trial the group published in 2000 suggested that home care was safe and, in some ways, superior to inpatient HSCT (Bone Marrow Transplant. 2000 Nov;26[10]:1057-60). Patients treated at home had a lower rate of bacteremia, fewer days of total parenteral nutrition, fewer erythrocyte transfusions, and fewer days on antibiotics and analgesics. Rates of fever, engraftment time, and acute GVHD were similar between the inpatient and home-care groups.

A study published by the same researchers in 2002 showed that patients who received home care had lower rates of grade 2-4 acute GVHD and transplant-related mortality compared to inpatients (Blood. 2002 Dec 15;100[13]:4317-24). Two-year overall survival was superior with home care as well.

On the other hand, a study the group published in 2013 showed no significant differences in 5-year survival, transplant-related mortality, relapse, or chronic GVHD between inpatients and those who received care at home (Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2013. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2012.11.5189).

The phase 2 trials at Duke should provide more insight into patient outcomes, but results probably won’t be available for 2 more years, Dr. Chao said.

In the meantime, other U.S. researchers are studying home care as well. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center is conducting a pilot study to determine if HSCT care at home is feasible (NCT02671448).

Dr. Chao said home care should be possible for other centers, particularly those that already perform outpatient HSCT.

“Having the outpatient infrastructure to support these patients is a big step,” he said. “And I think we were able to do that mainly because we do most of our transplants in the outpatient setting already. So that jump to the home is a little less compared to a center that does no outpatient transplants.”

He added, “There’s a certain amount of inertia to overcome and a certain amount of apprehension from the caregivers initially because [patients aren’t] sitting in your unit all the time, but I don’t see this as a huge barrier.”

In fact, Dr. Chao said, if results with home care are favorable, it could potentially replace inpatient HSCT for certain patients.

Dr. Chao’s research is supported by Duke University, and he reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Can receiving all posttransplant care at home benefit patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT)? Researchers are conducting phase 2 trials to find out.

Nelson Chao, MD, and colleagues at Duke University in Durham, N.C., completed a phase 1 trial that suggested post-HSCT care at home was feasible and safe (Blood. 2017;130:745).

Now, the team is conducting phase 2 trials – NCT01725022 and NCT02218151 – comparing patients who receive all posttransplant care at home with patients treated in the hospital or in the outpatient setting with daily visits to the clinic.

The main goal is to determine if allogeneic HSCT recipients treated at home can maintain their normal microbiome and, as a result, have a lower risk of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). The researchers are also looking at other outcomes such as quality of life, treatment-related morbidities and mortality, and the cost of care for both allogeneic and autologous transplant recipients.

To be eligible for home care after HSCT, a patient must live within a 90-minute driving distance of Duke and have a caregiver available at home. The patient’s home must pass an inspection, showing it to be free of sources for potential infection, such as mold or pets that sleep in the patient’s bed.

When the time comes for treatment, the patient receives conditioning at the hospital but can return home the day before or the day of transplant. After discharge, the patient is visited by a nurse practitioner or physician assistant each morning for a physical examination and blood draw.

In the afternoon, the patient is visited by a clinic nurse who brings any necessary supplies or treatments, such as blood products or intravenous antibiotics. The patient also has daily video calls with an attending physician and can be admitted to the hospital for any events that cannot be managed in the home setting.

Patients can have visitors and spend time away from home, but precautions are necessary. Friends or family who are sick should not be allowed to visit, and patients should avoid crowds when they go out.

Vidyard Video

Initial findings

The Duke team has treated 41 HSCT recipients at home so far. Dr. Chao said it’s still too early to draw any conclusions about differences in outcomes between home care and inpatient/outpatient HSCT.

However, a preliminary analysis of costs suggests home care is cheaper than inpatient HSCT. The researchers found that, for the first several transplants, at day 60, the cost of home care was roughly half that of inpatient HSCT.

In addition, patients seem to be happy with posttransplant care at home.

