[Proactive anti-inflammatory and anticoagulant therapy in the treatment of advanced stages of novel coronavirus infection (COVID-19). Case Series and Study Design: COLchicine versus ruxolitinib and secukinumab in open prospective randomIzed trial (COLORIT)]

Proactive anti-inflammatory therapy in the advanced stages of a new coronavirus infection. Main results of the inpatient phase of the COLORIT study (Colchicin vs. Ruxolitinib and secukinumab in an open, prospective, randomized trial in patients with novel coronavirus infection COVID-19)

Aim      To evaluate clinical efficacy of the proactive anti-inflammatory therapy in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 with pneumonia and a risk of "cytokine storm".Material and methods  The COLORIT study was a comparative study with randomization into 4 groups: colchicine (n=21) 1 mg for the first 3 days followed by 0.5 mg/day through day 12 or discharge from the hospital; secukinumab 300 mg/day, s.c., as a single dose (n=20); ruxolitinib 5 mg, twice a day (n=10); and a control group with no anti-inflammatory therapy (n=22). The effect was evaluated after 12±2 days of inpatient treatment or upon discharge, what comes first. For ethical reasons, completely randomized recruitment to the control group was not possible. Thus, for data analysis, 17 patients who did not receive any anti-inflammatory therapy for various reasons not related with inclusion into the study were added to the control group of 5 randomized patients. Inclusion criteria: presence of coronavirus pneumonia (positive PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 RNA or specific clinical presentation of pneumonia; IDC-10 codes U07.1 and U07.2); C-reactive protein (CRP) concentration >60 mg/l or its threefold increase from baseline; at least 2 of 4 symptoms (fever >37.5 °C, persistent cough, shortness of breath with inspiratory rate >20 per min or blood saturation with oxygen <94 % by the 7th-9th day of disease. The study primary endpoint was changes in COVID Clinical Condition Scale (CCS-COVID) score. The secondary endpoints were the dynamics of CRP and changes in the area of lung lesion according to data of computed tomography (CT) of the lungs from the date of randomization to 12±2 days.Results All three drugs significantly reduced inflammation, improved the clinical course of the disease, and decreased the disease severity as evaluated by the CCS score: in the ruxolitinib group, by 5.5 (p=0.004); in the secukinumab group, by 4 (p=0.096); in the colchicine group, by 4 (p=0.017), and in the control group, by 2 (р=0.329). In all three groups, the CCS-COVID score was 2-3 by the end of observation period, which corresponded to a mild process, while in the control group, the score was 7 (р=0.005). Time-related changes in CRP were significant in all three anti-inflammatory treatment groups with no statistical difference between the groups. By the end of the study, changes in CT of the lungs were nonsignificant.Conclusion      In severe СOVID-19 with a risk of "cytokine storm", the proactive therapy with ruxolitinib, colchicine, and secukinumab significantly reduces the inflammation severity, prevents the disease progression, and results in clinical improvement.

COVID-19 Outcomes and Vaccination in Patients with Spondyloarthritis

The rapid transmission of the highly infectious severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), led to widespread infection throughout the world. Concerns and challenges regarding COVID-19 illness have emerged for patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, such as spondyloarthritis (SpA), who receive treatment with biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), because this population is vulnerable to infections and has a high prevalence of risk factors associated with severe COVID-19 illness. Available data on COVID-19 indicate that patients with SpA who are treated with DMARDs have SARS-CoV-2 infection rates comparable with those in the general population, with similar increased risk associated with older age and comorbidities. Novel vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 are approved or authorized for emergency use by the US Food and Drug Administration, and others are in development to prevent infection and serious illness. This review provides an overview of SpA, the mechanism of action for the SARS-CoV-2 infection, the clinical course of COVID-19, and the vaccines approved for, or in development against, SARS-CoV-2. Detailed information on the use of established vaccines in patients with SpA receiving DMARDs is provided, along with recommendations for COVID-19 vaccination. Available evidence has shown COVID-19 vaccination in patients with SpA, among other rheumatic diseases, to be safe and effective with most DMARD use; however, there is evidence of potential interference with some therapies used in SpA. Healthcare providers should educate patients to provide the knowledge and confidence to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, since the potential benefit outweighs the low risk of vaccine-related adverse events.

