Recent Advances in Health Biotechnology During Pandemic

The outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which emerged in 2019, cut the epoch that will make profound fluctuates in the history of the world in social, economic, and scientific fields. Urgent needs in public health have brought with them innovative approaches, including diagnosis, prevention, and treatment. To exceed the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, various scientific authorities in the world have procreated advances in real time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) based diagnostic tests, rapid diagnostic kits, the development of vaccines for immunization, and the purposing pharmaceuticals for treatment. Diagnosis, treatment, and immunization approaches put for- ward by scientific communities are cross-fed from the accrued knowledge of multidisciplinary sciences in health biotechnology. So much so that the pandemic, urgently prioritized in the world, is not only viral infections but also has been the pulsion in the development of novel approaches in many fields such as diagnosis, treatment, translational medicine, virology, mi- crobiology, immunology, functional nano- and bio-materials, bioinformatics, molecular biol- ogy, genetics, tissue engineering, biomedical devices, and artificial intelligence technologies. In this review, the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the development of various scientific areas of health biotechnology are discussed

Enhanced Efficacy of Resveratrol Loaded Silver Nanoparticle in Attenuating Sepsis-Induced Acute Liver Injury: Modulation of Inflammation, Oxidative Stress, and SIRT1 Activation.

Sepsis-induced acute liver injury is a life-threatening condition involving inflammation, oxidative stress, and endothelial dysfunction. In the present study, the preventive effects of resveratrol (RV) alone and RV-loaded silver nanoparticles (AgNPs + RV) against sepsis-induced damage were investigated and compared in a rat model of polymicrobial sepsis induced by cecal ligation and puncture (CLP). Rats were divided into four groups: Sham, CLP, RV, and AgNPs + RV. Pro-inflammatory cytokines (TNF-alpha, IL-1 beta, IL-6), nuclear factor kappa-light-chain-enhancer of activated B cells (NF-kappa B) activation, presepsin, procalcitonin (PCT), 8-hydroxy-2 '-deoxyguanosine (8-OHDG), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), and sirtuin-1 (SIRT1) levels were assessed to determine the treatments' effects. AgNPs + RV treatment significantly reduced pro-inflammatory cytokines, NF-kappa B activation, presepsin, PCT, 8-OHDG, and VEGF levels compared with the CLP group, indicating attenuation of sepsis-induced liver injury. Both RV and AgNPs + RV treatments increased SIRT1 levels, suggesting a potential role of SIRT1 activation in mediating the protective effects. In conclusion, AgNPs + RV treatment demonstrated extremely enhanced efficacy in alleviating sepsis-induced liver injury by modulating inflammation, oxidative stress, and endothelial dysfunction, potentially mediated through SIRT1 activation. In this study, the effect of AgNPs + RV on sepsis was evaluated for the first time, and these findings highlight AgNPs + RV as a promising therapeutic strategy for managing sepsis-induced liver injury, warranting further investigation

Prognostic significance of medical therapy in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

Aims: The use of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) among patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) remains suboptimal. The SMYRNA study aims to identify the clinical factors for the non-use of GDMT and to determine the prognostic significance of GDMT in patients with HFrEF in a real-life setting. Methods and results: The SMYRNA study is a prospective, multicentre, and observational study that included outpatients with HFrEF. Patients were divided into three groups according to the status of GDMT at the time of enrolment: (i) patients receiving all classes of HF medications including renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors, beta-blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs); (ii) patients receiving any two classes of HF medications (RAS inhibitors and beta-blockers, or RAS inhibitors and MRAs, or beta-blockers and MRAs); and (iii) either patients receiving class of HF medications (only one therapy) or patients not receiving any class of HF medications. The primary outcome was a composite of hospitalization for HF or cardiovascular death. The study population consisted of 1062 patients with HFrEF, predominantly men (69.1%), with a median age of 68 (range: 20–96) years. RAS inhibitors, beta-blockers, and MRAs were prescribed in 76.0%, 89.4%, and 55.1% of the patients, respectively. The proportions of patients receiving target doses of guideline-directed medications were 24.4% for RAS inhibitors, 11.0% for beta-blockers, and 11.1% for MRAs. Overall, 491 patients (46.2%) were treated with triple therapy, 353 patients (33.2%) were treated with any two classes of HF medications, and 218 patients (20.6%) were receiving only one class of HF medication or not receiving any HF medication. Patient-related factors comprising older age, New York Heart Association functional class, rural living, presence of hypertension, and history of myocardial infarction were independently associated with the use or non-use of GDMT. During the median 24-month period, the primary composite endpoint occurred in 362 patients (34.1%), and 177 of 1062 (16.7%) patients died. Patients treated with two or three classes of HF medications had a decreased risk of hospitalization for HF or cardiovascular death compared with those patients receiving ≤1 class of HF medication [hazard ratio (HR): 0.65; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.49–0.85; P = 0.002, and HR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.47–0.79; P < 0.001, respectively]. Conclusions: The real-life SMYRNA study provided comprehensive data about the clinical factors associated with the non-use of GDMT and showed that suboptimal GDMT is associated with an increased risk of hospitalization for HF or cardiovascular death in patients with HFrEF