“The patients love being at home, in their own environment, with their families,” Dr. Chao said. “Almost every single patient [in the phase 1 trial] said that he or she liked it much better. There was one patient in the phase 1 that felt a little isolated, and I can see why because we say, ‘You can stay home, but don’t have a whole lot of people in.’ ”

 

 

One patient’s experience

Beth Vanderkin said it was “a blessing” to receive care at home after undergoing HSCT at Duke.

Ms. Vanderkin was diagnosed with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in 2014. After two chemotherapy regimens failed to shrink the tumor in her chest, she underwent radiotherapy and responded well. When a PET scan revealed the tumor had gone completely, she proceeded to transplant.

She received a haploidentical HSCT using cells donated by her eldest daughter, Hannah Eichhorst. Ms. Vanderkin received the transplant in the hospital, and for 2 weeks after that, she made daily visits to the transplant clinic.

After those 2 weeks, Ms. Vanderkin continued her treatment at home. Like other patients eligible for home care, Ms. Vanderkin lived close to Duke, had a caregiver available, and had passed a home inspection. The Duke team shipped the needed medical supplies to her house and arranged twice-daily visits from nurses and daily video calls with a doctor.

Ms. Vanderkin said receiving care at home was “a game changer.” She derived comfort from recovering in her own environment, could spend more time with her family, and didn’t have to miss special events. While receiving care at home, Ms. Vanderkin attended the homecoming event where her son, Josiah, was part of the court. Wearing a face mask and carrying a portable pump in her purse, Ms. Vanderkin joined other mothers in escorting their children onto the football field.

“I got to escort my son out onto the field, and he was crowned king that night,” Ms. Vanderkin said. “I didn’t do a lot of things [while receiving care at home], but there were things I didn’t have to miss because I was at home and not in the hospital.”

Ms. Vanderkin said home care was also beneficial for her husband, who was her caregiver. Thomas Vanderkin was able to work from home while caring for his wife, and the daily nurses’ visits allowed him to run errands without having to leave Ms. Vanderkin alone.

Since her experience with home care, Ms. Vanderkin has spent many more days in the hospital and clinic. She experienced a relapse after the transplant and went on to receive more chemotherapy as well as ipilimumab. She responded to that treatment and has now been cancer-free for 3 years.

The ipilimumab did cause side effects, including intestinal problems that resulted in the need for parenteral nutrition. This side effect was made more bearable, Ms. Vanderkin said, because she was able to receive the parenteral nutrition at home. She and her husband were comfortable with additional home care because of their positive experience with posttransplant care.

“I think we’re conditioned to think that, to receive the best care, we have to be sitting in a hospital room or a clinic, but I think there’s a lot of things we can probably do at home,” Ms. Vanderkin said. “And we might fare a lot better as patients if we’re in an environment that we feel comfortable in.”

 

 

Experience at other centers

The team at Duke is not the first to study HSCT care at home. In fact, researchers in Sweden have been studying posttransplant home care since 1998.

A pilot trial the group published in 2000 suggested that home care was safe and, in some ways, superior to inpatient HSCT (Bone Marrow Transplant. 2000 Nov;26[10]:1057-60). Patients treated at home had a lower rate of bacteremia, fewer days of total parenteral nutrition, fewer erythrocyte transfusions, and fewer days on antibiotics and analgesics. Rates of fever, engraftment time, and acute GVHD were similar between the inpatient and home-care groups.

A study published by the same researchers in 2002 showed that patients who received home care had lower rates of grade 2-4 acute GVHD and transplant-related mortality compared to inpatients (Blood. 2002 Dec 15;100[13]:4317-24). Two-year overall survival was superior with home care as well.

On the other hand, a study the group published in 2013 showed no significant differences in 5-year survival, transplant-related mortality, relapse, or chronic GVHD between inpatients and those who received care at home (Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2013. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2012.11.5189).

