ONC: Hematopoietic Cell Transplant (2007)

Citation:

Szeluga DJ, Stuart RK, Brookmeyer R, Utermohlen V, Santos GW. Energy requirements of parenterally fed bone marrow transplant recipients. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1985 Mar-Apr;9(2):139-43.  

PubMed ID: 3921730
 
Study Design:
Longitudinal study
Class:
C - Click here for explanation of classification scheme.
Quality Rating:
Positive POSITIVE: See Quality Criteria Checklist below.
Research Purpose:
To estimate the energy requirements of bone marrow transplant recipients.
Inclusion Criteria:
  • Admission to Johns Hopkins Oncology Center for bone marrow transplant between September 1978 to August 1980.
Exclusion Criteria:
  • Not specified
Description of Study Protocol:

Recruitment: Not described 

Design Data analysis is confined to the 1st 30 post-transplant days. Data collected on daily weight, energy and protein intake, body temperature, and presence of GVHD. Statistical modeling was used to develop equation to predict energy intake to maintain N balance.

Blinding used (if applicable): Not applicable 

Intervention (if applicable): Not applicable 

Statistical Analysis

  • Linear modeling
    • Dependent Variable: N Balance
    • Independent Variable: Energy Intake
  • Weighted Multiple Regression
    • Weightled least squares regression analysis
    • Age & Sex
Data Collection Summary:

Timing of Measurements

 Daily collection of:

  • Body weight
  • Peak body temperature
  • Energy & Protein intake as estimated from meal and IV fluid records
  • Energy from IV sources

Timing Not Specified:

  • Demographics: age, sex, diagnosis
  • Day of WBC count recovery
  • Presence of GVHD
  • Serial N balance studies as estimated with Lee and Hartley method
    • Nin (g) = [0.16(protein intake)]
    • Nout (g) = (1.2)[urine urea N + (0.16*urine total protein)] +2

Dependent Variables

  • Variable 1: Nitrogen balance

Independent Variables

  •  Energy Intake

 

Description of Actual Data Sample:

 

Initial N: 91 (sex not described)

Attrition (final N): 84

  • Adults (age 19-49): Male n=35, Female n= 22
  • Adolescents (age 11-18): Male n=16, Female n=5
  • Children (age 4-10): Male n=5, Felame n=1

Age:

  • Adults (age 19-49)
  • Adolescents (age 11-18)
  • Children (age 4-10)

    Ethnicity: Not Described

    Other relevant demographics:

    Diagnosis
      AA AML ALL Other

    Adults   (19-49y)

    23 19 9 6
    Adolescents & Children (4-18y) 9 5 10 3

    Anthropometrics Not Described

    Location: Johns Hopkins Oncology Center for bone marrow transplantation, Ithica, NY

     

  • Summary of Results:

     

    Variables

    Energy Intake (kcal/kg/day)

    Nitrogen Balance (g/day)

    Peak Temperature (0C)

    % Intake from IV

    Adults (n=53)

    42.6 (27.3-69.4)

    -2.3 (-14.1- +6.9)

    38.3 (37.3-40.3)

     81% (41-100)

    Adolescents (n=21)

    50.2 (31.3-75.4)

    -1.4 (-12.9- +4.1)

    38.4 (37.2-39.9)

     87% (55-98)

    Children (n=5)

    59.0 (40.9-74.6)

    -0.9 (-3.4- +0.8)

    37.9 (37.3-38.7)

     78% (62-92)

    •  Five patients with negative slopes (indicating N balance declined as energy intake increased) were excluded from multiple regression analysis
    • Energy Requirment = 6.2 + (15.6 for children <= 10y) + (8.1 for GVHD) + (0.4 x %IV) - (5.0 for female)
      • Model p value <0.001
      • r2=0.39

