Cardiac Dysfunction, Congestion and Loop Diuretics: their Relationship to Prognosis in Heart Failure

Background: Diuretics are the mainstay of treatment for congestion but concerns exist that they adversely affect prognosis. We explored whether the relationship between loop diuretic use and outcome is explained by the underlying severity of congestion amongst patients referred with suspected heart failure. Method and Results: Of 1190 patients, 712 had a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤50 %, 267 had LVEF >50 % with raised plasma NTproBNP (>400 ng/L) and 211 had LVEF >50 % with NTproBNP ≤400 ng/L; respectively, 72 %, 68 % and 37 % of these groups were treated with loop diuretics including 28 %, 29 % and 10 % in doses ≥80 mg furosemide equivalent/day. Compared to patients with cardiac dysfunction (either LVEF ≤50 % or NT-proBNP >400 ng/L) but not taking a loop diuretic, those taking a loop diuretic were older and had more clinical evidence of congestion, renal dysfunction, anaemia and hyponatraemia. During a median follow-up of 934 (IQR: 513–1425) days, 450 patients were hospitalized for HF or died. Patients prescribed loop diuretics had a worse outcome. However, in multi-variable models, clinical, echocardiographic (inferior vena cava diameter), and biochemical (NTproBNP) measures of congestion were strongly associated with an adverse outcome but not the use, or dose, of loop diuretics. Conclusions: Prescription of loop diuretics identifies patients with more advanced features of heart failure and congestion, which may account for their worse prognosis. Further research is needed to clarify the relationship between loop diuretic agents and outcome; imaging and biochemical measures of congestion might be better guides to diuretic dose than symptoms or clinical signs

Toxic equivalency factors (TEFs) for PCBs, PCDDs, PCDFs for humans and wildlife.

An expert meeting was organized by the World Health Organization (WHO) and held in Stockholm on 15-18 June 1997. The objective of this meeting was to derive consensus toxic equivalency factors (TEFs) for polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs) and dibenzofurans (PCDFs) and dioxinlike polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) for both human, fish, and wildlife risk assessment. Based on existing literature data, TEFs were (re)evaluated and either revised (mammals) or established (fish and birds). A few mammalian WHO-TEFs were revised, including 1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorinated DD, octachlorinated DD, octachlorinated DF, and PCB 77. These mammalian TEFs are also considered applicable for humans and wild mammalian species. Furthermore, it was concluded that there was insufficient in vivo evidence to continue the use of TEFs for some di-ortho PCBs, as suggested earlier by Ahlborg et al. [Chemosphere 28:1049-1067 (1994)]. In addition, TEFs for fish and birds were determined. The WHO working group attempted to harmonize TEFs across different taxa to the extent possible. However, total synchronization of TEFs was not feasible, as there were orders of a magnitude difference in TEFs between taxa for some compounds. In this respect, the absent or very low response of fish to mono-ortho PCBs is most noticeable compared to mammals and birds. Uncertainties that could compromise the TEF concept were also reviewed, including nonadditive interactions, differences in shape of the dose-response curve, and species responsiveness. In spite of these uncertainties, it was concluded that the TEF concept is still the most plausible and feasible approach for risk assessment of halogenated aromatic hydrocarbons with dioxinlike properties

Deliverable 2.1 - Report describing cumulative assessment groups for a broad range of chemicals, based on information extracted from (literature) databases

This report describes chemical substances relevant for the EuroMix Project; that is pesticide and non‐pesticide chemicals which can be grouped into cumulative assessment groups (CAGs) for consideration in cumulative risk assessment (CRA). The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has previously published an Opinion describing the approach to be followed for grouping pesticides into CAGs based on their toxicological profile. The present report takes into consideration the EFSA Opinion for pesticides and introduces a similar strategy to be considered for grouping of non‐pesticide chemicals into CAGs. For this purpose, a broad list of chemical substances was compiled into a Chemical Inventory (CI). So far, the CI contains approximately 1000 substances of different chemical categories