The phase 2 trials at Duke should provide more insight into patient outcomes, but results probably won’t be available for 2 more years, Dr. Chao said.

In the meantime, other U.S. researchers are studying home care as well. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center is conducting a pilot study to determine if HSCT care at home is feasible (NCT02671448).

Dr. Chao said home care should be possible for other centers, particularly those that already perform outpatient HSCT.

“Having the outpatient infrastructure to support these patients is a big step,” he said. “And I think we were able to do that mainly because we do most of our transplants in the outpatient setting already. So that jump to the home is a little less compared to a center that does no outpatient transplants.”

He added, “There’s a certain amount of inertia to overcome and a certain amount of apprehension from the caregivers initially because [patients aren’t] sitting in your unit all the time, but I don’t see this as a huge barrier.”

In fact, Dr. Chao said, if results with home care are favorable, it could potentially replace inpatient HSCT for certain patients.

Dr. Chao’s research is supported by Duke University, and he reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

Can receiving all posttransplant care at home benefit patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT)? Researchers are conducting phase 2 trials to find out.

Nelson Chao, MD, and colleagues at Duke University in Durham, N.C., completed a phase 1 trial that suggested post-HSCT care at home was feasible and safe (Blood. 2017;130:745).

Now, the team is conducting phase 2 trials – NCT01725022 and NCT02218151 – comparing patients who receive all posttransplant care at home with patients treated in the hospital or in the outpatient setting with daily visits to the clinic.

The main goal is to determine if allogeneic HSCT recipients treated at home can maintain their normal microbiome and, as a result, have a lower risk of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). The researchers are also looking at other outcomes such as quality of life, treatment-related morbidities and mortality, and the cost of care for both allogeneic and autologous transplant recipients.

To be eligible for home care after HSCT, a patient must live within a 90-minute driving distance of Duke and have a caregiver available at home. The patient’s home must pass an inspection, showing it to be free of sources for potential infection, such as mold or pets that sleep in the patient’s bed.

When the time comes for treatment, the patient receives conditioning at the hospital but can return home the day before or the day of transplant. After discharge, the patient is visited by a nurse practitioner or physician assistant each morning for a physical examination and blood draw.

In the afternoon, the patient is visited by a clinic nurse who brings any necessary supplies or treatments, such as blood products or intravenous antibiotics. The patient also has daily video calls with an attending physician and can be admitted to the hospital for any events that cannot be managed in the home setting.

Patients can have visitors and spend time away from home, but precautions are necessary. Friends or family who are sick should not be allowed to visit, and patients should avoid crowds when they go out.

Vidyard Video

Initial findings

The Duke team has treated 41 HSCT recipients at home so far. Dr. Chao said it’s still too early to draw any conclusions about differences in outcomes between home care and inpatient/outpatient HSCT.

However, a preliminary analysis of costs suggests home care is cheaper than inpatient HSCT. The researchers found that, for the first several transplants, at day 60, the cost of home care was roughly half that of inpatient HSCT.

In addition, patients seem to be happy with posttransplant care at home.

“The patients love being at home, in their own environment, with their families,” Dr. Chao said. “Almost every single patient [in the phase 1 trial] said that he or she liked it much better. There was one patient in the phase 1 that felt a little isolated, and I can see why because we say, ‘You can stay home, but don’t have a whole lot of people in.’ ”

 

 

One patient’s experience

Beth Vanderkin said it was “a blessing” to receive care at home after undergoing HSCT at Duke.

Ms. Vanderkin was diagnosed with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in 2014. After two chemotherapy regimens failed to shrink the tumor in her chest, she underwent radiotherapy and responded well. When a PET scan revealed the tumor had gone completely, she proceeded to transplant.

She received a haploidentical HSCT using cells donated by her eldest daughter, Hannah Eichhorst. Ms. Vanderkin received the transplant in the hospital, and for 2 weeks after that, she made daily visits to the transplant clinic.

