Actuality The course of the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is unpredictable. It manifests in some cases as increasing inflammation to even the onset of a cytokine storm and irreversible progression of acute respiratory syndrome, which is associated with the risk of death in patients. Thus, proactive anti-inflammatory therapy remains an open serious question in patients with COVID-19 and pneumonia, who still have signs of inflammation on days 7–9 of the disease: elevated C-reactive protein (CRP)>60 mg/dL and at least two of the four clinical signs: fever >37.5°C; persistent cough; dyspnea (RR >20 brpm) and/or reduced oxygen blood saturation <94% when breathing atmospheric air. We designed the randomized trial: COLchicine versus Ruxolitinib and Secukinumab in Open-label Prospective Randomized Trial in Patients with COVID-19 (COLORIT). We present here data comparing patients who received colchicine with those who did not receive specific anti-inflammatory therapy. Results of the comparison of colchicine, ruxolitinib, and secukinumab will be presented later.Objective Compare efficacy and safety of colchicine compared to the management of patients with COVID-19 without specific anti-inflammatory therapy.Material and Methods Initially, 20 people were expected to be randomized in the control group. However, enrollment to the control group was discontinued subsequently after the inclusion of 5 patients due to the risk of severe deterioration in the absence of anti-inflammatory treatment. Therefore, 17 patients, who had not received anti-inflammatory therapy when treated in the MSU Medical Research and Educational Center before the study, were also included in the control group. The effects were assessed on day 12 after the inclusion or at discharge if it occurred earlier than on day 12. The primary endpoint was the changes in the SHOCS-COVID score, which includes the assessment of the patient’s clinical condition, CT score of the lung tissue damage, the severity of systemic inflammation (CRP changes), and the risk of thrombotic complications (D-dimer) [1].Results The median SHOCS score decreased from 8 to 2 (p = 0.017), i.e., from moderate to mild degree, in the colchicine group. The change in the SHOCS-COVID score was minimal and statistically insignificant in the control group. In patients with COVID-19 treated with colchicine, the CRP levels decreased rapidly and normalized (from 99.4 to 4.2 mg/dL, p<0.001). In the control group, the CRP levels decreased moderately and statistically insignificantly and achieved 22.8 mg/dL by the end of the follow-up period, which was still more than four times higher than normal. The most informative criterion for inflammation lymphocyte-to-C-reactive protein ratio (LCR) increased in the colchicine group by 393 versus 54 in the control group (p = 0.003). After treatment, it was 60.8 in the control group, which was less than 100 considered safe in terms of systemic inflammation progression. The difference from 427 in the colchicine group was highly significant (p = 0.003).The marked and rapid decrease in the inflammation factors was accompanied in the colchicine group by the reduced need for oxygen support from 14 (66.7%) to 2 (9.5%). In the control group, the number of patients without anti-inflammatory therapy requiring oxygen support remained unchanged at 50%. There was a trend to shorter hospital stays in the group of specific anti-inflammatory therapy up to 13 days compared to 17.5 days in the control group (p = 0.079). Moreover, two patients died in the control group, and there were no fatal cases in the colchicine group. In the colchicine group, one patient had deep vein thrombosis with D-dimer elevated to 5.99 µg/mL, which resolved before discharge.Conclusions Colchicine 1 mg for 1-3 days followed by 0.5 mg/day for 14 days is effective as a proactive anti-inflammatory therapy in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and viral pneumonia. The management of such patients without proactive anti-inflammatory therapy is likely to be unreasonable and may worsen the course of COVID-19. However, the findings should be treated with caution, given the small size of the trial.

BackgroundMen with coronary artery disease (CAD) have been shown to have enhanced arterial stiffness. Arterial function may change over time according to treatment, but the prognostic value of these changes has not been investigated.ObjectivesThe aim of the present study was to assess whether an improvement in large artery rigidity in response to treatment, could predict a more favorable prognosis in a population of men with CAD.MethodsA total of 161 men with CAD (mean age 56.8 ± 10.9 years) being treated with conventional therapy underwent brachial-ankle pulse wave velocity (PWVba) measurements at baseline and after six months. Follow-up period was 3.5 years. End-points were major adverse cardiac events (MACE): acute myocardial infarction, unstable angina, coronary intervention, or cardiac death.ResultsDuring the three-year follow-up period (since initial six-month follow-up), 30 patients experienced MACE. After six-month follow-up, PWVba had not improved (ΔPWVba ≥ 0%, relative to baseline) in 85 (52.8%) of 161 men (Group 1), whereas it had improved (ΔPWVba < 0%) in the remaining 76 men (47.2%) (Group 2). During follow-up, we noticed 24 cardiovascular events in Group 1 and six events in Group 2 (P < 0.001). Cox proportional hazards analyses demonstrated that independent of conventional risk factor changes, absence of PWVba decrease was a predictor of MACE (RR 3.99; 95% CI:1.81–8.78; P = 0.004). The sensitivity of ΔPWVba was 80% and its specificity was 54%.ConclusionsThis study demonstrates that an improvement in arterial stiffness may be obtained after six months of conventional therapy and clearly identifies patients who have a more favorable prognosis.

