Search

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.

Background: The extent to which health care systems have adapted to the COVID-19 pandemic to provide necessary cardiac diagnostic services is unknown., Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine the impact of the pandemic on cardiac testing practices, volumes and types of diagnostic services, and perceived psychological stress to health care providers worldwide., Methods: The International Atomic Energy Agency conducted a worldwide survey assessing alterations from baseline in cardiovascular diagnostic care at the pandemic's onset and 1 year later. Multivariable regression was used to determine factors associated with procedure volume recovery., Results: Surveys were submitted from 669 centers in 107 countries. Worldwide reduction in cardiac procedure volumes of 64% from March 2019 to April 2020 recovered by April 2021 in high- and upper middle-income countries (recovery rates of 108% and 99%) but remained depressed in lower middle- and low-income countries (46% and 30% recovery). Although stress testing was used 12% less frequently in 2021 than in 2019, coronary computed tomographic angiography was used 14% more, a trend also seen for other advanced cardiac imaging modalities (positron emission tomography and magnetic resonance; 22%-25% increases). Pandemic-related psychological stress was estimated to have affected nearly 40% of staff, impacting patient care at 78% of sites. In multivariable regression, only lower-income status and physicians' psychological stress were significant in predicting recovery of cardiac testing., Conclusions: Cardiac diagnostic testing has yet to recover to prepandemic levels in lower-income countries. Worldwide, the decrease in standard stress testing is offset by greater use of advanced cardiac imaging modalities. Pandemic-related psychological stress among providers is widespread and associated with poor recovery of cardiac testing., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Williams is supported by the British Heart Foundation (FS/ICRF/20/26002). Dr Einstein has received speaker fees from Ionetix; has received consulting fees from W. L. Gore & Associates; has received authorship fees from Wolters Kluwer Healthcare – UpToDate; and has received grants or grants pending to his institution from Attralus, Canon Medical Systems, Eidos Therapeutics, GE Healthcare, Pfizer, Roche Medical Systems, W. L. Gore & Associates, and XyloCor Therapeutics. Dr Williams has received speaker fees from Canon Medical Systems. Dr Dorbala has received honoraria from Pfizer and GE Healthcare; and has received grants to her institution from Pfizer and GE Healthcare. Dr Sinitsyn has received congress speaker honoraria from Bayer, GE Healthcare, Siemens, and Philips. Dr Kudo has received research grants from Nihon Medi-physics and FUJIFILM Toyama Chemical. Dr Bucciarelli-Ducci is CEO (part-time) of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance; and has received speaker fees from Circle Cardiovascular Imaging, Bayer, and Siemens Healthineers. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study sought to quantify and compare the decline in volumes of cardiovascular procedures between the United States and non-U.S. institutions during the early phase of the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic., Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the care of many non-COVID-19 illnesses. Reductions in diagnostic cardiovascular testing around the world have led to concerns over the implications of reduced testing for cardiovascular disease (CVD) morbidity and mortality., Methods: Data were submitted to the INCAPS-COVID (International Atomic Energy Agency Non-Invasive Cardiology Protocols Study of COVID-19), a multinational registry comprising 909 institutions in 108 countries (including 155 facilities in 40 U.S. states), assessing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on volumes of diagnostic cardiovascular procedures. Data were obtained for April 2020 and compared with volumes of baseline procedures from March 2019. We compared laboratory characteristics, practices, and procedure volumes between U.S. and non-U.S. facilities and between U.S. geographic regions and identified factors associated with volume reduction in the United States., Results: Reductions in the volumes of procedures in the United States were similar to those in non-U.S. facilities (68% vs. 63%, respectively; p = 0.237), although U.S. facilities reported greater reductions in invasive coronary angiography (69% vs. 53%, respectively; p < 0.001). Significantly more U.S. facilities reported increased use of telehealth and patient screening measures than non-U.S. facilities, such as temperature checks, symptom screenings, and COVID-19 testing. Reductions in volumes of procedures differed between U.S. regions, with larger declines observed in the Northeast (76%) and Midwest (74%) than in the South (62%) and West (44%). Prevalence of COVID-19, staff redeployments, outpatient centers, and urban centers were associated with greater reductions in volume in U.S. facilities in a multivariable analysis., Conclusions: We observed marked reductions in U.S. cardiovascular testing in the early phase of the pandemic and significant variability between U.S. regions. The association between reductions of volumes and COVID-19 prevalence in the United States highlighted the need for proactive efforts to maintain access to cardiovascular testing in areas most affected by outbreaks of COVID-19 infection., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures This work was supported by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Dr. Blankstein has previously received research support from Amgen and Astellas Inc. Dr. Ferencik has been previously supported by U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) and American Heart Association; and is a consultant for Biograph, Inc. Dr. Nørgaard has previously received unrestricted institutional research grants from Siemens and HeartFlow. Dr. Maurovich-Horvat has been a shareholder of Neumann Medical Ltd. Dr. Einstein has previously received grants from NIH, International Atomic Energy Agency, Canon Medical Systems, Roche Medical Systems, WL Gore, and GE Health care; consultant for WL Gore; on the Speakers Bureau for Ionetix; has received travel/accommodations/meeting expenses from HeartFlow; and is a stockholder in Emergent BioSolutions Inc. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: We aimed to explore the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cardiac diagnostic testing and practice and to assess its impact in different regions in Europe., Methods: The online survey organised by the International Atomic Energy Agency Division of Human Health collected information on changes in cardiac imaging procedural volumes between March 2019 and March/April 2020. Data were collected from 909 centres in 108 countries., Results: Centres in Northern and Southern Europe were more likely to cancel all outpatient activities compared with Western and Eastern Europe. There was a greater reduction in total procedure volumes in Europe compared with the rest of the world in March 2020 (45% vs 41%, p=0.003), with a more marked reduction in Southern Europe (58%), but by April 2020 this was similar in Europe and the rest of the world (69% vs 63%, p=0.261). Regional variations were apparent between imaging modalities, but the largest reductions were in Southern Europe for nearly all modalities. In March 2020, location in Southern Europe was the only independent predictor of the reduction in procedure volume. However, in April 2020, lower gross domestic product and higher COVID-19 deaths were the only independent predictors., Conclusion: The first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic had a significant impact on care of patients with cardiac disease, with substantial regional variations in Europe. This has potential long-term implications for patients and plans are required to enable the diagnosis of non-COVID-19 conditions during the ongoing pandemic., Competing Interests: Competing interests: PM-H is a shareholder of Neumann Medical. No other authors report conflicts of interest., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