After those 2 weeks, Ms. Vanderkin continued her treatment at home. Like other patients eligible for home care, Ms. Vanderkin lived close to Duke, had a caregiver available, and had passed a home inspection. The Duke team shipped the needed medical supplies to her house and arranged twice-daily visits from nurses and daily video calls with a doctor.

Ms. Vanderkin said receiving care at home was “a game changer.” She derived comfort from recovering in her own environment, could spend more time with her family, and didn’t have to miss special events. While receiving care at home, Ms. Vanderkin attended the homecoming event where her son, Josiah, was part of the court. Wearing a face mask and carrying a portable pump in her purse, Ms. Vanderkin joined other mothers in escorting their children onto the football field.

“I got to escort my son out onto the field, and he was crowned king that night,” Ms. Vanderkin said. “I didn’t do a lot of things [while receiving care at home], but there were things I didn’t have to miss because I was at home and not in the hospital.”

Ms. Vanderkin said home care was also beneficial for her husband, who was her caregiver. Thomas Vanderkin was able to work from home while caring for his wife, and the daily nurses’ visits allowed him to run errands without having to leave Ms. Vanderkin alone.

Since her experience with home care, Ms. Vanderkin has spent many more days in the hospital and clinic. She experienced a relapse after the transplant and went on to receive more chemotherapy as well as ipilimumab. She responded to that treatment and has now been cancer-free for 3 years.

The ipilimumab did cause side effects, including intestinal problems that resulted in the need for parenteral nutrition. This side effect was made more bearable, Ms. Vanderkin said, because she was able to receive the parenteral nutrition at home. She and her husband were comfortable with additional home care because of their positive experience with posttransplant care.

“I think we’re conditioned to think that, to receive the best care, we have to be sitting in a hospital room or a clinic, but I think there’s a lot of things we can probably do at home,” Ms. Vanderkin said. “And we might fare a lot better as patients if we’re in an environment that we feel comfortable in.”

 

 

Experience at other centers

The team at Duke is not the first to study HSCT care at home. In fact, researchers in Sweden have been studying posttransplant home care since 1998.

A pilot trial the group published in 2000 suggested that home care was safe and, in some ways, superior to inpatient HSCT (Bone Marrow Transplant. 2000 Nov;26[10]:1057-60). Patients treated at home had a lower rate of bacteremia, fewer days of total parenteral nutrition, fewer erythrocyte transfusions, and fewer days on antibiotics and analgesics. Rates of fever, engraftment time, and acute GVHD were similar between the inpatient and home-care groups.

A study published by the same researchers in 2002 showed that patients who received home care had lower rates of grade 2-4 acute GVHD and transplant-related mortality compared to inpatients (Blood. 2002 Dec 15;100[13]:4317-24). Two-year overall survival was superior with home care as well.

On the other hand, a study the group published in 2013 showed no significant differences in 5-year survival, transplant-related mortality, relapse, or chronic GVHD between inpatients and those who received care at home (Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2013. doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2012.11.5189).

The phase 2 trials at Duke should provide more insight into patient outcomes, but results probably won’t be available for 2 more years, Dr. Chao said.

In the meantime, other U.S. researchers are studying home care as well. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center is conducting a pilot study to determine if HSCT care at home is feasible (NCT02671448).

Dr. Chao said home care should be possible for other centers, particularly those that already perform outpatient HSCT.

“Having the outpatient infrastructure to support these patients is a big step,” he said. “And I think we were able to do that mainly because we do most of our transplants in the outpatient setting already. So that jump to the home is a little less compared to a center that does no outpatient transplants.”

He added, “There’s a certain amount of inertia to overcome and a certain amount of apprehension from the caregivers initially because [patients aren’t] sitting in your unit all the time, but I don’t see this as a huge barrier.”

In fact, Dr. Chao said, if results with home care are favorable, it could potentially replace inpatient HSCT for certain patients.

