Summary: Recent research has recognised new populations of non-hematopoïetic cells in the blood. One of these, circulating endothelial cells (CECs), often defined by the expression of membrane glycoprotein CD146, are rarely found in the blood in health, but raised numbers are present in a wide variety of human conditions, including inflammatory, immune, infectious, neoplastic and cardiovascular disease, and seem likely to be evidence of profound vascular insult. An additional population are endothelial progenitor cells, defined by the co-expression of endothelial and immaturity cell surface molecules and also by the ability to form colonies in vitro. Although increased numbers of CECs correlate with other markers of vascular disease, questions remain regarding the precise definition, cell biology and origin of CECs. For example, they may be damaged, necrotic or apopototic, or alive, and could possess procoagulant and/or proinflammatory properties. However, since these cells seem to be representative of in situ endothelium, their phenotype may provide useful information. Indeed, whatever their phenotype, there is growing evidence that CECs may well be a novel biomarker, the measurement of which will have utility in various clinical settings related to vascular injury. Despite this promise, progress is impeded by the diversity of methodologies used to detect these cells. Accordingly, results are sometimes inconclusive and even conflicting. Nevertheless, increased CECs predict adverse cardiovascular events in acute coronary syndromes, suggesting they may move from being simply a research index to having a role in the clinic. The objective of the present communication is to condense existing data on CECs, briefly compare them with progenitor cells, and summarise possible mechanism(s) by which they may contribute to vascular pathology.

Frailty, the state of increased vulnerability to physical stressors as a result of progressive and sustained degeneration in multiple physiological systems, is common in those with chronic kidney disease (CKD). In fact, the prevalence of frailty in the older adult population is reported to be 11%, whereas the prevalence of frailty has been reported to be greater than 60% in dialysis-dependent CKD patients. Frailty is independently linked with adverse clinical outcomes in all stages of CKD and has been repeatedly shown to be associated with an increased risk of mortality and hospitalization. In recent years there have been efforts to create an operationalized definition of frailty to aid its diagnosis and to categorize its severity. Two principal concepts are described, namely the Fried Phenotype Model of Physical Frailty and the Cumulative Deficit Model of Frailty. There is no agreement on which frailty assessment approach is superior, therefore, for the time being, emphasis should be placed on any efforts to identify frailty. Recognizing frailty should prompt a holistic assessment of the patient to address risk factors that may exacerbate its progression and to ensure that the patient has appropriate psychological and social support. Adequate nutritional intake is essential and individualized exercise programmes should be offered. The acknowledgement of frailty should prompt discussions that explore the future care wishes of these vulnerable patients. With further study, nephrologists may be able to use frailty assessments to inform discussions with patients about the initiation of renal replacement therapy.

Religious concerns may be an important reason why patients decline listing for a renal transplant. These issues may be equally, or even more, important when live donation is discussed. There is good reason to believe that religious concerns play a significant role much more often than clinicians and transplant teams believe. The issue is certainly further compounded by the fact that a few, if any, patients come forward with their religious concerns, not least because issue of transplantation is new to them anyway and because they meet with transplant teams whom they do not know. Health professionals, on the other hand, may wish to avoid this sensitive issue altogether or may lack knowledge on religious issues pertaining to transplantation. Some may be entirely unaware. We encountered a case in clinic that revealed our remarkable lack of knowledge in this regard. Here, we aim to provide an overview on how the different religions view transplantation and organ donation, with an emphasis on practical points for health care professionals who are involved in transplant listing, organ donation and retrieval, and transplantation itself. Knowledge of these facts may provide a background to deal with these issues professionally and appropriately and to increase transplant numbers.

Medicine has been enthusiastic in naming tests, symptoms, and diseases after their discoverers. Alexander Woywodt and Eric Matteson argue that eponyms are no longer appropriate, but Judith A Whitworth believes they remain a useful reflection of medical history