Background: The introduction of immunotherapy in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) has resulted in a radical change in patients’ treatment responses and survival rates. The increased percentage of long survivors, improved toxicity profiles compared to chemotherapy, and the possible applications for different NSCLC scenarios, have led to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) becoming the cornerstone of NSCLC treatment. Therefore, the objective of this review is to describe the current and future perspectives of NSCLC treatment. Methods: A systematic review according to the PRISMA criteria has been performed based on clinical trials with immunotherapy in NSCLC from the start of these treatments until June 2022. Results: The use of ICIs is widespread across both first- and second-line treatments with anti-PD-1, anti-PD-L1, and anti-CTLA-4 drugs. New indications for immunotherapy in NSCLC have focused on adjuvant (atezolizumab) and neoadjuvant (nivolumab), with ICIs now present in all stages of NSCLC treatment. Given the promising results seen in clinical trials, new ICIs [anti- lymphocyte activation gene-3 (LAG-3) or IDO1] currently under development, will soon be used as standard treatment for NSCLC. Conclusions: Immunotherapy is the mainstay of NSCLC treatment in all stages, including adjuvant, neoadjuvant and advanced tumors. The development of new molecules will revolutionize the treatment of NSCLC in the coming years.

Pneumonia is the leading cause of hospital admission and mortality in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We aimed to identify the cytokines responsible for lung damage and mortality. We prospectively recruited 108 COVID-19 patients between March and April 2020 and divided them into four groups according to the severity of respiratory symptoms. Twenty-eight healthy volunteers were used for normalization of the results. Multiple cytokines showed statistically significant differences between mild and critical patients. High HGF levels were associated with the critical group (OR = 3.51; p < 0.001; 95%CI = 1.95–6.33). Moreover, high IL-1α (OR = 1.36; p = 0.01; 95%CI = 1.07–1.73) and low IL-27 (OR = 0.58; p < 0.005; 95%CI = 0.39–0.85) greatly increased the risk of ending up in the severe group. This model was especially sensitive in order to predict critical status (AUC = 0.794; specificity = 69.74%; sensitivity = 81.25%). Furthermore, high levels of HGF and IL-1α showed significant results in the survival analysis (p = 0.033 and p = 0.011, respectively). HGF, IL-1α, and IL 27 at hospital admission were strongly associated with severe/critical COVID-19 patients and therefore are excellent predictors of bad prognosis. HGF and IL-1α were also mortality biomarkers.

Sepsis is a major health problem worldwide. It is a time-dependent disease, with a high rate of morbidity and mortality. In this sense, an early diagnosis is essential to reduce these rates. The progressive increase of both the incidence and prevalence of sepsis has translated into a significant socioeconomic burden for health systems. Currently, it is the leading cause of noncoronary mortality worldwide and represents one of the most prevalent pathologies both in hospital emergency services and in intensive care units. In this article, we review the role of both endothelial dysfunction and neutrophil dysregulation in the physiopathology of this disease. The lack of a key symptom in sepsis makes it difficult to obtain a quick and accurate diagnosis of this condition. Thus, it is essential to have fast and reliable diagnostic tools. In this sense, the use of biomarkers can be a very important alternative when it comes to achieving these goals. Both new biomarkers and treatments related to endothelial dysfunction and neutrophil dysregulation deserve to be further investigated in order to open new venues for the diagnosis, treatment and prognosis of sepsis.

Major changes have occurred in the epidemiology and etiology of infective endocarditis (IE). Nevertheless, the differences between nosocomial infective endocarditis (NIE) and community-acquired infective endocarditis (CIE) have not been addressed in a population-based study. We conducted a retrospective, nationwide, temporal trend study from 1997 to 2014 analyzing the epidemiology, clinical, geographical, meteorological characteristics of patients diagnosed with IE in Spain, to distinguish NIE from CIE. Among 25,952 patients with IE (62.2 ± 18·6 years; 65.9% men), 45.9% had NIE. The incidence of IE increased from 2.83 to 3.73 due to the NIE incidence increment with a decline in CIE. Patients with NIE were older (63.8 years vs. 60.8 years, p < 0·001), presented a higher Charlson index (1.22 vs. 1.03, p < 0.001), a greater history of implanted cardiac devices (8.7% vs. 4.6%, p < 0.001), and higher mortality (31.5% vs. 21.7%, p < 0.001). The most frequent microorganism for both NIE and CIE was Staphylococcus (p < 0.001), and the North reported a higher incidence (p < 0.001). Risk factors of mortality for NIE were age, Charlson index, hemodialysis, shock, heart failure, and stroke. Risk factors for CIE included female sex, renal disease, and cardiac-device carriers. The etiology of IE shifted from community origins to mostly nosocomial-associated infections. Higher morbidity, mortality, and poorer outcomes are associated with NIE.

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a widely held concern related to a substantial burden of morbidity, mortality and expenditure in the healthcare system. AKI is not a simple illness but a complex conglomeration of syndromes that often occurs as part of other syndromes in its wide clinical spectrum of the disease. Genetic factors have been suggested as potentially responsible for its susceptibility and severity. As there is no current cure nor an effective treatment other than generally accepted supportive measures and renal replacement therapy, updated knowledge of the genetic implications may serve as a strategic tactic to counteract its dire consequences. Further understanding of the genetics that predispose AKI may shed light on novel approaches for the prevention and treatment of this condition. This review attempts to address the role of key genes in the appearance and development of AKI, providing not only a comprehensive update of the intertwined process involved but also identifying specific markers that could serve as precise targets for further AKI therapies.

The implication of the ABO blood group in COVID-19 disease was formulated early, at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic more than 2 years ago. It has now been established that the A blood group is associated with more susceptibility and severe symptoms of COVID-19, while the O blood group shows protection against viral infection. In this review, we summarize the underlying pathophysiology of ABO blood groups and COVID-19 to explain the molecular aspects behind the protective mechanism in the O blood group. A or B antigens are not associated with a different risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection than that of other antigens. In this case, the cornerstone is natural anti-A and anti-B antibodies from the ABO system. They are capable of interfering with the S protein (SARS-CoV-2) and angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2; host cell receptor), thereby conferring protection to patients with sufficient antibodies (O blood group). Indeed, the titers of natural antibodies and the IgG isotype (specific to the O blood group) may be determinants of susceptibility and severity. Moreover, older adults are associated with a higher risk of bad outcomes due to the lack of antibodies and the upregulation of ACE2 expression during senescence. A better understanding of the role of the molecular mechanism of ABO blood groups in COVID-19 facilitates better prognostic stratification of the disease. Furthermore, it could represent an opportunity for new therapeutic strategies.