The present study reports alterations of task-based functional brain connectivity in a group of 11 cosmonauts after a long-duration spaceflight, compared to a healthy control group not involved in the space program. To elicit the postural and locomotor sensorimotor mechanisms that are usually most significantly impaired when space travelers return to Earth, a plantar stimulation paradigm was used in a block design fMRI study. The motor control system activated by the plantar stimulation involved the pre-central and post-central gyri, SMA, SII/operculum, and, to a lesser degree, the insular cortex and cerebellum. While no post-flight alterations were observed in terms of activation, the network-based statistics approach revealed task-specific functional connectivity modifications within a broader set of regions involving the activation sites along with other parts of the sensorimotor neural network and the visual, proprioceptive, and vestibular systems. The most notable findings included a post-flight increase in the stimulation-specific connectivity of the right posterior supramarginal gyrus with the rest of the brain; a strengthening of connections between the left and right insulae; decreased connectivity of the vestibular nuclei, right inferior parietal cortex (BA40) and cerebellum with areas associated with motor, visual, vestibular, and proprioception functions; and decreased coupling of the cerebellum with the visual cortex and the right inferior parietal cortex. The severity of space motion sickness symptoms was found to correlate with a post- to pre-flight difference in connectivity between the right supramarginal gyrus and the left anterior insula. Due to the complex nature and rapid dynamics of adaptation to gravity alterations, the post-flight findings might be attributed to both the long-term microgravity exposure and to the readaptation to Earth’s gravity that took place between the landing and post-flight MRI session. Nevertheless, the results have implications for the multisensory reweighting and gravitational motor system theories, generating hypotheses to be tested in future research.

Introduction Coronavirus pneumonia not only severely affects the lung tissue but is also associated with systemic autoimmune inflammation, rapid overactivation of cytokines and chemokines known as “cytokine storm”, and a high risk of thrombosis and thromboembolism. Since there is no specific therapy for this new coronavirus infection (COVID-19), searching for an effective and safe anti-inflammatory therapy is critical.Materials and methods This study evaluated efficacy and safety of pulse therapy with high doses of glucocorticosteroids (GCS), methylprednisolone 1,000 mg for 3 days plus dexamethasone 8 mg for another 3-5 days, in 17 patients with severe coronavirus pneumonia as a part of retrospective comparative analysis (17 patients in control group). The study primary endpoint was the aggregate dynamics of patients’ condition as evaluated by an original CCS-COVID scale, which included, in addition to the clinical status, assessments of changes in the inflammation marker, C-reactive protein (CRP); the thrombus formation marker, D-dimer; and the extent of lung injury evaluated by computed tomography (CT). Patients had signs of lung injury (53.2 % and 25.6 %), increases in CRP 27 and 19 times, and a more than doubled level of D-dimer (to 1.41 µg/ml and 1.15 µg/ml) in the active therapy and the control groups, respectively. The GCS treatment group had a more severe condition at baseline.Results The GCS pulse therapy proved effective and significantly decreased the CCS-COVID scores. Median score difference was 5.00 compared to the control group (р=0.011). Shortness of breath considerably decreased; oxygen saturation increased, and the NEWS-2 clinical status scale scores decreased. In the GCS group, concentration of CRP significantly decreased from 134 mg/dl to 41.8 mg/dl (р=0.009) but at the same time, D-dimer level significantly increased from 1.41 µg/ml to 1.98 µg/ml (р=0.044). In the control group, the changes were nonsignificant. The dynamics of lung injury by CT was better in the treatment group but the difference did not reach a statistical significance (р=0.062). Following the GCS treatment, neutrophilia increased (р=0.0001) with persisting lymphopenia, and the neutrophil/lymphocyte (N/L) ratio, a marker of chronic inflammation, increased 2.5 times (р=0.006). The changes in the N/L ratio and D-dimer were found to correlate in the GCS pulse therapy group (r =0.49, p=0.04), which underlined the relationship of chronic autoimmune inflammation with thrombus formation in COVID-19. No significant changes were observed in the control group. In result, four patients developed venous thromboembolic complications (two of them had pulmonary artery thromboembolism) after the GCS pulse therapy despite the concomitant antiplatelet treatment at therapeutic doses. Recovery was slower in the hormone treatment group (median stay in the hospital was 26 days vs 18 days in the control group, р=0.001).Conclusion Pulse therapy with high doses of GCS exerted a rapid anti-inflammatory effect but at the same time, increased the N/L ratio and the D-dimer level, which increased the risk of thromboembolism.