    Other Findings

    •  Predicted Median Energy Requirement
      • Adults (>18y): 44 kcal/kg/day (r2=0.40)
      • Adolescents (11-18y): 53 kcal/kg/day (r2=0.26)
      • Children (<11y): 79 kcal/kg/day (r2=0.34)
    • Actual Median Energy Requirement
      • Adults: >82% predicted energy requirement (Range 41-125%)
      • Adolescents: >94% predicted energy requirement (Range 48-145%)
      • Children: >97% predicted energy requirement (Range 14-447%)
    • WBC Status
      • First 20 days post BMT:
        • Bone marrow aplasia (WBC <1000/mm3)
        • Fever
        • Poor PO intake (IV energy provision >80%)
      • Last 10 days post BMT (High Stress)
        • GVHD with high dose steroids
        • Renal failure
        • Pneumonia
      • Most patients had hematopoietic and immunologic recovery at 30 days
    • Significant association between % energy from IV sources and mean peak body temperature (p<0.01)
      • Higher peak temperature = Higher percentage energy from IV sources
    Author Conclusion:
    The prediction equation is useful to determine initial energy requriements to maintian energy balance in patients that have received BMT. The authors suggest that utilizing body cell mass may provide a better prediction of energy requirements.
    Funding Source:
    University/Hospital: John Hopkins University, Cornell University
    Reviewer Comments:

    This interesting study proposes an equation to predict energy requirements in BMT recipients. However the following limits the applicability of the article:

    • Inclusion of multiple age groups
    • Limited number of subjects in the children & adolescent group
    • Incomplete description of statistical analyses
    • No description of patients lost to attrition
    • Data on weight/weight change not presented
    Quality Criteria Checklist: Primary Research
    Relevance Questions
      1. Would implementing the studied intervention or procedure (if found successful) result in improved outcomes for the patients/clients/population group? (Not Applicable for some epidemiological studies) Yes
      1. Would implementing the studied intervention or procedure (if found successful) result in improved outcomes for the patients/clients/population group? (Not Applicable for some epidemiological studies) Yes
      2. Did the authors study an outcome (dependent variable) or topic that the patients/clients/population group would care about? Yes
      2. Did the authors study an outcome (dependent variable) or topic that the patients/clients/population group would care about? Yes
      3. Is the focus of the intervention or procedure (independent variable) or topic of study a common issue of concern to dieteticspractice? Yes
      3. Is the focus of the intervention or procedure (independent variable) or topic of study a common issue of concern to dieteticspractice? Yes
      4. Is the intervention or procedure feasible? (NA for some epidemiological studies) Yes
      4. Is the intervention or procedure feasible? (NA for some epidemiological studies) Yes
     