The VASOTENS Registry is an international telehealth‐based repository of 24‐hour ambulatory blood pressure monitorings (ABPM) obtained through an oscillometric upper‐arm BP monitor allowing combined estimation of some vascular biomarkers. The present paper reports the results obtained in 1200 participants according to different categories of CV risk. Individual readings were averaged for each recording and 24‐hour mean of brachial and aortic systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP), pulse wave velocity (PWV), and augmentation index (AIx) obtained. Peripheral and central BP, PWV and AIx values were increased in older participants (SBP only) and in case of hypertension (SBP and DBP). BP was lower and PWV and AIx higher in females. PWV was increased and BP unchanged in case of metabolic syndrome. Our results suggest that ambulatory pulse wave analysis in a daily life setting may help evaluate vascular health of individuals at risk for CV disease.

No abstract

The article is devoted to the treatment of the new coronavirus infection (COVID-19) in the advanced stages of the disease. The types of response of the immune system to the viral load of SARS-CoV-2 with the start of the inflammation process are considered. The situation is analyzed in detail in which the growing autoimmune inflammation (up to the development of a "cytokine storm") affects not only the pulmonary parenchyma, but also the endothelium of the small vessels of the lungs. Simultaneous damage to the alveoli and microthrombosis of the pulmonary vessels are accompanied by a progressive impairment of gas exchange, the development of acute respiratory distress syndrome, the treatment of which, even with the use of invasive ventilation, is ineffective and does not really change the prognosis of patients with COVID-19. In order to interrupt the pathological process at the earliest stages of the disease, the necessity of proactive anti-inflammatory therapy in combination with active anticoagulation treatment is substantiated. The results of the first randomized studies on the use of inhibitors of pro-inflammatory cytokines and chemokines (interleukin-6 (tocilizumab), interleukin-17 (secukinumab), Janus kinase blockers, through which the signal is transmitted to cells (ruxolitinib)), which have potential in the early treatment of COVID- 19. The use of a well-known anti-inflammatory drug colchicine (which is used for gout treatment) in patients with COVID-19 is considered. The design of the original COLORIT comparative study on the use of colchicine, ruxolitinib and secukinumab in the treatment of COVID-19 is presented. Clinical series presented, illustrated early anti-inflammatory therapy together with anticoagulants in patients with COVID-19 and the dangers associated with refusing to initiate such therapy on time.

on behalf of the VASOTENS Registry Study GroupObjective: In this analysis of the telehealth-based Vascular health ASsessment Of The hypertENSive patients Registry, we checked how 24-h central and peripheral hemodynamics compare with hypertension-mediated organ damage (HMOD).Methods: In 646 hypertensive patients (mean age 52 AE 16 years, 54% males, 65% treated) we obtained ambulatory brachial and central SBP and pulse pressure (PP), SBP, and PP variability, pulse wave velocity and augmentation index with a validated cuff-based technology. HMOD was defined by an increased left ventricular mass index (cardiac damage, evaluated in 482 patients), an increased intimamedia thickness (vascular damage, n ¼ 368), or a decreased estimated glomerular filtration rate or increased urine albumin excretion (renal damage, n ¼ 388).Results: Ambulatory SBP and PPs were significantly associated with cardiac damage: the largest odds ratio was observed for 24-h central SBP [1.032 (1.012, 1.051), P ¼ 0.001] and PP [1.042 (1.015, 1.069), P ¼ 0.002], the weakest for brachial estimates. The association was less strong for vascular damage with a trend to the superiority of 24-h central [1.036 (0.997, 1.076), P ¼ 0.070] over brachial PP [1.031 (1.000, 1.062), P ¼ 0.052]. No statistically significant association was observed for renal damage. SBP and PP variabilities, pulse wave velocity and augmentation index were not associated with any form of HMOD. In the multivariate analysis, age was associated with any type of HMOD, whereas central SBP and PP were predictive of an increased risk of cardiac damage. Conclusion:In hypertensive patients a variable association exists between peripheral and central hemodynamics and various types of HMOD, with the most predictive power being observed for central SBP and PP for cardiac damage.