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.

Mutations in DES, encoding desmin protein, are associated with different kinds of skeletal and/or cardiac myopathies. However, it is unknown, whether DES mutations are associated with left ventricular hypertrabeculation (LVHT). Here, we performed a clinical examination and subsequent genetic analysis in a family, with two individuals presenting LVHT with conduction disease and skeletal myopathy. The genetic analysis revealed a novel small in‐frame deletion within the DES gene, p.Q113_L115del, affecting the α‐helical rod domain. Immunohistochemistry analysis of explanted myocardial tissue from the index patient revealed an abnormal cytoplasmic accumulation of desmin and a degraded sarcomeric structure. Cell transfection experiments with wild‐type and mutant desmin verified the cytoplasmic aggregation and accumulation of mutant desmin. Cotransfection experiments were performed to model the heterozygous state of the patients and revealed a dominant negative effect of the mutant desmin on filament assembly. DES:p.Q113_L115del is classified as a pathogenic mutation associated with dilated cardiomyopathy with prominent LVHT.

Despite the increasing popularity of neurofeedback, its mechanisms of action are still poorly understood. This study aims to describe the processes underlying implicit electroencephalographic neurofeedback. Fifty-two healthy volunteers were randomly assigned to a single session of infra-low frequency neurofeedback or sham neurofeedback, with electrodes over the right middle temporal gyrus and the right inferior parietal lobule. They observed a moving rocket, the speed of which was modulated by the waveform derived from a band-limited infra-low frequency filter. Immediately before and after the session, the participants underwent a resting-state fMRI. Networkbased statistical analysis was applied, comparing post-vs. pre-session and real vs. sham neurofeedback conditions. As a result, two phenomena were observed. First, we described a brain circuit related to the implicit neurofeedback process itself, consisting of the lateral occipital cortex, right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, left orbitofrontal cortex, right ventral striatum, and bilateral dorsal striatum. Second, we found increased connectivity between key regions of the salience, language, and visual networks, which is indicative of integration in sensory processing. Thus, it appears that a single session of implicit infra-low frequency electroencephalographic neurofeedback leads to significant changes in intrinsic brain connectivity.

Here, we present a small Russian family, where the index patient received a diagnosis of left-ventricular non-compaction cardiomyopathy (LVNC) in combination with a skeletal myopathy. Clinical follow-up analysis revealed a LVNC phenotype also in her son. Therefore, we applied a broad next-generation sequencing gene panel approach for the identification of the underlying mutation. Interestingly, DES-p.A337P was identified in the genomes of both patients, whereas only the index patient carried DSP-p.L1348X. DES encodes the muscle-specific intermediate filament protein desmin and DSP encodes desmoplakin, which is a cytolinker protein connecting desmosomes with the intermediate filaments. Because the majority of DES mutations cause severe filament assembly defects and because this mutation was found in both affected patients, we analyzed this DES mutation in vitro by cell transfection experiments in combination with confocal microscopy. Of note, desmin-p.A337P forms cytoplasmic aggregates in transfected SW-13 cells and in cardiomyocytes derived from induced pluripotent stem cells underlining its pathogenicity. In conclusion, we suggest including the DES gene in the genetic analysis for LVNC patients in the future, especially if clinical involvement of the skeletal muscle is present.

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.

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).