Osteoarthritis is a common cause of disability worldwide. Although commonly referred to as a disease of the joint cartilage, osteoarthritis affects all joint tissues equally. The pathogenesis of this degenerative process is not completely understood; however, a low-grade inflammation leading to an imbalance between anabolic and katabolic processes is a well-established factor. The complex network of cytokines regulating these processes and cell communication has a central role in the development and progression of osteoarthritis. Concentrations of both proinflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines were found to be altered depending on the osteoarthritis stage and activity. In this review, we analyzed individual cytokines involved in the immune processes with an emphasis on their function in osteoarthritis.

Being the most common musculoskeletal progressive condition, osteoarthritis is an interesting target for research. It is estimated that the prevalence of knee osteoarthritis (OA) among adults 60 years of age or older is approximately 10% in men and 13% in women, making knee OA one of the leading causes of disability in elderly population. Today, we know that osteoarthritis is not a disease characterized by loss of cartilage due to mechanical loading only, but a condition that affects all of the tissues in the joint, causing detectable changes in tissue architecture, its metabolism and function. All of these changes are mediated by a complex and not yet fully researched interplay of proinflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines, chemokines, growth factors and adipokines, all of which can be measured in the serum, synovium and histological samples, potentially serving as biomarkers of disease stage and progression. Another key aspect of disease progression is the epigenome that regulates all the genetic expression through DNA methylation, histone modifications, and mRNA interference. A lot of work has been put into developing non-surgical treatment options to slow down the natural course of osteoarthritis to postpone, or maybe even replace extensive surgeries such as total knee arthroplasty. At the moment, biological treatments such as platelet-rich plasma, bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells and autologous microfragmented adipose tissue containing stromal vascular fraction are ordinarily used. Furthermore, the latter two mentioned cell-based treatment options seem to be the only methods so far that increase the quality of cartilage in osteoarthritis patients. Yet, in the future, gene therapy could potentially become an option for orthopedic patients. In the following review, we summarized all of the latest and most important research in basic sciences, pathogenesis, and non-operative treatment.

Osteoarthritis is the most common musculoskeletal progressive disease, with the knee as the most commonly affected joint in the human body. While several new medications are still under research, many symptomatic therapy options, such as analgesics (opioid and non-opioid), nonsteroid anti-inflammatory drugs, symptomatic slow-acting drugs in osteoarthritis, and preparations for topical administration, are being used, with a diverse clinical response and inconsistent conclusions across various professional societies guidelines. The concept of pharmacogenomic-guided therapy, which lies on principles of the right medication for the right patient in the right dose at the right time, can significantly increase the patient’s response to symptom relief therapy in knee osteoarthritis. Corticosteroid intra-articular injections and hyaluronic acid injections provoke numerous discussions and disagreements among different guidelines, even though they are currently used in daily clinical practice. Biological options, such as platelet-rich plasma and mesenchymal stem cell injections, have shown good results in the treatment of osteoarthritis symptoms, greatly increasing the patient’s quality of life, especially when combined with other therapeutic options. Non-inclusion of the latter therapies in the guidelines, and their inconsistent stance on numerous therapy options, requires larger and well-designed studies to examine the true effects of these therapies and update the existing guidelines.

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.

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.