Changes in serum albumin concentrations over 7 days in medical inpatients with and without nutritional support. A secondary post-hoc analysis of a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Serum albumin concentrations are frequently used to monitor nutritional therapy in the hospital setting but supporting studies are largely lacking. Within this secondary analysis of a randomized nutritional trial (EFFORT), we assessed whether nutritional support affects short-term changes in serum albumin concentrations and whether an increase in albumin concentration has prognostic implications regarding clinical outcome and response to treatment. METHODS: We analyzed patients with available serum albumin concentrations at baseline and day 7 included in EFFORT, a Swiss-wide multicenter randomized clinical trial that compared individualized nutritional therapy with usual hospital food (control group). RESULTS: Albumin concentrations increased in 320 of 763 (41.9%) included patients (mean age 73.3 years (SD ± 12.9), 53.6% males) with no difference between patients receiving nutritional support and controls. Compared with patients that showed a decrease in albumin concentrations over 7 days, those with an increase had a lower 180-day mortality [74/320 (23.1%) vs. 158/443 (35.7%); adjusted odds ratio 0.63, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.90; p = 0.012] and a shorter length of hospital stay [11.2 ± 7.3 vs. 8.8 ± 5.6 days, adjusted difference -2.2 days (95%CI -3.1 to -1.2)]. Patients with and without a decrease over 7 days had a similar response to nutritional support. CONCLUSION: Results from this secondary analysis indicate that nutritional support did not increase short-term concentrations of albumin over 7 days, and changes in albumin did not correlate with response to nutritional interventions. However, an increase in albumin concentrations possibly mirroring resolution of inflammation was associated with better clinical outcomes. Repeated in-hospital albumin measurements in the short-term is, thus, not indicated for monitoring of patients receiving nutritional support but provides prognostic information. TRAIL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02517476.

Validation of modified GLIM criteria to predict adverse clinical outcome and response to nutritional treatment: A secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition (GLIM) recently suggested specific criteria to standardize the diagnosis of malnutrition. There is need for validation of these criteria regarding response to nutrition treatment. Our aim was to validate modified GLIM (mGLIM) criteria among medical inpatients at risk of disease related malnutrition for prediction of outcome and response to nutritional therapy. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of the Effect of Early Nutritional Support on Frailty, Functional Outcomes, and Recovery of Malnourished Medical Inpatients Trial (EFFORT), a multicenter randomized controlled trial conducted between April 2014 and February 2018. Adult medical inpatients at nutritional risk (Nutrition Risk Score 2002 ≥ 3 points) were randomly assigned to receive nutritional therapy according to an algorithm based on individualized nutritional requirements (intervention group) or standard hospital food (control group). We included all participants with available information regarding mGLIM criteria. The primary outcome was adverse clinical outcome, which was a composite of 30-day all-cause mortality, ICU-admission, rehospitalization rate, major complications and decline in functional status. RESULTS: Of 1917 eligible participants at nutritional risk, 1181 (61.6%) met the diagnosis of malnutrition based on mGLIM criteria. The incidence of adverse clinical outcome was significantly higher in mGLIM-positive participants compared with mGLIM-negative participants [330/1181 (27.9%) versus 140/736 (19.0%); multivariable adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.53; 95% CI 1.22-1.93; p < 0.001]. Regarding the effect of nutritional therapy, the reduction in adverse clinical outcomes was higher in mGLIM-positive participants [180/581 (31.0%) vs. 150/600 (25.0%), OR 0.69; 95% CI 0.53-0.9, p = 0.007], compared with mGLIM-negative participants [75/379 (19.8%) versus 65/357 (18.2%), OR 0.95; 95% CI 0.65-1.40, p = 0.797], a finding that was, however, not significant in interaction analysis (p for interaction = 0.217). CONCLUSION: Data from this secondary analysis of a multicenter randomized trial involving medical inpatients at nutritional risk validate the strong prognostic value of mGLIM criteria regarding adverse clinical outcomes and other long-term outcomes. However, further research is needed to improve the ability of GLIM criteria to predict therapeutic response to nutritional interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02517476.

