The epidemiology of renal replacement therapy in two different parts of the worldThe Latin American Dialysis and Transplant Registry versus the European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association Registry

Publisher Copyright: © 2018 Pan American Health Organization. All rights reserved.Objective: To compare the epidemiology of renal replacement therapy (RRT) for end-stage renal disease (ESRD) in Latin America and Europe, as well as to study differences in macro-economic indicators, demographic and clinical patient characteristics, mortality rates, and causes of death between these two populations. Methods: We used data from 20 Latin American and 49 European national and subnational renal registries that had provided data to the Latin American Dialysis and Renal Transplant Registry (RLADTR) and the European Renal Association-European Dialysis and Transplant Association (ERA-EDTA) Registry, respectively. The incidence and prevalence of RRT in 2013 were calculated per million population (pmp), overall and by subcategories of age, sex, primary renal disease, and treatment modality. The correlation between gross domestic product and the prevalence of RRT was analyzed using linear regression. Trends in the prevalence of RRT between 2004 and 2013 were assessed using Joinpoint regression analysis. Results: In 2013, the overall incidence at day 91 after the onset of RRT was 181 pmp for Latin American countries and 130 pmp for European countries. The overall prevalence was 660 pmp for Latin America and 782 pmp for Europe. In the Latin American countries, the annual increase in the prevalence averaged 4.0% (95% confdence interval (CI): 2.5%-5.6%) from 2004 to 2013, while the European countries showed an average annual increase of 2.2% (95% CI: 2.0%-2.4%) for the same time period. The crude mortality rate was higher in Latin America than in Europe (112 versus 100 deaths per 1 000 patient-years), and cardiovascular disease was the main cause of death in both of those regions. Conclusions. There are considerable differences between Latin America and Europe in the epidemiology of RRT for ESRD. Further research is needed to explore the reasons for these differences.Peer reviewe

PREDICT identifies precipitating events associated with the clinical course of acutely decompensated cirrhosis

Background & Aims: Acute decompensation (AD) of cirrhosis may present without acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) (ADNo ACLF), or with ACLF (AD-ACLF), defined by organ failure(s). Herein, we aimed to analyze and characterize the precipitants leading to both of these AD phenotypes. Methods: The multicenter, prospective, observational PREDICT study (NCT03056612) included 1,273 non-electively hospitalized patients with AD (No ACLF = 1,071; ACLF = 202). Medical history, clinical data and laboratory data were collected at enrolment and during 90-day follow-up, with particular attention given to the following characteristics of precipitants: induction of organ dysfunction or failure, systemic inflammation, chronology, intensity, and relationship to outcome. Results: Among various clinical events, 4 distinct events were precipitants consistently related to AD: proven bacterial infections, severe alcoholic hepatitis, gastrointestinal bleeding with shock and toxic encephalopathy. Among patients with precipitants in the AD-No ACLF cohort and the AD-ACLF cohort (38% and 71%, respectively), almost all (96% and 97%, respectively) showed proven bacterial infection and severe alcoholic hepatitis, either alone or in combination with other events. Survival was similar in patients with proven bacterial infections or severe alcoholic hepatitis in both AD phenotypes. The number of precipitants was associated with significantly increased 90day mortality and was paralleled by increasing levels of surrogates for systemic inflammation. Importantly, adequate first-line antibiotic treatment of proven bacterial infections was associated with a lower ACLF development rate and lower 90-day mortality. Conclusions: This study identified precipitants that are significantly associated with a distinct clinical course and prognosis in patients with AD. Specific preventive and therapeutic strategies targeting these events may improve outcomes in patients with decompensated cirrhosis. Lay summary: Acute decompensation (AD) of cirrhosis is characterized by a rapid deterioration in patient health. Herein, we aimed to analyze the precipitating events that cause AD in patients with cirrhosis. Proven bacterial infections and severe alcoholic hepatitis, either alone or in combination, accounted for almost all (96-97%) cases of AD and acute-on-chronic liver failure. Whilst the type of precipitant was not associated with mortality, the number of precipitant(s) was. This study identified precipitants that are significantly associated with a distinct clinical course and prognosis of patients with AD. Specific preventive and therapeutic strategies targeting these events may improve patient outcomes. (c) 2020 European Association for the Study of the Liver. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

PREDICT identifies precipitating events associated with the clinical course of acutely decompensated cirrhosis