COVID-19 Drug Repurposing: A Network-Based Framework for Exploring Biomedical Literature and Clinical Trials for Possible Treatments

Background: With the Coronavirus becoming a new reality of our world, global efforts continue to seek answers to many questions regarding the spread, variants, vaccinations, and medications. Particularly, with the emergence of several strains (e.g., Delta, Omicron), vaccines will need further development to offer complete protection against the new variants. It is critical to identify antiviral treatments while the development of vaccines continues. In this regard, the repurposing of already FDA-approved drugs remains a major effort. In this paper, we investigate the hypothesis that a combination of FDA-approved drugs may be considered as a candidate for COVID-19 treatment if (1) there exists an evidence in the COVID-19 biomedical literature that suggests such a combination, and (2) there is match in the clinical trials space that validates this drug combination. Methods: We present a computational framework that is designed for detecting drug combinations, using the following components (a) a Text-mining module: to extract drug names from the abstract section of the biomedical publications and the intervention/treatment sections of clinical trial records. (b) a network model constructed from the drug names and their associations, (c) a clique similarity algorithm to identify candidate drug treatments. Result and Conclusions: Our framework has identified treatments in the form of two, three, or four drug combinations (e.g., hydroxychloroquine, doxycycline, and azithromycin). The identifications of the various treatment candidates provided sufficient evidence that supports the trustworthiness of our hypothesis.

Anticoagulants for people hospitalised with COVID-19

BACKGROUND

The primary manifestation of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is respiratory insufficiency that can also be related to diffuse pulmonary microthrombosis and thromboembolic events, such as pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, or arterial thrombosis. People with COVID-19 who develop thromboembolism have a worse prognosis. Anticoagulants such as heparinoids (heparins or pentasaccharides), vitamin K antagonists and direct anticoagulants are used for the prevention and treatment of venous or arterial thromboembolism. Besides their anticoagulant properties, heparinoids have an additional anti-inflammatory potential. However, the benefit of anticoagulants for people with COVID-19 is still under debate.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of anticoagulants versus active comparator, placebo or no intervention in people hospitalised with COVID-19.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and IBECS databases, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and medRxiv preprint database from their inception to 14 April 2021. We also checked the reference lists of any relevant systematic reviews identified, and contacted specialists in the field for additional references to trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, cluster-RCTs and cohort studies that compared prophylactic anticoagulants versus active comparator, placebo or no intervention for the management of people hospitalised with COVID-19. We excluded studies without a comparator group and with a retrospective design (all previously included studies) as we were able to include better study designs. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and necessity for additional respiratory support. Secondary outcomes were mortality related to COVID-19, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, major bleeding, adverse events, length of hospital stay and quality of life.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We used Cochrane RoB 1 to assess the risk of bias for RCTs, ROBINS-I to assess risk of bias for non-randomised studies (NRS) and GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. We meta-analysed data when appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven studies (16,185 participants) with participants hospitalised with COVID-19, in either intensive care units, hospital wards or emergency departments. Studies were from Brazil (2), Iran (1), Italy (1), and the USA (1), and two involved more than country. The mean age of participants was 55 to 68 years and the follow-up period ranged from 15 to 90 days. The studies assessed the effects of heparinoids, direct anticoagulants or vitamin K antagonists, and reported sparse data or did not report some of our outcomes of interest: necessity for additional respiratory support, mortality related to COVID-19, and quality of life. Higher-dose versus lower-dose anticoagulants (4 RCTs, 4647 participants) Higher-dose anticoagulants result in little or no difference in all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.16, 4489 participants; 4 RCTs) and increase minor bleeding (RR 3.28, 95% CI 1.75 to 6.14, 1196 participants; 3 RCTs) compared to lower-dose anticoagulants up to 30 days (high-certainty evidence). Higher-dose anticoagulants probably reduce pulmonary embolism (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.70, 4360 participants; 4 RCTs), and slightly increase major bleeding (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.80, 4400 participants; 4 RCTs) compared to lower-dose anticoagulants up to 30 days (moderate-certainty evidence). Higher-dose anticoagulants may result in little or no difference in deep vein thrombosis (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.03, 3422 participants; 4 RCTs), stroke (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.03, 4349 participants; 3 RCTs), major adverse limb events (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.99, 1176 participants; 2 RCTs), myocardial infarction (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.55, 4349 participants; 3 RCTs), atrial fibrillation (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.70, 562 participants; 1 study), or thrombocytopenia (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.24, 2789 participants; 2 RCTs) compared to lower-dose anticoagulants up to 30 days (low-certainty evidence). It is unclear whether higher-dose anticoagulants have any effect on necessity for additional respiratory support, mortality related to COVID-19, and quality of life (very low-certainty evidence or no data). Anticoagulants versus no treatment (3 prospective NRS, 11,538 participants) Anticoagulants may reduce all-cause mortality but the evidence is very uncertain due to two study results being at critical and serious risk of bias (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.74, 8395 participants; 3 NRS; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain if anticoagulants have any effect on necessity for additional respiratory support, mortality related to COVID-19, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, major bleeding, stroke, myocardial infarction and quality of life (very low-certainty evidence or no data). Ongoing studies We found 62 ongoing studies in hospital settings (60 RCTs, 35,470 participants; 2 prospective NRS, 120 participants) in 20 different countries. Thirty-five ongoing studies plan to report mortality and 26 plan to report necessity for additional respiratory support. We expect 58 studies to be completed in December 2021, and four in July 2022. From 60 RCTs, 28 are comparing different doses of anticoagulants, 24 are comparing anticoagulants versus no anticoagulants, seven are comparing different types of anticoagulants, and one did not report detail of the comparator group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