Admission serum albumin concentrations and response to nutritional therapy in hospitalised patients at malnutrition risk: Secondary analysis of a randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Historically, admission serum albumin concentrations have been considered useful biochemical markers for nutrition assessment. However, there is a lack of randomised trial data investigating whether low albumin concentrations are helpful for identifying patients benefitting from nutritional support. METHODS: This study was a secondary analysis of the EFFORT trial, a Swiss-wide multicentre, randomised controlled trial comparing individualised nutritional support with usual care nutrition in medical inpatients from April 1, 2014, to February 1, 2018. 1389 of 2028 patients at nutritional risk with available albumin concentrations on admission were included. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality within 30 and 180 days. Patients were stratified into groups of low or normal albumin based on the albumin cut-off of 30 g/L. ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02517476. FINDINGS: 1389 patients (mean age, 73.1 (SD 3.5) years; 747 (53.8%) men) were included and 676 (48.7%) had low serum albumin concentrations at admission (<30 g/L). Mortality at 180 days was significantly increased in the low albumin group compared with patients with normal albumin concentrations (219/676 (32.4%) vs. 162/713 (22.7%), fully adjusted HR 1.4, 95%CI 1.11 to 1.77, p = 0.005]. Effects of nutritional support on 30-day mortality were similar for patients with low compared to patients with normal albumin concentrations (HR 0.68, 95%CI 0.44 to 1.05 vs. HR 0.70, 95%CI 0.41 to 1.20), with no evidence for a subgroup effect (p for interaction=0.97). INTERPRETATION: Based on this secondary analysis of a randomised trial, low admission serum albumin concentrations in hospitalised, non-critically ill, medical patients at nutritional risk had prognostic implications and indicated higher mortality risk but were not helpful in selecting patients for nutritional interventions. FUNDING: The Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) (PP00P3_150531) and the Research Council of the Kantonsspital Aarau (1410.000.058 and 1410.000.044) provided funding for the EFFORT trial.

Comparison of Five TSH-Receptor Antibody Assays in Graves' disease: results from an observational pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Early diagnosis and relapse prediction in Graves' disease influences treatment. We assessed the abilities of four TSH-receptor antibody tests [TRAb] and one cyclic adenosine monophosphate bioassay to predict relapse of Graves' disease. METHODS: Observational study investigating patients presenting with Graves' disease at a Swiss hospital endocrine referral center or an endocrine outpatient clinic. Main outcomes were diagnosis and relapse of Graves' disease after stop of anti-thyroid drugs. We used Cox regression to study associations of TRAb levels with relapse risk and calculated c-statistics [AUC] to assess discrimination. Blood draws took place as close as possible to treatment initiation. RESULTS: AUCs ranged from 0.90 (TSAb Biossay by RSR) to 0.97 (IMMULITE TSI by Siemens). Highest sensitivity (94.0%) was observed for IMMULITE TSI and RSR TRAb Fast, while the greatest specificity (97.9%) was found with the EliA anti-TSH-R (by Thermo Fisher). In Cox regression analysis comparing the highest versus the lower quartiles, the highest hazard ratio [HR] for relapse was found for BRAHMS TRAK (by Thermo Fisher) (2.98, 95% CI 1.13-7.84), IMMULITE TSI (2.40, 95% CI 0.91-6.35), EliA anti-TSH-R (2.05, 95% CI 0.82-5.10), RSR Fast TRAb (1.80, 95% CI 0.73-4.43), followed by RSR STIMULATION (1.18, 95% CI 0.46-2.99). Discrimination analyses showed respective AUCs of 0.68, 0.65, 0.64, 0.64, and 0.59. CONCLUSION: The assays tested had good diagnostic power and relapse risk prediction with few differences among the new assays. Due to the small sample size and retrospective design with possible selection bias, our data need prospective validation.

External validation of the GREAT score to predict relapse risk in Graves' disease: results from a multicenter, retrospective study with 741 patients.

CONTEXT: First-line treatment in Graves' disease is often done with antithyroid agents (ATD), but relapse rates remain high making definite treatment necessary. Predictors for relapse risk help guiding initial treatment decisions. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to externally validate the prognostic accuracy of the recently proposed Graves' Recurrent Events After Therapy (GREAT) score to predict relapse risk in Graves' disease. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We retrospectively analyzed data (2004-2014) of patients with a first episode of Graves' hyperthyroidism from four Swiss endocrine outpatient clinics. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Relapse of hyperthyroidism analyzed by multivariate Cox regression. RESULTS: Of the 741 included patients, 371 experienced a relapse (50.1%) after a mean follow-up of 25.6 months after ATD start. In univariate regression analysis, higher serum free T4, higher thyrotropin-binding inhibitor immunoglobulin (TBII), younger age and larger goiter were associated with higher relapse risk. We found a strong increase in relapse risk with more points in the GREAT score from 33.8% in patients with GREAT class I (0-1 points), 59.4% in class II (2-3 points) with a hazard ratio of 1.79 (95% CI: 1.42-2.27, P < 0.001) and 73.6% in class III (4-6 points) with a hazard ratio of 2.24 (95% CI: 1.64-3.06, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Based on this retrospective analysis within a large patient population from a multicenter study, the GREAT score shows good external validity and can be used for assessing the risk for relapse in Graves' disease, which influence the initial treatment decisions.