Coronaviruses (CoVs) are a diverse family of the enveloped human and animal viruses reported as causative agents for respiratory and intestinal infections. The high pathogenic potential of human CoVs, including SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2, is closely related to the invasion mechanisms underlying the attachment and entry of viral particles to the host cells. There is increasing evidence that sialylated compounds of cellular glycocalyx can serve as an important factor in the mechanism of CoVs infection. Additionally, the sialic acid-mediated cross-reactivity with the host immune lectins is known to exert the immune response of different intensity in selected pathological stages. Here, we focus on the last findings in the field of glycobiology in the context of the role of sialic acid in tissue tropism, viral entry kinetics and immune regulation in the CoVs infections.

Fragility scales are intended to help in therapeutic decisions. Here, we asked if the fragility assessment in MM patients ≥ 75 years old qualified for treatment by the local physician correlates with the choice of treatment: a two- or three-drug regimens. Between 7/2018 and 12/2019, we prospectively enrolled 197 MM patients at the start of treatment from the 13 Polish Myeloma Group centers. The data to assess fragility were prospectively collected, but centrally assessed fragility was not disclosed to the local center. The activity of daily living (ADL) could be assessed in 192 (97.5%) and was independent in 158 (80.2%), moderately impaired in 23 (11.7%), and 11 (5.6%) in completely dependent. Patients with more than three comorbidities made up 26.9% (53 patients). Thus, according to the Palumbo calculator, 43 patients were in the intermediate fitness group (21.8%), and the rest belonged to the frailty group (153, 77.7%). Overall, 79.7% of patients (157) received three-drug regimens and 20.3% (40) received two-drug regimens. In each ECOG group, more than three out of four patients received three-drug regimens. According to the ADL scale, 82.3% of the independent 65.2% of moderately impaired, and 81.8% of the dependent received three-drug regimens. Out of 53 patients with at least four comorbidities, 71.7% received three-drug regimens, and the rest received two-drug regimens. Thirty-four patients from the intermediate fit group (79.0%), and 123 (79.9%) from the frail group received three-drug regimens. Early mortality occurred in 25 patients (12.7%). No one discontinued treatment due to toxicity. To conclude, MM patients over 75 are mainly treated with triple-drug regimens, not only in reduced doses, regardless of their frailty scores. However, the absence of prospective fragility assessment did not negatively affect early mortality and the number of treatment discontinuations, which brings into question the clinical utility of current fragility scales in everyday practice.

Fungal extracts possess potential anticancer activity against many malignant neoplastic diseases. In this research, we focused on the evaluation of Heterobasidion annosum (HA) extract in colorectal cancer in an in vivo model. The mice with implanted DLD-1 human cancer cells were given HA extract, the referential drug—5-fluorouracil (5FU), or were treated with its combination. Thereafter, tumor volume was measured and apoptotic proteins such as caspase-8, caspase-3, p53, Bcl-2, and survivin were analyzed in mice serum with an ELISA assay. The Ki-67 protein was assessed in tumor cells by immunohistochemical examination. The biggest volumes of tumors were confirmed in the DLD-1 group, while the lowest were observed in the population treated with 5FU and/or HA extract. The assessment of apoptosis showed increased concentrations of caspase 8 and p53 protein after the combined administration of 5FU and HA extract. The levels of survivin and Bcl-2 were decreased in all tested groups compared to the DLD-1 group. Moreover, we observed a positive reaction for Ki-67 protein in all tested groups. Our findings confirm the apoptotic effect of extract given alone or with 5FU. The obtained results are innovative and provide a basis for further research concerning the antitumor activity of the HA extract, especially in the range of its interaction with an anticancer chemotherapeutic agent.

Fragility scales are intended to help in therapeutic decisions. Here we asked if the fragility as-sessment in MM patients ≥75 years old qualified for treatment by the local physician correlates with the choice of treatment: a 2- or 3-drug regimen. Between 7/2018 to 12/2019 we prospectively enrolled 197 MM patients at the start of treatment from the 13 Polish Myeloma Group centers. The data to assess fragility were prospectively collected, but centrally assessed fragility was not disclosed to the local center. The activity of daily living (ADL) could be assessed in 192 (97.5%) and was independent in 158 (80.2%), moderately impaired in 23 (11.7%), and 11 (5.6%) in com-pletely dependent. Patients with more than 3 comorbidities were 26.9% (53 patients). Thus, ac-cording to the Palumbo calculator, 43 patients were in the intermediate-fitness group (21.8%), and the rest belonged to the frailty group (153, 77.7%). Overall, 79.7% of patients (157) received 3-drug regimens and 20.3% (40) received 2-drug regimens. In each ECOG group, more than 3/4 of patients received 3-drug regimens. According to the ADL scale, 82.3% of the independent 65.2% of moderately impaired, and 81.8% of the dependent received 3-drug regimens. Out of 53 pa-tients with at least 4 comorbidities, 71.7% received 3-drug regimens, and the rest 2-drug regi-mens. Three-drugs regimens received 34 patients from the intermediate-fit group (79.0%), and 123 (79.9%) from the frail group. Early mortality occurred in 25 patients (12.7%). No one discon-tinued treatment due to toxicity. To conclude, MM patients over 75 are mainly treated with tri-ple-drug regimens, not only in reduced doses, regardless of their frailty scores. However, the absence of prospective fragility assessment did not negatively affect early mortality and the number of treatment discontinuations which questions the clinical utility of current fragility scales in everyday practice.