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)&gt;60 mg/dL and at least two of the four clinical signs: fever &gt;37.5°C; persistent cough; dyspnea (RR &gt;20 brpm) and/or reduced oxygen blood saturation &lt;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&lt;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.

Background There is lack of guidance on specific CT protocols for imaging patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia. Purpose To assess international variations in CT utilization, protocols, and radiation doses in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Materials and Methods In this retrospective data collection study, the International Atomic Energy Agency coordinated a survey between May and July 2020 regarding CT utilization, protocols, and radiation doses from 62 health care sites in 34 countries across five continents for CT examinations performed in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. The questionnaire obtained information on local prevalence, method of diagnosis, most frequent imaging, indications for CT, and specific policies on use of CT in COVID-19 pneumonia. Collected data included general information (patient age, weight, clinical indication), CT equipment (CT make and model, year of installation, number of detector rows), scan protocols (body region, scan phases, tube current and potential), and radiation dose descriptors (CT dose index and dose length product). Descriptive statistics and generalized estimating equations were performed. Results Data from 782 patients (median age, 59 years [interquartile range, 15 years]) from 54 health care sites in 28 countries were evaluated. Less than one-half of the health care sites used CT for initial diagnosis of COVID-19 pneumonia and three-fourths used CT for assessing disease severity. CT dose index varied based on CT vendors (7-11 mGy; P < .001), number of detector rows (8-9 mGy; P < .001), year of CT installation (7-10 mGy; P = .006), and reconstruction techniques (7-10 mGy; P = .03). Multiphase chest CT examinations performed at 20% of sites (11 of 54) were associated with higher dose length product compared with single-phase chest CT examinations performed in 80% of sites (43 of 54) ( P = .008). Conclusion CT use, scan protocols, and radiation doses in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia showed wide variation across health care sites within the same and between different countries. Many patients were imaged multiple times and/or with multiphase CT scan protocols. © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Lee in this issue.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has adversely affected diagnosis and treatment of noncommunicable diseases. Its effects on delivery of diagnostic care for cardiovascular disease, which remains the leading cause of death worldwide, have not been quantified., Objectives: The study sought to assess COVID-19's impact on global cardiovascular diagnostic procedural volumes and safety practices., Methods: The International Atomic Energy Agency conducted a worldwide survey assessing alterations in cardiovascular procedure volumes and safety practices resulting from COVID-19. Noninvasive and invasive cardiac testing volumes were obtained from participating sites for March and April 2020 and compared with those from March 2019. Availability of personal protective equipment and pandemic-related testing practice changes were ascertained., Results: Surveys were submitted from 909 inpatient and outpatient centers performing cardiac diagnostic procedures, in 108 countries. Procedure volumes decreased 42% from March 2019 to March 2020, and 64% from March 2019 to April 2020. Transthoracic echocardiography decreased by 59%, transesophageal echocardiography 76%, and stress tests 78%, which varied between stress modalities. Coronary angiography (invasive or computed tomography) decreased 55% (p < 0.001 for each procedure). In multivariable regression, significantly greater reduction in procedures occurred for centers in countries with lower gross domestic product. Location in a low-income and lower-middle-income country was associated with an additional 22% reduction in cardiac procedures and less availability of personal protective equipment and telehealth., Conclusions: COVID-19 was associated with a significant and abrupt reduction in cardiovascular diagnostic testing across the globe, especially affecting the world's economically challenged. Further study of cardiovascular outcomes and COVID-19-related changes in care delivery is warranted., Competing Interests: Author Disclosures Dr. Einstein has received consulting fees from W.L. Gore and Associates; has received institutional grant support from Canon Medical Systems, GE Healthcare, Roche Medical Systems, W.L. Gore and Associates, and XyloCor Therapeutics; and has received travel/accommodations/meeting expenses from HeartFlow. Dr. Dorbala has received honoraria from Pfizer and GE Healthcare; and has received institutional research grant support from Pfizer and GE Healthcare. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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&lt;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).