No abstract

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.

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.

No abstract

Background Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) metabolizes a number of important peptides participating in blood pressure regulation and vascular remodeling. Elevated ACE expression in tissues (which is generally reflected by ACE in blood) is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular diseases. Elevated ACE in blood is also a marker for granulomatous diseases. Methods We applied our novel approach—ACE phenotyping—to characterize serum ACE in 300 unrelated patients and to establish normal values for ACE levels. ACE phenotyping includes (a) determination of ACE activity with 2 substrates (Z-Phe-His-Leu [ZPHL] and Hip-His-Leu [HHL]), (b) calculation of a ratio for hydrolysis of ZPHL and HHL, and (c) quantification of ACE immunoreactive protein levels and ACE conformation with a set of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) to ACE. Results Only a combination of ACE activity determination with 2 substrates and quantification of the amount of ACE immunoreactive protein with mAbs 1G12 and 9B9 allows for the unequivocal detection of the presence of ACE inhibitors in the blood. After excluding such subjects, we were able to establish normal values of ACE in healthy populations: 50%–150% from control pooled serum. This ACE phenotyping approach in screening format with special attention to outliers can also identify patients with various mutations in ACE and may help to identify the as yet unknown ACE secretase or other mechanistic details of precise regulation of ACE expression. Conclusions ACE phenotyping is a promising new approach with potential clinical significance to advance precision medicine screening techniques by establishing different risk groups based on ACE phenotype.