Dr. Chao’s research is supported by Duke University, and he reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

PARIS – Middle-aged adults with a body mass index of 25-29 kg/m² had a significantly better adjusted survival during a median follow-up of nearly 10 years than did people with a “normal” body mass index of 20-24 kg/m² in a worldwide study of more than 140,000. This finding suggests the current, widely accepted definition of normal body mass index is wrong.*

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The new findings suggest that the current definition of a “healthy” body mass index (BMI) “should be re-evaluated,” Darryl P. Leong, MBBS, said at the annual Congress of the European Society of Cardiology. The analysis also identified a BMI specifically of 27 kg/m² as associated with optimal survival among both women and men, “clearly outside the range of 20 to less than 25 kg/m² that is considered normal,” said Dr. Leong, a cardiologist at McMaster University and the Population Health Research Institute, both in Hamilton, Ont.

Dr. Leong cited three potential explanations for why the new study identified optimal survival with a BMI of 25 to less than 30 kg/m² among people who were 35-70 years old when they entered the study and were followed for a median of 9.5 years: The current study collected data and adjusted the results using a wider range of potential confounders than in prior studies, the data reflect the impact of contemporary interventions to reduce cardiovascular disease illness and death while past studies relied on data from earlier times when less cardiovascular disease protection occurred, and the current study included people from lower-income countries, although the finding is just as applicable to people who live in high-income countries, who were also included in the study population, noted Salim Yusuf, MBBS, principal investigator for the study.

A BMI of 20-24 kg/m² “is actually low and harmful,” noted Dr. Yusuf in an interview. Despite recent data consistently showing better survival among people with a BMI of 25-29 kg/m², panels that have recently written weight guidelines are “ossified” and “refuse to accept” the implications of these findings, said Dr. Yusuf, professor of medicine at McMaster and executive director of the Population Health Research Institute.

The results of the analyses that Dr. Leong reported also showed that BMI paled as a prognosticator for survival when compared with two other assessments of weight: waist/hip ratio, and even more powerful prognostically, a novel measure developed for this analysis that calculates the ratio of hand-grip strength/body weight. Waist/hip ratio adds the dimension of the location of body fat rather than just the amount, and the ratio of grip strength/body weight assesses the contribution of muscle mass to overall weight, noted Dr. Leong. He reported an optimal waist/hip ratio for survival of 0.83 in women and 0.93 in men, and an optimal strength/weight ratio of 0.42 in women and 0.50 in men. This means that a man whose hand-grip strength (measured in kg) is half of the person’s body weight has the best prospect for survival.
 
The study used data collected in PURE (Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology Study) on 142,410 people aged 35-70 years from any one of four high-income countries, 12 middle-income countries, and five low-income countries. The study excluded people who had at baseline known coronary artery disease, stroke, heart failure, or cancer, and the adjusted analysis controlled for age, sex, region, education, activity, alcohol and tobacco use, and the baseline prevalence of hypertension and diabetes. During follow-up, 9,712 of these people died.

The researchers saw a nadir for mortality among people with a BMI of 25-29 kg/m² for both cardiovascular and noncardiovascular deaths. In addition, the link between total mortality and BMI was strongest in the subgroup of people on one or more treatments aimed at preventing cardiovascular disease, while it essentially disappeared among people not receiving any cardiovascular disease preventive measures, highlighting that the relationship now identified depends on a context of overall cardiovascular disease risk reduction, Dr. Leong said. The results also showed a very clear, direct, linear relationship between higher BMI and both the incidence of diabetes and cardiovascular disease, as well as increased all-cause and noncardiovascular mortality among people with a BMI of less than 20 kg/m².

Dr. Yusuf discussed the results of the analysis in a video interview.

The PURE study has received partial funding from unrestricted grants from several drug companies. Dr. Leong has been an advisor to Ferring Pharmaceuticals and has been a speaker on behalf of Janssen. Dr. Yusuf had no disclosures.

[email protected]

This story was updated 9/19/2019.

