Negative symptoms are common in individuals at clinical high-risk (CHR) for psychosis and are associated with worse functional outcomes. Inflammation may be one mechanism underlying negative symptoms. Inflammatory markers are altered in individuals at CHR and are associated with negative symptoms in patients with schizophrenia. We thus hypothesized that baseline inflammatory markers would predict the development of negative symptoms in individuals at CHR for psychosis. Thirty seven individuals from the North American Prodromal Longitudinal Study who met CHR criteria were included in the study. Inflammatory cytokines, including interferon (IFN)-λ, Interleukin (IL)-1β, IL-1 receptor antagonist (IL-1RA), IL-4, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) were measured at baseline. Negative symptoms as measured by the Scale of Prodromal Symptoms, were measured at baseline and six and twelve months. Associations between inflammatory markers and the trajectory of negative symptoms (slope) over the first year of follow-up, were assessed using linear regression models controlling for age, sex, race and depressive symptom severity (as assessed by the Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia). Baseline TNF (beta = 0.361, p = 0.007) and IL-6 (beta = -0.306, p = 0.026) predicted negative symptoms slopes, along with depressive symptom severity at baseline (beta = -0.596, p = 0.000). These findings demonstrate that inflammatory cytokines may underlie the development of negative symptoms in some individuals at CHR for psychosis. TNF predicted the development of negative symptoms independent of baseline depression. Given the heterogeneity of the CHR population, the comorbidity of negative symptoms and depression in this population, and the particular challenges in treating negative symptoms, immune markers could represent potential biomarkers that underlie the development of negative symptoms, representing a potential treatment target.

A recently published nomenclature by a "Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes" (KDIGO) Consensus Conference suggested that the word "kidney" should be used in medical writings instead of "renal" or "nephro" when referring to kidney disease and kidney health. Whereas the decade-old move to use "kidney" more frequently should be supported when communicating with the public-at-large, such as the World Kidney Day, or in English speaking countries in communications with patients, care-partners, and non-medical persons, our point of view is that "renal" or "nephro" should not be removed from scientific and technical writings. Instead, the terms can coexist and be used in their relevant contexts. Cardiologists use "heart" and "cardio" as appropriate such as "heart failure" and "cardiac care units" and have not replaced "cardiovascular" with "heartvessel", for instance. Likewise, in nephrology, we consider that "chronic kidney disease" and "continuous renal replacement therapy" should coexist. We suggest that in scientific writings and technical communications, the words "renal" and "nephro" and their derivatives are more appropriate and should be freely used without any pressure by medical journals to compel patients, care-partners, healthcare providers, researchers and other stakeholders to change their selected words and terminologies. We call to embrace the terms "kidney", "renal" and "nephro" as they are used in different contexts and ask that scientific and medical journals not impose terminology restrictions for kidney disease and kidney health. The choice should be at the discretion of the authors, in the different contexts including in scientific journals.

Before the introduction of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) in 1989, repeated transfusions given to patients with end-stage renal disease caused iron overload, and the need for supplemental iron was rare. However, with the widespread introduction of ESAs, it was recognized that supplemental iron was necessary to optimize hemoglobin response and allow reduction of the ESA dose for economic reasons and recent concerns about ESA safety. Iron supplementation was also found to be more efficacious via intravenous compared to oral administration, and the use of intravenous iron has escalated in recent years. The safety of various iron compounds has been of theoretical concern due to their potential to induce iron overload, oxidative stress, hypersensitivity reactions, and a permissive environment for infectious processes. Therefore, an expert group was convened to assess the benefits and risks of parenteral iron, and to provide strategies for its optimal use while mitigating the risk for acute reactions and other adverse effects.