When compared to a lower-dose regimen, higher-dose anticoagulants result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality and increase minor bleeding in people hospitalised with COVID-19 up to 30 days. Higher-dose anticoagulants possibly reduce pulmonary embolism, slightly increase major bleeding, may result in little to no difference in hospitalisation time, and may result in little to no difference in deep vein thrombosis, stroke, major adverse limb events, myocardial infarction, atrial fibrillation, or thrombocytopenia.  Compared with no treatment, anticoagulants may reduce all-cause mortality but the evidence comes from non-randomised studies and is very uncertain. It is unclear whether anticoagulants have any effect on the remaining outcomes compared to no anticoagulants (very low-certainty evidence or no data). Although we are very confident that new RCTs will not change the effects of different doses of anticoagulants on mortality and minor bleeding, high-quality RCTs are still needed, mainly for the other primary outcome (necessity for additional respiratory support), the comparison with no anticoagulation, when comparing the types of anticoagulants and giving anticoagulants for a prolonged period of time.

Therapeutic antibodies for COVID-19: is a new age of IgM, IgA and bispecific antibodies coming?

Early humoral immune responses to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are dominated by IgM and IgA antibodies, which greatly contribute to virus neutralization at mucosal sites. Given the essential roles of IgM and IgA in the control and elimination of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the mucosal immunity could be exploited for therapeutic and prophylactic purposes. However, almost all neutralizing antibodies that are authorized for emergency use and under clinical development are IgG antibodies, and no vaccine has been developed to boost mucosal immunity for SARS-CoV-2 infection. In addition to IgM and IgA, bispecific antibodies (bsAbs) combine specificities of two antibodies in one molecule, representing an important alternative to monoclonal antibody cocktails. Here, we summarize the latest advances in studies on IgM, IgA and bsAbs against SARS-CoV-2. The current challenges and future directions in vaccine design and antibody-based therapeutics are also discussed.