    Validity Questions
      1. Was the research question clearly stated? Yes
    1. Was the research question clearly stated? Yes
      1.1. Was (were) the specific intervention(s) or procedure(s) [independent variable(s)] identified? Yes
      1.1. Was (were) the specific intervention(s) or procedure(s) [independent variable(s)] identified? Yes
      1.2. Was (were) the outcome(s) [dependent variable(s)] clearly indicated? Yes
      1.2. Was (were) the outcome(s) [dependent variable(s)] clearly indicated? Yes
      1.3. Were the target population and setting specified? Yes
      1.3. Were the target population and setting specified? Yes
      2. Was the selection of study subjects/patients free from bias? Yes
    2. Was the selection of study subjects/patients free from bias? Yes
      2.1. Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified (e.g., risk, point in disease progression, diagnostic or prognosis criteria), and with sufficient detail and without omitting criteria critical to the study? Yes
      2.1. Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified (e.g., risk, point in disease progression, diagnostic or prognosis criteria), and with sufficient detail and without omitting criteria critical to the study? Yes
      2.2. Were criteria applied equally to all study groups? Yes
      2.2. Were criteria applied equally to all study groups? Yes
      2.3. Were health, demographics, and other characteristics of subjects described? Yes
      2.3. Were health, demographics, and other characteristics of subjects described? Yes
      2.4. Were the subjects/patients a representative sample of the relevant population? Yes
      2.4. Were the subjects/patients a representative sample of the relevant population? Yes
      3. Were study groups comparable? N/A
    3. Were study groups comparable? N/A
      3.1. Was the method of assigning subjects/patients to groups described and unbiased? (Method of randomization identified if RCT) N/A
      3.1. Was the method of assigning subjects/patients to groups described and unbiased? (Method of randomization identified if RCT) N/A
      3.2. Were distribution of disease status, prognostic factors, and other factors (e.g., demographics) similar across study groups at baseline? N/A
      3.2. Were distribution of disease status, prognostic factors, and other factors (e.g., demographics) similar across study groups at baseline? N/A
      3.3. Were concurrent controls or comparisons used? (Concurrent preferred over historical control or comparison groups.) N/A
      3.3. Were concurrent controls or comparisons used? (Concurrent preferred over historical control or comparison groups.) N/A
      3.4. If cohort study or cross-sectional study, were groups comparable on important confounding factors and/or were preexisting differences accounted for by using appropriate adjustments in statistical analysis? N/A
      3.4. If cohort study or cross-sectional study, were groups comparable on important confounding factors and/or were preexisting differences accounted for by using appropriate adjustments in statistical analysis? N/A
      3.5. If case control study, were potential confounding factors comparable for cases and controls? (If case series or trial with subjects serving as own control, this criterion is not applicable.) N/A
      3.5. If case control study, were potential confounding factors comparable for cases and controls? (If case series or trial with subjects serving as own control, this criterion is not applicable.) N/A
      3.6. If diagnostic test, was there an independent blind comparison with an appropriate reference standard (e.g., "gold standard")? N/A
      3.6. If diagnostic test, was there an independent blind comparison with an appropriate reference standard (e.g., "gold standard")? N/A
      4. Was method of handling withdrawals described? No
    4. Was method of handling withdrawals described? No
      4.1. Were follow-up methods described and the same for all groups? Yes
      4.1. Were follow-up methods described and the same for all groups? Yes
      4.2. Was the number, characteristics of withdrawals (i.e., dropouts, lost to follow up, attrition rate) and/or response rate (cross-sectional studies) described for each group? (Follow up goal for a strong study is 80%.) No
      4.2. Was the number, characteristics of withdrawals (i.e., dropouts, lost to follow up, attrition rate) and/or response rate (cross-sectional studies) described for each group? (Follow up goal for a strong study is 80%.) No
      4.3. Were all enrolled subjects/patients (in the original sample) accounted for? No
      4.3. Were all enrolled subjects/patients (in the original sample) accounted for? No
      4.4. Were reasons for withdrawals similar across groups? ???
      4.4. Were reasons for withdrawals similar across groups? ???
      4.5. If diagnostic test, was decision to perform reference test not dependent on results of test under study? N/A
      4.5. If diagnostic test, was decision to perform reference test not dependent on results of test under study? N/A
      5. Was blinding used to prevent introduction of bias? No
    5. Was blinding used to prevent introduction of bias? No
      5.1. In intervention study, were subjects, clinicians/practitioners, and investigators blinded to treatment group, as appropriate? N/A
      5.1. In intervention study, were subjects, clinicians/practitioners, and investigators blinded to treatment group, as appropriate? N/A
      5.2. Were data collectors blinded for outcomes assessment? (If outcome is measured using an objective test, such as a lab value, this criterion is assumed to be met.) No
      5.2. Were data collectors blinded for outcomes assessment? (If outcome is measured using an objective test, such as a lab value, this criterion is assumed to be met.) No
      5.3. In cohort study or cross-sectional study, were measurements of outcomes and risk factors blinded? N/A
      5.3. In cohort study or cross-sectional study, were measurements of outcomes and risk factors blinded? N/A
      5.4. In case control study, was case definition explicit and case ascertainment not influenced by exposure status? N/A
      5.4. In case control study, was case definition explicit and case ascertainment not influenced by exposure status? N/A