BackgroundHypertension guidelines recommend ambulatory blood pressure (ABP), central aortic pressure (CAP), and pulse wave velocity (PWV) as parameters for estimating blood pressure (BP) control and vascular impairment. Recent advances in technology have enabled devices to combine non-invasive estimation of these parameters over the 24-hour ABP monitoring. However, currently there is limited evidence on the usefulness of such an approach for routine hypertension management.ObjectiveWe recently launched an investigator-initiated, international, multicenter, observational, prospective study, the Vascular health Assessment Of The Hypertensive patients (VASOTENS) Registry, aimed at (1) evaluating non-invasive 24-hour ABP and arterial stiffness estimates (through 24-hour pulse wave analysis, PWA) in hypertensive subjects undergoing ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) for clinical reasons; (2) assessing the changes in estimates following treatment; (3) weighing the impact of 24-hour PWA on target organ damage and cardiovascular prognosis; (4) assessing the relationship between arterial stiffness, BP absolute mean level and variability, and prognosis; and (5) validating the use of a 24-hour PWA electronic health (e-health) solution for hypertension screening.MethodsApproximately 2000 subjects, referred to 20 hypertension clinics for routine diagnostic evaluation and follow-up of hypertension of any severity or stage, will be recruited. Data collection will include ABPM, performed with a device allowing simultaneous non-invasive assessment of 24-hour CAP and arterial stiffness (BPLab), and clinical data (including cardiovascular outcomes). As recommended by current guidelines, each patient will be followed-up with visits occurring at regular intervals (ideally every 6 months, and not less than once a year depending on disease severity). A Web-based telemedicine platform (THOLOMEUS) will be used for data collection. The use of the telemedicine system will allow standardized and centralized data collection, data validation by experts and counseling to remote centers, setup and maintenance of the Registry, and prompt data analysis.ResultsFirst follow-up results are expected to be available in the next 2 years.ConclusionsThe results of the VASOTENS Registry will help define the normalcy thresholds for current and future indices derived from 24-hour PWA, according to outcome data, and will also provide supporting evidence for the inclusion of this type of evaluation in hypertension management.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT02577835; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02577835 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.Webcitation.org/6hzZBKY2Q)

Introduction The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of a combination of bromhexine at a dose of 8 mg 4 times a day and spironolactone 50 mg per day in patients with mild and moderate COVID 19.Material and methods It was an open, prospective comparative non-randomized study. 103 patients were included (33 in the bromhexine and spironolactone group and 70 in the control group). All patients had a confirmed 2019 novel coronavirus infection (COVID 19) based on a positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for SARS-CoV-2 virus RNA and/or a typical pattern of viral pneumonia on multispiral computed tomography. The severity of lung damage was limited to stage I-II, the level of CRP should not exceed 60 mg / dL and SO2 in the air within 92-98%. The duration of treatment is 10 days.Results The decrease in scores on the SHOKS-COVID scale, which, in addition to assessing the clinical status, the dynamics of CRP (a marker of inflammation), D-dimer (a marker of thrombus formation), and the degree of lung damage on CT (primary endpoint) was statistically significant in both groups and differences between them was not identified. Analysis for the group as a whole revealed a statistically significant reduction in hospitalization time from 10.4 to 9.0 days (by 1.5 days, p=0.033) and fever time from 6.5 to 3.9 days (by 2.5 days, p<0.001). Given the incomplete balance of the groups, the main analysis included 66 patients who were match with using propensity score matching. In matched patients, temperature normalization in the bromhexine/spironolactone group occurred 2 days faster than in the control group (p=0.008). Virus elimination by the 10th day was recorded in all patients in the bromhexine/spironolactone group; the control group viremia continued in 23.3% (p=0.077). The number of patients who had a positive PCR to the SARS-CoV-2 virus on the 10th day of hospitalization or longer (≥10 days) hospitalization in the control group was 20/21 (95.2%), and in the group with bromhexine /spironolactone -14/24 (58.3%), p=0.012. The odds ratio of having a positive PCR or more than ten days of hospitalization was 0.07 (95% CI: 0.008 - 0.61, p=0.0161) with bromhexine and spironolactone versus controls. No side effects were reported in the study group.Conclusion The combination of bromhexine with spironolactone appeared effective in treating a new coronavirus infection by achieving a faster normalization of the clinical condition, lowering the temperature one and a half times faster, and reducing explanatory combine endpoint the viral load or long duration of hospitalization (≥ 10 days).