Case report: State-of-the-art risk-modifying treatment of sudden cardiac death in an asymptomatic patient with a mutation in the SCN5A gene and a review of the literature.

Brugada syndrome is a rare hereditary disorder characterized by distinct ECG findings, complex genetics, and a high risk of sudden cardiac death. Recognition of the syndrome is crucial as it represents a paradigm of sudden death tragedy in individuals at the peak of their lives. Notably, Brugada syndrome accounts for more than 20% of sudden cardiac deaths in individuals with structurally normal hearts. Although this syndrome follows an autosomal dominant inheritance pattern, it is more prevalent and severe in males. Diagnosis is primarily based on the characteristic ECG pattern observed in the right precordial leads. Mutations in the SCN5A gene, resulting in loss of function, are the most common genetic cause. We presented a 36-year-old proband with a family history of sudden cardiac death. Although the patient was asymptomatic for Brugada syndrome, his father had experienced sudden death at the age of 36. The proband was admitted to St. Catherine's Specialty Hospital where blood was taken and subjected to next-generation sequencing (NGS) using a "Sudden cardiac death" panel. The analysis identified a pathogenic variant in the SCN5A gene [c.4222G > A(p.Gly1408Arg)], which is associated with autosomal dominant Brugada syndrome. Based on the positive genetic test result, the patient was referred for further examination. ECG with modified precordial lead positioning confirmed the presence of the Brugada phenotype, displaying the type-2 and type-1 ECG patterns. Therefore, we made the diagnosis and decided to implant an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) based on the results of broad genetic NGS testing, diagnostic criteria (ECG), and considering the high burden of sudden cardiac death in the patient's family, as well as his concerns that limited his everyday activities. This case shows that genetics and personalized medicine hold immense potential in the primary prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of Brugada syndrome and sudden cardiac death.

Mesenchymal Stem Cell Mechanisms of Action and Clinical Effects in Osteoarthritis: A Narrative Review.

With the insufficient satisfaction rates and high cost of operative treatment for osteoarthritis (OA), alternatives have been sought. Furthermore, the inability of current medications to arrest disease progression has led to rapidly growing clinical research relating to mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs). The availability and function of MSCs vary according to tissue source. The three primary sources include the placenta, bone marrow, and adipose tissue, all of which offer excellent safety profiles. The primary mechanisms of action are trophic and immunomodulatory effects, which prevent the further degradation of joints. However, the function and degree to which benefits are observed vary significantly based on the exosomes secreted by MSCs. Paracrine and autocrine mechanisms prevent cell apoptosis and tissue fibrosis, initiate angiogenesis, and stimulate mitosis via growth factors. MSCs have even been shown to exhibit antimicrobial effects. Clinical results incorporating clinical scores and objective radiological imaging have been promising, but a lack of standardization in isolating MSCs prevents their incorporation in current guidelines.

Experience with comprehensive pharmacogenomic multi-gene panel in clinical practice: a retrospective single-center study.

AIM: To assess the prevalence of actionable pharmacogenetic interventions in patients who underwent pharmacogenetic testing with a multi-gene panel. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed single-center electronic health records. A total of 319 patients were enrolled who underwent pharmacogenomic testing with the RightMed test panel using TaqMan quantitative real-time PCR method and copy number variation analysis to determine the SNPs in the 27 target genes. RESULTS: Actionable drug-gene pairs were found in 235 (73.7%) patients. Relevant guidelines on genotype-based prescribing were available for 133 (56.7%) patients at the time of testing. Based on the patients' genotype, 139 (43.6%) patients were using at least one drug with significant pharmacogenetic interactions. CONCLUSION: Two out of three patients had at least one drug-gene pair in their therapy. Further studies should assess the clinical effectiveness of integrating pharmacogenomic data into patients' electronic health records.

Adaptive Immune Responses and Immunity to SARS-CoV-2.

Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the medical field has been forced to apply the basic knowledge of immunology with the most up-to-date SARS-CoV-2 findings and translate it to the population of the whole world in record time. Following the infection with the viral antigen, adaptive immune responses are activated mainly by viral particle encounters with the antigen-presenting cells or B cell receptors, which induce further biological interactions to defend the host against the virus. After the infection has been warded off, the immunological memory is developed. The SARS-CoV cellular immunity has been shown to persist even 17 years after the infection, despite the undetectable humoral component. Similar has been demonstrated for the SARS-CoV-2 T cell memory in a shorter period by assessing interferon-gamma levels when heparinized blood is stimulated with the virus-specific peptides. T cells also play an irreplaceable part in a humoral immune reaction as the backbone of a cellular immune response. They both provide the signals for B cell activation and the maturation, competence, and memory of the humoral response. B cell production of IgA was shown to be of significant influence in mediating mucosal immunity as the first part of the defense mechanism and in the development of nasal vaccines. Here, we interpret the recent SARS-CoV-2 available research, which encompasses the significance and the current understanding of adaptive immune activity, and compare it among naive, exposed, and vaccinated blood donors. Our recent data showed that those who recovered from COVID-19 and those who are vaccinated with EMA-approved vaccines had a long-lasting cellular immunity. Additionally, we analyze the humoral responses in immunocompromised patients and memory mediated by cellular immunity and the impact of clonality in the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic regarding breakthrough infections and variants of concern, both B.1.617.2 (Delta) and B.1.1.529 (Omicron) variants.

Cellular Immunity-The Key to Long-Term Protection in Individuals Recovered from SARS-CoV-2 and after Vaccination.

Previous clinical and epidemiological studies have shown that over time antibody titers decrease, and they do not provide long-term mucosa protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection. Additionally, the increase in breakthrough infections that occur more frequently in the vaccinated than in the study participants with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection has recently become a priority public health concern. We measured the amount of interferon-gamma (Quan-T-Cell ELISA) and the level of antibodies (Anti-SARS-CoV-2 QuantiVac ELISA IgG) in the blood of the same patients simultaneously to compare cellular and humoral immunity. A total of 200 study participants (before Omicron variant appearance) were divided into four groups whose levels of cellular and humoral immunity we compared: study participants previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 (group 1); study participants vaccinated with EMA-approved vaccines (group 2); study participants previously infected with SARS-CoV-2, and vaccination history (group 3); and study participants without a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination (group 4). Our results showed that study participants who received one of the EMA-approved vaccines and who recovered from COVID-19 (group 3) had significantly higher levels of cellular immunity and antibody titers in comparison with groups 1 and 2. Additionally, we have noticed that the study participants previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and the study participants vaccinated with EMA-approved vaccines had a long-lasting cellular immunity. Furthermore, antibody levels showed a negative correlation with time since the last contact with a viral antigen, while cellular immunity within 20 months showed as long-term protection. Moreover, out of 200 study participants, only 1 study participant who recovered from COVID-19 (0.5%) was re-infected, while a total of 6 study participants (3%) were infected with SARS-CoV-2 after receiving the vaccine. This study suggests that cellular immunity-unlike humoral immunity, thanks to memory T cells-represents long-term protection in individuals recovered from SARS-CoV-2 and after vaccination.