Protein-energy wasting (PEW) is common in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality, and lower quality of life. It is a complex syndrome, in which inflammation and retention of uremic toxins are two main factors. Causes of inflammation and uremic toxin retention in CKD are multiple; however, gut dysbiosis plays an important role, serving as a link between those entities and PEW. Besides, there are several pathways by which microbiota may influence PEW, e.g., through effects on appetite mediated by microbiota-derived proteins and hormonal changes, or by impacting skeletal muscle via a gut-muscle axis. Hence, microbiota disturbances may influence PEW independently of its relationship with local and systemic inflammation. A better understanding of the complex interrelationships between microbiota and the host may help to explain how changes in the gut affect distant organs and systems of the body and could potentially lead to the development of new strategies targeting the microbiota to improve nutrition and clinical outcomes in CKD patients. In this review, we describe possible interactions of gut microbiota with nutrient metabolism, energy balance, hunger/satiety signals and muscle depletion, all of which are strongly related to PEW in CKD patients. Graphical abstract

Objective To describe mortality of in-hospital patients with COVID-19 and compare risk factors between survivors and non-survivors. Design Prospective cohort of adult inpatients. Setting Tertiary healthcare teaching hospital in Guadalajara, Mexico. Participants All patients with confirmed COVID-19 hospitalised from 25 March to 7 September 2020 were included. End of study: 7 November 2020. Primary outcome measures Patient survival analysed by the Kaplan-Meier method and comparison of factors by the log-rank test. Mortality risk factors analysed by multivariate Cox’s proportional-hazard model. Results One thousand ten patients included: 386 (38%) died, 618 (61%) alive at discharge and six (0.6%) remained hospitalised. There was predominance of men (63%) and high frequency of overweight–obesity (71%); hypertension (54%); diabetes (40%); and lung (9%), cardiovascular (8%) and kidney diseases (11%); all of them significantly more frequent in non-survivors. Overweight–obesity was not different between groups, but severity of disease (Manchester Triage System and quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment) was significantly worse in non-survivors, who were also significantly older (65 vs 45 years, respectively) and had haematological, biochemical, coagulation and inflammatory biomarkers more altered than survivors. Mortality predictors were invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV; OR 3.31, p<0.0001), admission to intensive care unit (ICU; OR 2.18, p<0.0001), age (OR 1.02, p<0.0001), Manchester Triage System (urgent OR 1.44, p=0.02; immediate/very urgent OR 2.02, p=0.004), baseline C reactive protein (CRP; OR 1.002, p=0.009) and antecedent of kidney disease (OR 1.58, p=0.04) Conclusions Mortality in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 in this emerging country centre seemed to be higher than in developed countries. Patients displayed a high frequency of risk factors for poor outcome, but the need for IMV, ICU admission, older age, more severe disease at admission, antecedent of kidney disease and higher CRP levels significantly predicted mortality.

Background: Globally, over 1.2 million people die from chronic kidney disease (CKD) every year. Patients with CKD are up to 10 times more likely to die prematurely than progress to kidney failure requiring kidney replacement therapy. The burden of symptoms and impaired quality of life in CKD may be compounded by comorbidities and treatment side effects. However, patient-important outcomes remain inconsistently and infrequently reported in trials in patients with CKD, which can limit evidence-informed decision-making. The Standardised Outcomes in Nephrology – Chronic Kidney Disease (SONG-CKD) aims to establish a consensus-based core outcome set for trials in patients with CKD not yet requiring kidney replacement therapy to ensure outcomes of relevance to patients, caregivers and health professionals are consistently reported in trials. Methods: SONG-CKD involves four phases: a systematic review to identify outcomes (domains and measures) that have been reported in randomised controlled trials involving adults with CKD who do not require kidney replacement therapy; stakeholder key informant interviews with health professionals involved in the care of adults with CKD to ascertain their views on establishing core outcomes in CKD; an international two-round online Delphi survey with patients, caregivers, clinicians, researchers, policy makers and industry representatives to obtain consensus on critically important outcome domains; and stakeholder consensus workshops to review and finalise the set of core outcome domains for trials in CKD. Discussion: Establishing a core outcome set to be reported in trials in patients with CKD will enhance the relevance, transparency and impact of research to improve the lives of people with CKD. Trial registration: Not applicable. This study is registered with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database: http://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1653.

Our objective was to assess the efficiency of treatments in patients with localized prostate cancer, by synthesizing available evidence from European economic evaluations through systematic review. Articles published 2000–2015 were searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE and NHS EED (Prospero protocol CRD42015022063). Two authors independently selected studies for inclusion and extracted the data. A third reviewer resolved discrepancies. We included European economic evaluations or cost comparison studies, of any modality of surgery or radiotherapy treatments, regardless the comparator/s. Drummond’s Checklist was used for quality assessment. After reviewing 8,789 titles, 13 European eligible studies were included: eight cost-utility, two cost-effectiveness, one cost-minimization, and two cost-comparison analyses. Of them, five compared interventions with expectant management, four contrasted robotic with non robotic-assisted surgery, three assessed new modalities of radiotherapy, and three compared radical prostatectomy with brachytherapy. All but two studies scored ≥8 in the quality checklist. Considering scenario and comparator, three interventions were qualified as dominant strategies (active surveillance, robotic-assisted surgery and IMRT), and six were cost-effective (radical prostatectomy, robotic-assisted surgery, IMRT, proton therapy, brachytherapy, and 3DCRT). However, QALY gains in most of them were small. For interventions considered as dominant strategies, QALY gain was 0.013 for active surveillance over radical prostatectomy; and 0.007 for robotic-assisted over non-robotic techniques. The highest QALY gains were 0.57–0.86 for radical prostatectomy vs watchful waiting, and 0.72 for brachytherapy vs conventional radiotherapy. Currently, relevant treatment alternatives for localized prostate cancer are scarcely evaluated in Europe. Very limited available evidence supports the cost-effectiveness of radical prostatectomy over watchful waiting, brachytherapy over radical prostatectomy, and new treatment modalities over traditional procedures. Relevant disparities were detected among studies, mainly based on effectiveness. These apparently contradictory results may be reflecting the difficulty of interpreting small differences between treatments regarding QALY gains.