Complication and Sequelae of COVID-19: What Should We Pay Attention to in the Post-Epidemic Era

COVID-19 is widespread worldwide and seriously affects the daily life and health of humans. Countries around the world are taking necessary measures to curb the spread. However, COVID-19 patients often have at least one organ complication and sequelae in addition to respiratory symptoms. Controlling the epidemic is only a phased victory, and the complication and sequelae of COVID-19 will need more attention in the post-epidemic era. We collected general information from over 1000 articles published in 2020 after the COVID-19 outbreak and systematically analyzed the complication and sequelae associated with eight major systems in COVID-19 patients caused by ACE2 intervention in the RAS regulatory axis. The autoimmune response induced by 2019-nCoV attacks and damages the normal tissues and organs of the body. Our research will help medical workers worldwide address COVID-19 complication and sequelae.

The Emerging Role of Neutrophils in the Pathogenesis of Thrombosis in COVID-19

Previous studies have shown that COVID-19 leads to thrombotic complications, which have been associated with high morbidity and mortality rates. Neutrophils are the largest population of white blood cells and play a pivotal role in innate immunity. During an infection, neutrophils migrate from circulation to the infection site, contributing to killing pathogens. This mechanism is regulated by chemokines such as IL-8. Moreover, it was shown that neutrophils play an important role in thromboinflammation. Through a diverse repertoire of mechanisms, neutrophils, apart from directly killing pathogens, are able to activate the formation of thrombi. In COVID-19 patients, neutrophil activation promotes neutrophil extracellular trap (NET) formation, platelet aggregation, and cell damage. Furthermore, neutrophils participate in the pathogenesis of endothelitis. Overall, this review summarizes recent progress in research on the pathogenesis of COVID-19, highlighting the role of the prothrombotic action of neutrophils in NET formation.

Hydroxychloroquine in patients with novel coronavirus infection (COVID-19): a case-control study

Actuality One of the most widely discussed treatments for patients with COVID-19, especially at the beginning of the epidemy, was the use of the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). The first small non-randomized trials showed the ability of HCQ and its combination with azithromycin to accelerate the elimination of the virus and ease the acute phase of the disease. Later, large, randomized trials did not confirm it (RECOVERY, SOLIDARITY). This study is a case-control study in which we compared patients who received and did not receive HCQ.Material and Methods 103 patients (25 in the HCQ treatment group and 78 in the control group) with confirmed COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2 virus RNA was detected in 26 of 73 in the control group (35.6%) and in 10 of 25 (40%) in the HCQ group) and in the rest - a typical picture of viral pneumonia on multislice computed tomography [MSCT]) were included in the analysis. The severity of lung damage was limited to stages I-II, the CRP level should not exceed 60 mg/dL, and oxygen saturation in the air within 92-98%. We planned to analysis the duration of treatment of patients in the hospital, the days until the normalization of body temperature, the number of points according to the original SHOCS-COVID integral scale, and changes in its components (C-reactive protein (CRP), D-dimer, and the percentage of lung damage according to MSCT).Results Analysis for the whole group revealed a statistically significant increase in the time to normalization of body temperature from 4 to 7 days (by 3 days, p<0.001), and the duration of hospitalization from 9.4 to 11.8 days (by 2.4 days, p=0.002) when using HCQ in comparison with control. Given the incomplete balance of the groups, the main analysis included 46 patients who were matched by propensity score matching. The trend towards similar dynamics continued. HCQ treatment slowed down the time to normalization of body temperature by 1.8 days (p=0.074) and lengthened the hospitalization time by 2.1 days (p=0.042). The decrease in scores on the SHOCS -COVID scale was statistically significant in both groups, and there were no differences between them (delta - 3.00 (2.90) in the HCQ group and - 2.69 (1.55) in control, p=0.718). At the same time, in the control group, the CRP level returned to normal (4.06 mg/dl), and with the use of GC, it decreased but remained above the norm (6.21 mg/dl, p=0.05). Side effects requiring discontinuation of treatment were reported in 3 patients in the HCQ group and none in the control group.Conclusion We have not identified any positive properties of HCQ and its ability to influence the severity of COVID-19. This antimalarial agent slows down the normalization of the body's inflammatory response and lengthens the time spent in the hospital. HCQ should not be used in the treatment of COVID-19.

Proactive anti-inflammatory therapy with colchicine in the treatment of advanced stages of new coronavirus infection. The first results of the COLORIT study

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.