Electrolyte and acid-base disturbances are frequent in patients with end-stage liver disease; the underlying physiopathological mechanisms are often complex and represent a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge to the physician. Usually, these disorders do not develop in compensated cirrhotic patients, but with the onset of the classic complications of cirrhosis such as ascites, renal failure, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis and variceal bleeding, multiple electrolyte, and acid-base disturbances emerge. Hyponatremia parallels ascites formation and is a well-known trigger of hepatic encephalopathy; its management in this particular population poses a risky challenge due to the high susceptibility of cirrhotic patients to osmotic demyelination. Hypokalemia is common in the setting of cirrhosis: multiple potassium wasting mechanisms both inherent to the disease and resulting from its management make these patients particularly susceptible to potassium depletion even in the setting of normokalemia. Acid-base disturbances range from classical respiratory alkalosis to high anion gap metabolic acidosis, almost comprising the full acid-base spectrum. Because most electrolyte and acid-base disturbances are managed in terms of their underlying trigger factors, a systematic physiopathological approach to their diagnosis and treatment is required.

Lymphopenia and anti-Ro positivity are independent risk factors for renal TMA in SLE patients. This increased risk could be a consequence of the potential role of these factors in endothelial dysfunction and damage. Outcomes were similar for patients with the same estimated glomerular filtration rate and biopsy characteristics, regardless of the presence of TMA.

The addition of FOS to TMP-SMX was not beneficial for the prevention of UTI after RT in our setting. (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01820897).

Background Symptomatic urinary tract infection (UTI) is the most common infectious complication in renal transplant recipients (RTRs). Fosfomycin (FOS) is an attractive alternative for prophylaxis because it does not interact with immunosuppressants; although 90% is excreted unchanged in the urine, it does not require adjustment for renal function for single dose prophylaxis. Methods RTRs were recruited into this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Participants were randomized (1:1) to receive one 4 g dose of FOS disodium intravenously 3 h (FOS group) or placebo (placebo group) before placement and removal of a urinary catheter and before removal of a double-J ureteral stent. All participants received prophylaxis with trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole. The main outcome was a comparison of the mean number of symptomatic UTI and asymptomatic bacteriuria (AB) episodes per patient during a 7-week follow-up period. The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NTC03235947. Results Eighty-two participants were included (41 in the FOS group and 41 in placebo group). The mean number of AB or symptomatic UTI episodes per patient was lower in the FOS group [intention-to-treat (ITT) 0.29 versus 0.60, P = 0.04]. The incidence of symptomatic UTI was lower in the FOS group (ITT, 7.3% versus 36.6%, P = 0.001), and there was no difference in the incidence of AB between both groups. The incidence of adverse events was similar in both groups. Conclusions FOS addition is an effective and safe strategy to reduce the number of symptomatic UTIs during the first 7 weeks after renal transplant.

Background: There is no specific antiviral treatment for parvovirus B19 (PVB19) infection. Objective: The objective of this study was to study the treatment and outcome of PVB19 infection in kidney transplant recipients (KTR) at our institution, and cases published in the medical literature. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of PVB19 infection in KTR at an academic medical center over a 16-year period and summarized the data on its treatment and outcome in 120 KTR in the medical literature. Results: In our cohort of eight patients, the median time to the onset of PVB19 disease was 7.2 weeks after transplantation. All patients had severe aregenerative anemia (mean hemoglobin (Hb) of 6.2 ± 1.0 g/dl); all were treated with a reduction in their immunosuppressive regimen and the administration of single-dose intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) (mean total dosage of 0.87 ± 0.38 g/kg). The median time to anemia improvement (Hb >10 g/dl) was 3-week post-treatment. No recurrences were documented during follow-up (median 25 months). Among 128 patients (including our cohort of 8 and 120 reported in literature), therapeutic strategies included: 43% IVIG alone, 39% IVIG and reduced immunosuppression, 9% reduction of immunosuppression, and 9% conservative therapy. Clinical relapses were observed in 35% of 71 reported cases. Conclusions: In KTR, decreasing immunosuppression and the administration of low-dose immunoglobulin seem to be not worse than the standard dose in PVB19 infection.