PARIS – Middle-aged adults with a body mass index of 25-29 kg/m² had a significantly better adjusted survival during a median follow-up of nearly 10 years than did people with a “normal” body mass index of 20-24 kg/m² in a worldwide study of more than 140,000. This finding suggests the current, widely accepted definition of normal body mass index is wrong.*

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The new findings suggest that the current definition of a “healthy” body mass index (BMI) “should be re-evaluated,” Darryl P. Leong, MBBS, said at the annual Congress of the European Society of Cardiology. The analysis also identified a BMI specifically of 27 kg/m² as associated with optimal survival among both women and men, “clearly outside the range of 20 to less than 25 kg/m² that is considered normal,” said Dr. Leong, a cardiologist at McMaster University and the Population Health Research Institute, both in Hamilton, Ont.

Dr. Leong cited three potential explanations for why the new study identified optimal survival with a BMI of 25 to less than 30 kg/m² among people who were 35-70 years old when they entered the study and were followed for a median of 9.5 years: The current study collected data and adjusted the results using a wider range of potential confounders than in prior studies, the data reflect the impact of contemporary interventions to reduce cardiovascular disease illness and death while past studies relied on data from earlier times when less cardiovascular disease protection occurred, and the current study included people from lower-income countries, although the finding is just as applicable to people who live in high-income countries, who were also included in the study population, noted Salim Yusuf, MBBS, principal investigator for the study.

A BMI of 20-24 kg/m² “is actually low and harmful,” noted Dr. Yusuf in an interview. Despite recent data consistently showing better survival among people with a BMI of 25-29 kg/m², panels that have recently written weight guidelines are “ossified” and “refuse to accept” the implications of these findings, said Dr. Yusuf, professor of medicine at McMaster and executive director of the Population Health Research Institute.

The results of the analyses that Dr. Leong reported also showed that BMI paled as a prognosticator for survival when compared with two other assessments of weight: waist/hip ratio, and even more powerful prognostically, a novel measure developed for this analysis that calculates the ratio of hand-grip strength/body weight. Waist/hip ratio adds the dimension of the location of body fat rather than just the amount, and the ratio of grip strength/body weight assesses the contribution of muscle mass to overall weight, noted Dr. Leong. He reported an optimal waist/hip ratio for survival of 0.83 in women and 0.93 in men, and an optimal strength/weight ratio of 0.42 in women and 0.50 in men. This means that a man whose hand-grip strength (measured in kg) is half of the person’s body weight has the best prospect for survival.
 
The study used data collected in PURE (Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology Study) on 142,410 people aged 35-70 years from any one of four high-income countries, 12 middle-income countries, and five low-income countries. The study excluded people who had at baseline known coronary artery disease, stroke, heart failure, or cancer, and the adjusted analysis controlled for age, sex, region, education, activity, alcohol and tobacco use, and the baseline prevalence of hypertension and diabetes. During follow-up, 9,712 of these people died.

The researchers saw a nadir for mortality among people with a BMI of 25-29 kg/m² for both cardiovascular and noncardiovascular deaths. In addition, the link between total mortality and BMI was strongest in the subgroup of people on one or more treatments aimed at preventing cardiovascular disease, while it essentially disappeared among people not receiving any cardiovascular disease preventive measures, highlighting that the relationship now identified depends on a context of overall cardiovascular disease risk reduction, Dr. Leong said. The results also showed a very clear, direct, linear relationship between higher BMI and both the incidence of diabetes and cardiovascular disease, as well as increased all-cause and noncardiovascular mortality among people with a BMI of less than 20 kg/m².

Dr. Yusuf discussed the results of the analysis in a video interview.

The PURE study has received partial funding from unrestricted grants from several drug companies. Dr. Leong has been an advisor to Ferring Pharmaceuticals and has been a speaker on behalf of Janssen. Dr. Yusuf had no disclosures.

[email protected]

This story was updated 9/19/2019.

