RNA editing: Expanding the potential of RNA therapeutics.

RNA therapeutics have had a tremendous impact on medicine, recently exemplified by the rapid development and deployment of mRNA vaccines to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, RNA-targeting drugs have been developed for diseases with significant unmet medical needs through selective mRNA knockdown or modulation of pre-mRNA splicing. Recently, RNA editing, particularly antisense RNA-guided adenosine deaminase acting on RNA (ADAR)-based programmable A-to-I editing, has emerged as a powerful tool to manipulate RNA to enable correction of disease-causing mutations and modulate gene expression and protein function. Beyond correcting pathogenic mutations, the technology is particularly well suited for therapeutic applications that require a transient pharmacodynamic effect, such as the treatment of acute pain, obesity, viral infection, and inflammation, where it would be undesirable to introduce permanent alterations to the genome. Furthermore, transient modulation of protein function, such as altering the active sites of enzymes or the interface of protein-protein interactions, opens the door to therapeutic avenues ranging from regenerative medicine to oncology. These emerging RNA-editing-based toolsets are poised to broadly impact biotechnology and therapeutic applications. Here, we review the emerging field of therapeutic RNA editing, highlight recent laboratory advancements, and discuss the key challenges on the path to clinical development.

Developing a contemporary community clinic for patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction within the current National Health Service model.

INTRODUCTION: The diagnostic and therapeutic arsenal for heart failure with preserved ejection (HFpEF) has expanded. With novel therapies (eg, sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors) and firmer recommendations to optimise non-cardiac comorbidities, it is unclear if outpatient HFpEF models can adequately deliver this. We; therefore, evaluated the efficacy of an existing dedicated HFpEF clinic to find innovative ways to design a more comprehensive model tailored to the modern era of HFpEF. METHODS: A single-centre retrospective analysis of 202 HFpEF outpatients was performed over 12 months before the COVID-19 pandemic. Baseline characteristics, clinic activities (eg, medication changes, lifestyle modifications, management of comorbidities) and follow-up arrangements were compared between a HFpEF and general cardiology clinic to assess their impact on mortality and morbidity at 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: Between the two clinic groups, the sample population was evenly matched with a typical HFpEF profile (mean age 79±9.6 years, 55% female and a high prevalence of cardiometabolic comorbidities). While follow-up practices were similar, the HFpEF clinic delivered significantly more interventions on lifestyle changes, blood pressure and heart rate control (p<0.0001) compared with the general clinic. Despite this, no significant differences in all-cause hospitalisation and mortality were observed. This may be attributed to the fact that clinic activities were primarily cardiology-focused. Importantly, non-cardiovascular admissions accounted for >60% of hospitalisation, including causes of recurrent admissions. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that existing general and emerging dedicated HFpEF clinics may not be adequate in addressing the multifaceted aspects of HFpEF as clinic activities concentrated primarily on cardiological measures. Although the small cohort and short follow-up period are important limitations, this study reminds clinicians that HFpEF patients are more at risk of non-cardiac than HF-related events. We have therefore proposed a pragmatic framework that can comprehensively deliver the modern guideline-directed recommendations and management of non-cardiac comorbidities through a multidisciplinary approach.

Interlaboratory Agreement of Anti-Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Serologic Assays in the Expedited College of American Pathologists Proficiency Testing Program.

CONTEXT.­: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a recently emerged, currently pandemic virus, and the etiologic agent of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Clinical testing for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 has rapidly become widespread, but data regarding the interlaboratory performance of these serologic assays are limited. OBJECTIVE.­: To describe the development and initial results of the College of American Pathologists (CAP) SARS-CoV-2 Serology Survey. DESIGN.­: Members from the CAP Microbiology and Diagnostic Immunology and Flow Cytometry Committees formed a working group to support development of a new proficiency testing survey for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays. Supplemental questions in the survey assessed the state of SARS-CoV-2 serologic testing among participating laboratories as of July 2020. Results were analyzed for agreement by immunoglobulin (Ig) isotype tested, assay manufacturer, and methodology. RESULTS.­: A total of 4125 qualitative results were received from 1110 laboratories participating in the first survey. Qualitative agreement for assays measuring anti-SARS-CoV-2 total antibodies or IgG was greater than 90% for all 3 samples in the survey. Qualitative agreement for IgM and IgA for the negative sample was greater than 95%, but lacked consensus for the other 2 samples. CONCLUSIONS.­: These initial data suggest overall excellent agreement and comparable performance for most qualitative anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and total antibody assays across all participating clinical laboratories, regardless of specific target antigen or assay methodology.