      5.5. In diagnostic study, were test results blinded to patient history and other test results? N/A
      5.5. In diagnostic study, were test results blinded to patient history and other test results? N/A
      6. Were intervention/therapeutic regimens/exposure factor or procedure and any comparison(s) described in detail? Were interveningfactors described? Yes
    6. Were intervention/therapeutic regimens/exposure factor or procedure and any comparison(s) described in detail? Were interveningfactors described? Yes
      6.1. In RCT or other intervention trial, were protocols described for all regimens studied? N/A
      6.1. In RCT or other intervention trial, were protocols described for all regimens studied? N/A
      6.2. In observational study, were interventions, study settings, and clinicians/provider described? Yes
      6.2. In observational study, were interventions, study settings, and clinicians/provider described? Yes
      6.3. Was the intensity and duration of the intervention or exposure factor sufficient to produce a meaningful effect? Yes
      6.3. Was the intensity and duration of the intervention or exposure factor sufficient to produce a meaningful effect? Yes
      6.4. Was the amount of exposure and, if relevant, subject/patient compliance measured? Yes
      6.4. Was the amount of exposure and, if relevant, subject/patient compliance measured? Yes
      6.5. Were co-interventions (e.g., ancillary treatments, other therapies) described? Yes
      6.5. Were co-interventions (e.g., ancillary treatments, other therapies) described? Yes
      6.6. Were extra or unplanned treatments described? Yes
      6.6. Were extra or unplanned treatments described? Yes
      6.7. Was the information for 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6 assessed the same way for all groups? Yes
      6.7. Was the information for 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6 assessed the same way for all groups? Yes
      6.8. In diagnostic study, were details of test administration and replication sufficient? N/A
      6.8. In diagnostic study, were details of test administration and replication sufficient? N/A
      7. Were outcomes clearly defined and the measurements valid and reliable? Yes
    7. Were outcomes clearly defined and the measurements valid and reliable? Yes
      7.1. Were primary and secondary endpoints described and relevant to the question? Yes
      7.1. Were primary and secondary endpoints described and relevant to the question? Yes
      7.2. Were nutrition measures appropriate to question and outcomes of concern? Yes
      7.2. Were nutrition measures appropriate to question and outcomes of concern? Yes
      7.3. Was the period of follow-up long enough for important outcome(s) to occur? Yes
      7.3. Was the period of follow-up long enough for important outcome(s) to occur? Yes
      7.4. Were the observations and measurements based on standard, valid, and reliable data collection instruments/tests/procedures? Yes
      7.4. Were the observations and measurements based on standard, valid, and reliable data collection instruments/tests/procedures? Yes
      7.5. Was the measurement of effect at an appropriate level of precision? Yes
      7.5. Was the measurement of effect at an appropriate level of precision? Yes
      7.6. Were other factors accounted for (measured) that could affect outcomes? Yes
      7.6. Were other factors accounted for (measured) that could affect outcomes? Yes
      7.7. Were the measurements conducted consistently across groups? Yes
      7.7. Were the measurements conducted consistently across groups? Yes
      8. Was the statistical analysis appropriate for the study design and type of outcome indicators? No
    8. Was the statistical analysis appropriate for the study design and type of outcome indicators? No
      8.1. Were statistical analyses adequately described and the results reported appropriately? Yes
      8.1. Were statistical analyses adequately described and the results reported appropriately? Yes
      8.2. Were correct statistical tests used and assumptions of test not violated? Yes
      8.2. Were correct statistical tests used and assumptions of test not violated? Yes
      8.3. Were statistics reported with levels of significance and/or confidence intervals? Yes
      8.3. Were statistics reported with levels of significance and/or confidence intervals? Yes
      8.4. Was "intent to treat" analysis of outcomes done (and as appropriate, was there an analysis of outcomes for those maximally exposed or a dose-response analysis)? N/A
      8.4. Was "intent to treat" analysis of outcomes done (and as appropriate, was there an analysis of outcomes for those maximally exposed or a dose-response analysis)? N/A
      8.5. Were adequate adjustments made for effects of confounding factors that might have affected the outcomes (e.g., multivariate analyses)? No
      8.5. Were adequate adjustments made for effects of confounding factors that might have affected the outcomes (e.g., multivariate analyses)? No
      8.6. Was clinical significance as well as statistical significance reported? N/A
      8.6. Was clinical significance as well as statistical significance reported? N/A
      8.7. If negative findings, was a power calculation reported to address type 2 error? N/A
      8.7. If negative findings, was a power calculation reported to address type 2 error? N/A
      9. Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? Yes
    9. Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? Yes
      9.1. Is there a discussion of findings? Yes
      9.1. Is there a discussion of findings? Yes
      9.2. Are biases and study limitations identified and discussed? Yes
      9.2. Are biases and study limitations identified and discussed? Yes
      10. Is bias due to study's funding or sponsorship unlikely? Yes
    10. Is bias due to study's funding or sponsorship unlikely? Yes
      10.1. Were sources of funding and investigators' affiliations described? No
      10.1. Were sources of funding and investigators' affiliations described? No
      10.2. Was the study free from apparent conflict of interest? Yes
      10.2. Was the study free from apparent conflict of interest? Yes