Altres ajuts: European Foundation for the Study of Chronic Liver Failure (EF-Clif).Background & Aims: Acute decompensation (AD) of cirrhosis may present without acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) (AD-No ACLF), or with ACLF (AD-ACLF), defined by organ failure(s). Herein, we aimed to analyze and characterize the precipitants leading to both of these AD phenotypes. Methods: The multicenter, prospective, observational PREDICT study (NCT03056612) included 1,273 non-electively hospitalized patients with AD (No ACLF = 1,071; ACLF = 202). Medical history, clinical data and laboratory data were collected at enrolment and during 90-day follow-up, with particular attention given to the following characteristics of precipitants: induction of organ dysfunction or failure, systemic inflammation, chronology, intensity, and relationship to outcome. Results: Among various clinical events, 4 distinct events were precipitants consistently related to AD: proven bacterial infections, severe alcoholic hepatitis, gastrointestinal bleeding with shock and toxic encephalopathy. Among patients with precipitants in the AD-No ACLF cohort and the AD-ACLF cohort (38% and 71%, respectively), almost all (96% and 97%, respectively) showed proven bacterial infection and severe alcoholic hepatitis, either alone or in combination with other events. Survival was similar in patients with proven bacterial infections or severe alcoholic hepatitis in both AD phenotypes. The number of precipitants was associated with significantly increased 90-day mortality and was paralleled by increasing levels of surrogates for systemic inflammation. Importantly, adequate first-line antibiotic treatment of proven bacterial infections was associated with a lower ACLF development rate and lower 90-day mortality. Conclusions: This study identified precipitants that are significantly associated with a distinct clinical course and prognosis in patients with AD. Specific preventive and therapeutic strategies targeting these events may improve outcomes in patients with decompensated cirrhosis. Lay summary: Acute decompensation (AD) of cirrhosis is characterized by a rapid deterioration in patient health. Herein, we aimed to analyze the precipitating events that cause AD in patients with cirrhosis. Proven bacterial infections and severe alcoholic hepatitis, either alone or in combination, accounted for almost all (96-97%) cases of AD and acute-on-chronic liver failure. Whilst the type of precipitant was not associated with mortality, the number of precipitant(s) was. This study identified precipitants that are significantly associated with a distinct clinical course and prognosis of patients with AD. Specific preventive and therapeutic strategies targeting these events may improve patient outcomes

PREDICT identifies precipitating events associated with the clinical course of acutely decompensated cirrhosis

Background & Aims: Acute decompensation (AD) of cirrhosis may present without acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) (ADNo ACLF), or with ACLF (AD-ACLF), defined by organ failure(s). Herein, we aimed to analyze and characterize the precipitants leading to both of these AD phenotypes. Methods: The multicenter, prospective, observational PREDICT study (NCT03056612) included 1,273 non-electively hospitalized patients with AD (No ACLF = 1,071; ACLF = 202). Medical history, clinical data and laboratory data were collected at enrolment and during 90-day follow-up, with particular attention given to the following characteristics of precipitants: induction of organ dysfunction or failure, systemic inflammation, chronology, intensity, and relationship to outcome. Results: Among various clinical events, 4 distinct events were precipitants consistently related to AD: proven bacterial infections, severe alcoholic hepatitis, gastrointestinal bleeding with shock and toxic encephalopathy. Among patients with precipitants in the AD-No ACLF cohort and the AD-ACLF cohort (38% and 71%, respectively), almost all (96% and 97%, respectively) showed proven bacterial infection and severe alcoholic hepatitis, either alone or in combination with other events. Survival was similar in patients with proven bacterial infections or severe alcoholic hepatitis in both AD phenotypes. The number of precipitants was associated with significantly increased 90day mortality and was paralleled by increasing levels of surrogates for systemic inflammation. Importantly, adequate first-line antibiotic treatment of proven bacterial infections was associated with a lower ACLF development rate and lower 90-day mortality. Conclusions: This study identified precipitants that are significantly associated with a distinct clinical course and prognosis in patients with AD. Specific preventive and therapeutic strategies targeting these events may improve outcomes in patients with decompensated cirrhosis. Lay summary: Acute decompensation (AD) of cirrhosis is characterized by a rapid deterioration in patient health. Herein, we aimed to analyze the precipitating events that cause AD in patients with cirrhosis. Proven bacterial infections and severe alcoholic hepatitis, either alone or in combination, accounted for almost all (96-97%) cases of AD and acute-on-chronic liver failure. Whilst the type of precipitant was not associated with mortality, the number of precipitant(s) was. This study identified precipitants that are significantly associated with a distinct clinical course and prognosis of patients with AD. Specific preventive and therapeutic strategies targeting these events may improve patient outcomes. (c) 2020 European Association for the Study of the Liver. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).Cellular mechanisms in basic and clinical gastroenterology and hepatolog

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field