PARIS – Middle-aged adults with a body mass index of 25-29 kg/m² had a significantly better adjusted survival during a median follow-up of nearly 10 years than did people with a “normal” body mass index of 20-24 kg/m² in a worldwide study of more than 140,000. This finding suggests the current, widely accepted definition of normal body mass index is wrong.*

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The new findings suggest that the current definition of a “healthy” body mass index (BMI) “should be re-evaluated,” Darryl P. Leong, MBBS, said at the annual Congress of the European Society of Cardiology. The analysis also identified a BMI specifically of 27 kg/m² as associated with optimal survival among both women and men, “clearly outside the range of 20 to less than 25 kg/m² that is considered normal,” said Dr. Leong, a cardiologist at McMaster University and the Population Health Research Institute, both in Hamilton, Ont.

Dr. Leong cited three potential explanations for why the new study identified optimal survival with a BMI of 25 to less than 30 kg/m² among people who were 35-70 years old when they entered the study and were followed for a median of 9.5 years: The current study collected data and adjusted the results using a wider range of potential confounders than in prior studies, the data reflect the impact of contemporary interventions to reduce cardiovascular disease illness and death while past studies relied on data from earlier times when less cardiovascular disease protection occurred, and the current study included people from lower-income countries, although the finding is just as applicable to people who live in high-income countries, who were also included in the study population, noted Salim Yusuf, MBBS, principal investigator for the study.

A BMI of 20-24 kg/m² “is actually low and harmful,” noted Dr. Yusuf in an interview. Despite recent data consistently showing better survival among people with a BMI of 25-29 kg/m², panels that have recently written weight guidelines are “ossified” and “refuse to accept” the implications of these findings, said Dr. Yusuf, professor of medicine at McMaster and executive director of the Population Health Research Institute.

The results of the analyses that Dr. Leong reported also showed that BMI paled as a prognosticator for survival when compared with two other assessments of weight: waist/hip ratio, and even more powerful prognostically, a novel measure developed for this analysis that calculates the ratio of hand-grip strength/body weight. Waist/hip ratio adds the dimension of the location of body fat rather than just the amount, and the ratio of grip strength/body weight assesses the contribution of muscle mass to overall weight, noted Dr. Leong. He reported an optimal waist/hip ratio for survival of 0.83 in women and 0.93 in men, and an optimal strength/weight ratio of 0.42 in women and 0.50 in men. This means that a man whose hand-grip strength (measured in kg) is half of the person’s body weight has the best prospect for survival.
 
The study used data collected in PURE (Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology Study) on 142,410 people aged 35-70 years from any one of four high-income countries, 12 middle-income countries, and five low-income countries. The study excluded people who had at baseline known coronary artery disease, stroke, heart failure, or cancer, and the adjusted analysis controlled for age, sex, region, education, activity, alcohol and tobacco use, and the baseline prevalence of hypertension and diabetes. During follow-up, 9,712 of these people died.

The researchers saw a nadir for mortality among people with a BMI of 25-29 kg/m² for both cardiovascular and noncardiovascular deaths. In addition, the link between total mortality and BMI was strongest in the subgroup of people on one or more treatments aimed at preventing cardiovascular disease, while it essentially disappeared among people not receiving any cardiovascular disease preventive measures, highlighting that the relationship now identified depends on a context of overall cardiovascular disease risk reduction, Dr. Leong said. The results also showed a very clear, direct, linear relationship between higher BMI and both the incidence of diabetes and cardiovascular disease, as well as increased all-cause and noncardiovascular mortality among people with a BMI of less than 20 kg/m².

Dr. Yusuf discussed the results of the analysis in a video interview.

The PURE study has received partial funding from unrestricted grants from several drug companies. Dr. Leong has been an advisor to Ferring Pharmaceuticals and has been a speaker on behalf of Janssen. Dr. Yusuf had no disclosures.

[email protected]

This story was updated 9/19/2019.