Adherence to guideline-directed medical and device Therapy in outpAtients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: The ATA study

Objective: Despite recommendations from heart failure guidelines on the use of pharmacologic and device therapy in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), important inconsistencies in guideline adherence persist in practice. The aim of this study was to assess adherence to guideline-directed medical and device therapy for the treatment of patients with chronic HFrEF (left ventricular ejection fraction ?40%). Methods: The Adherence to guideline-directed medical and device Therapy in outpAtients with HFrEF (ATA) study is a prospective, multicenter, observational study conducted in 24 centers from January 2019 to June 2019. Results: The study included 1462 outpatients (male: 70.1%, mean age: 67±11 years, mean LVEF: 30%±6%) with chronic HFrEF. Renin–angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors, beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), and ivabradin were used in 78.2%, 90.2%, 55.4%, and 12.1% of patients, respectively. The proportion of patients receiving target doses of medical treatments was 24.6% for RAS inhibitors, 9.9% for beta-blockers, and 10.5% for MRAs. Among patients who met the criteria for implantable cardioverter–defibrillator (ICD) and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), only 16.9% of patients received an ICD (167 of 983) and 34% (95 of 279) of patients underwent CRT (95 of 279). Conclusion: The ATA study shows that most HFrEF outpatients receive RAS inhibitors and beta-blockers but not MRAs or ivabradin when the medical reasons for nonuse, such as drug intolerance or contraindications, are taken into account. In addition, most eligible patients with HFrEF do not receive target doses of pharmacological treatments or guideline-recommended device therapy. (Anatol J Cardiol 2020; 24: 32-40) Keywords: adherence, chronic heart failure, device therapy, guidelines, pharmacological treatment, outpatient

Adherence to guideline-directed medical and device Therapy in outpAtients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: the ATA study

Objective: Despite recommendations from heart failure guidelines on the use of pharmacologic and device therapy in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), important inconsistencies in guideline adherence persist in practice. The aim of this study was to assess ad-herence to guideline-directed medical and device therapy for the treatment of patients with chronic HFrEF (left ventricular ejection fraction ?40%).Methods: The Adherence to guideline-directed medical and device Therapy in outpAtients with HFrEF (ATA) study is a prospective, multicenter, observational study conducted in 24 centers from January 2019 to June 2019.Results: The study included 1462 outpatients (male: 70.1%, mean age: 67±11 years, mean LVEF: 30%±6%) with chronic HFrEF. Renin–angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors, beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), and ivabradin were used in 78.2%, 90.2%, 55.4%, and 12.1% of patients, respectively. The proportion of patients receiving target doses of medical treatments was 24.6% for RAS inhibitors, 9.9% for beta-blockers, and 10.5% for MRAs. Among patients who met the criteria for implantable cardioverter–defibrillator (ICD) and cardiac resynchro-nization therapy (CRT), only 16.9% of patients received an ICD (167 of 983) and 34% (95 of 279) of patients underwent CRT (95 of 279).Conclusion: The ATA study shows that most HFrEF outpatients receive RAS inhibitors and beta-blockers but not MRAs or ivabradin when the medical reasons for nonuse, such as drug intolerance or contraindications, are taken into account. In addition, most eligible patients with HFrEF do not receive target doses of pharmacological treatments or guideline-recommended device therapy. (Anatol J Cardiol 2020; 24: 32-40