Physical Activity, Cardiovascular Status, Mortality, and Prediabetes in Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Adults.

Importance: Data are limited on the association of physical activity (PA) with incident cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mortality in prediabetes, especially in racial and ethnic minority groups, including Hispanic and Latino populations. Objective: To determine the association of PA with incident CVD and mortality by prediabetes status among Hispanic or Latino and non-Hispanic adults. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included data from 2 cohorts of adults with prediabetes or normoglycemia who were free of CVD at baseline visit: the Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos (HCHS/SOL) from baseline examination through 2017, with median (IQR) follow-up of 7.8 (7.2-8.5) years, and the Framingham Heart Study (FHS) with non-Hispanic participants from index examination through 2019, with median (IQR) follow-up of 9.6 (8.1-10.7) years. Analyses were conducted between September 1, 2022, and January 10, 2024. Exposure: The primary exposure was baseline accelerometry-measured moderate to vigorous PA, insufficient vs sufficient to meet 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans (PAG) in both cohorts; additional accelerometer-measured exposures in HCHS/SOL were steps per day, sedentary behavior, and counts per min. Main Outcomes and Measures: The outcome was a composite of incident CVD or all-cause mortality, whichever came first. Results: This cohort study included 13 223 participants: from HCHS/SOL, there were 9456 adults (all self-identified Hispanic or Latino ethnicity; survey-adjusted mean [SD] age, 38.3 [13.9] years, unweighted counts 5673 (60.0%) female; 4882 [51.6%] with normoglycemia; 4574 [48.4%] with prediabetes), and from FHS there were 3767 adults (3623 [96.2%] non-Hispanic and 140 [3.7%] Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, with 4 [0.1%] participants missing ethnicity; mean [SD] age, 54.2 [13.6] years; 2128 (56.5%) female; 2739 [72.7%] with normoglycemia; 1028 [27.3%] with prediabetes). Not meeting PAG was associated with higher risk of the composite outcome among participants with normoglycemia (vs PAG met; hazard ratio [HR], 1.85 [95% CI, 1.12-3.06]), but not among participants with prediabetes (HR, 1.07 [95% CI, 0.72-1.58]). For HCHS/SOL, no statistically significant association was found between the composite outcome and other PA metrics, although estimated HRs tended to be higher for lower activity in the normoglycemia group but not for the prediabetes group (eg, for steps less than vs at least 7000 per day, the HR was 1.58 [95% CI, 0.85-2.93] for normoglycemia vs 1.08 [95% CI 0.67-1.74] for prediabetes). While there was also no association in HCHS/SOL between the composite outcome and sedentary behavior, results were similar in the prediabetes group (HR per 30 minutes per day of sedentary behavior, 1.05 [95% CI 0.99-1.12]) and in the normoglycemia group (HR, 1.07 [95% CI 0.98-1.16]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of US Hispanic or Latino and non-Hispanic adults, lower moderate to vigorous PA levels were associated with CVD or mortality among participants with normoglycemia but not participants with prediabetes. Adults with prediabetes may benefit from reducing sedentary behavior and improving multiple lifestyle factors beyond improving moderate to vigorous PA alone.

Comparison of two equivalent model for end-stage liver disease scores for hepatocellular carcinoma patients using data from the United Network for Organ Sharing liver transplant waiting list registry.

Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have been advantaged on the liver transplant waiting list within the United States, and a 6-month delay and exception point cap have recently been implemented to address this disparity. An alternative approach to prioritization is an HCC-specific scoring model such as the MELD Equivalent (MELDEQ ) and the mixed new deMELD. Using data on adult patients added to the UNOS waitlist between 30 September 2009 and 30 June 2014, we compared projected dropout and transplant probabilities for patients with HCC under these two models. Both scores matched actual non-HCC dropout in groups with scores <22 and improved equity with non-HCC transplant probabilities overall. However, neither score matched non-HCC dropout accurately for scores of 25-40 and projected dropout increased beyond non-HCC probabilities for scores <16. The main differences between the two scores were as follows: (i) the MELDEQ assigns 6.85 more points after 6 months on the waitlist and (ii) the deMELD gives greater weight to tumor size and laboratory MELD. Post-transplant survival was lower for patients with scores in the 22-30 range compared with those with scores <16 (P = 0.007, MELDEQ ; P = 0.015, deMELD). While both scores result in better equity of waitlist outcomes compared with scheduled progression, continued development and calibration is recommended.

Projected outcomes of 6-month delay in exception points versus an equivalent Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score for hepatocellular carcinoma liver transplant candidates.

The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) recently implemented a 6-month delay before granting exception points to liver transplantation candidates with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) to address disparity in transplantation access between HCC and non-HCC patients. An HCC-specific scoring scheme, the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease equivalent (MELDEQ ), has also been developed. We compared projected dropout and transplant probabilities and posttransplant survival for HCC and non-HCC patients under the 6-month delay and the MELDEQ using UNOS data from October 1, 2009, to June 30, 2014, and multistate modeling. Overall (combined HCC and non-HCC) wait-list dropout was similar under both schemes and slightly improved (though not statistically significant) compared to actual data. Projected HCC wait-list dropout was similar between the MELDEQ and 6-month delay at 6 months but thereafter started to differ, with the 6-month delay eventually favoring HCC patients (3-year dropout 10.0% [9.0%-11.0%] for HCC versus 14.1% [13.6%-14.6%]) for non-HCC) and the MELDEQ favoring non-HCC patients (3-year dropout 16.0% [13.2%-18.8%] for HCC versus 12.3% [11.9%-12.7%] for non-HCC). Projected transplant probabilities for HCC patients were substantially lower under the MELDEQ compared to the 6-month delay (26.6% versus 83.8% by 3 years, respectively). Projected HCC posttransplant survival under the 6-month delay was similar to actual, but slightly worse under the MELDEQ (2-year survival 82.9% [81.7%-84.2%] versus actual of 85.5% [84.3%-86.7%]). In conclusion, although the 6-month delay improves equity in transplant and dropout between HCC and non-HCC candidates, disparity between the 2 groups may still exist after 6 months of wait-list time. Projections under the MELDEQ , however, appear to disadvantage HCC patients. Therefore, modification to the exception point progression or refinement of an HCC prioritization score may be warranted. Liver Transplantation 22 1343-1355 2016 AASLD.