Background: Although the evidence of treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) changed rapidly, little is known about the patterns of potential pharmacological treatment during the early period of the COVID-19 pandemic in Korea and the risk factors for ineffective prescription. Methods: Using claims data from the Korean National Health Insurance System, this retrospective cohort study included admission episodes for COVID-19 from February to December 2020. Ineffective antiviral prescriptions for COVID-19 were defined as lopinavir/ ritonavir (LPN/r) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) prescribed after July 2020, according to the revised National Institute of Health COVID-19 treatment guidelines. Factors associated with ineffective prescriptions, including patient and hospital factors, were identified by multivariate logistic regression analysis. Results: Of the 15,723 COVID-19 admission episodes from February to June 2020, 4,183 (26.6%) included prescriptions of LPN/r, and 3,312 (21.1%) included prescriptions of HCQ.Of the 48,843 admission episodes from July to December 2020, after the guidelines were revised, 2,258 (4.6%) and 182 (0.4%) included prescriptions of ineffective LPN/r and HCQ, respectively. Patient factors independently associated with ineffective antiviral prescription were older age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] per 10-year increase, 1.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.14–1.20) and severe condition with an oxygen requirement (aOR, 2.49; 95% CI, 2.24–2.77). The prescription of ineffective antiviral drugs was highly prevalent in primary and nursing hospitals (aOR, 40.58; 95% CI, 31.97–51.50), public sector hospitals (aOR, 15.61; 95% CI, 12.76–19.09), and regions in which these drugs were highly prescribed before July 2020 (aOR, 10.65; 95% CI, 8.26–13.74). Conclusion Ineffective antiviral agents were prescribed to a substantial number of patients during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in Korea. Treatment with these ineffective drugs tended to be prolonged in severely ill patients and in primary and public hospitals.

Background: Remdesivir is widely used for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but controversies regarding its efficacy still remain. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted to evaluate the effect of remdesivir on clinical and virologic outcomes of severe COVID-19 patients from June to July 2020. Primary clinical endpoints included clinical recovery, additional mechanical ventilator (MV) support, and duration of oxygen or MV support. Viral load reduction by hospital day (HD) 15 was evaluated by calculating changes in cycle threshold (Ct) values. Results: A total of 86 severe COVID-19 patients were evaluated including 48 remdesivirtreated patients. Baseline characteristics were not significantly different between the two groups. Remdesivir was administered an average of 7.42 days from symptom onset. The proportions of clinical recovery of the remdesivir and supportive care group at HD 14 (56.3% and 39.5%) and HD 28 (87.5% and 78.9%) were not statistically different. The proportion of patients requiring MV support by HD 28 was significantly lower in the remdesivir group than in the supportive care group (22.9% vs. 44.7%, P = 0.032), and MV duration was significantly shorter in the remdesivir group (average, 1.97 vs. 5.37 days; P = 0.017). Analysis of upper respiratory tract specimens demonstrated that increases of Ct value from HD 1–5 to 11–15 were significantly greater in the remdesivir group than the supportive care group (average, 10.19 vs. 5.36; P = 0.007), and the slope of the Ct value increase was also significantly steeper in the remdesivir group (average, 5.10 vs. 2.68; P = 0.007). Conclusion The remdesivir group showed clinical and virologic benefit in terms of MV requirement and viral load reduction, supporting remdesivir treatment for severe COVID-19.

Understanding the long-term kinetics of antibodies in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is essential in interpreting serosurvey data. We investigated the antibody response one year after infection in 52 mildly symptomatic patients with severe acute respiratory syndromecoronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, using three commercial immunoassays and a surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT) kit. Anti-N pan-immunoglobulin (Ig), anti-S IgG, and anti-S1 IgG were detected in 43 (82.7%), 44 (84.6%), and 30 (57.7%), respectively. In 49 (94.2%), the antibody could be detected by either anti-N pan-Ig or anti-S IgG assay. In the sVNT, 30 (57.7%) had positive neutralizing activity. Despite waning immunity, SARS-CoV-2 antibodies can be detected up to one year after infection, even in mild COVID-19 patients.

Background: Remdesivir is widely used for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but controversies regarding its efficacy still remain. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted to evaluate the effect of remdesivir on clinical and virologic outcomes of severe COVID-19 patients from June to July 2020. Primary clinical endpoints included clinical recovery, additional mechanical ventilator (MV) support, and duration of oxygen or MV support. Viral load reduction by hospital day (HD) 15 was evaluated by calculating changes in cycle threshold (Ct) values. Results: A total of 86 severe COVID-19 patients were evaluated including 48 remdesivirtreated patients. Baseline characteristics were not significantly different between the two groups. Remdesivir was administered an average of 7.42 days from symptom onset. The proportions of clinical recovery of the remdesivir and supportive care group at HD 14 (56.3% and 39.5%) and HD 28 (87.5% and 78.9%) were not statistically different. The proportion of patients requiring MV support by HD 28 was significantly lower in the remdesivir group than in the supportive care group (22.9% vs. 44.7%, P = 0.032), and MV duration was significantly shorter in the remdesivir group (average, 1.97 vs. 5.37 days; P = 0.017). Analysis of upper respiratory tract specimens demonstrated that increases of Ct value from HD 1–5 to 11–15 were significantly greater in the remdesivir group than the supportive care group (average, 10.19 vs. 5.36; P = 0.007), and the slope of the Ct value increase was also significantly steeper in the remdesivir group (average, 5.10 vs. 2.68; P = 0.007). Conclusion The remdesivir group showed clinical and virologic benefit in terms of MV requirement and viral load reduction, supporting remdesivir treatment for severe COVID-19.

Understanding the long-term kinetics of antibodies in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is essential in interpreting serosurvey data. We investigated the antibody response one year after infection in 52 mildly symptomatic patients with severe acute respiratory syndromecoronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, using three commercial immunoassays and a surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT) kit. Anti-N pan-immunoglobulin (Ig), anti-S IgG, and anti-S1 IgG were detected in 43 (82.7%), 44 (84.6%), and 30 (57.7%), respectively. In 49 (94.2%), the antibody could be detected by either anti-N pan-Ig or anti-S IgG assay. In the sVNT, 30 (57.7%) had positive neutralizing activity. Despite waning immunity, SARS-CoV-2 antibodies can be detected up to one year after infection, even in mild COVID-19 patients.

Background/Aims: This study aimed to assess the association between local and systemic reactogenicity and humoral immunogenicity after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination. Methods: Adverse events were prospectively evaluated using an electronic diary in 135 healthy adults who received a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (AZD1222, AstraZeneca/Oxford, n = 42; or BNT162b2, Pfizer/BioNTech, n = 93). We semi-quantitatively measured anti-S1 immunoglobulin G (IgG) using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay at baseline, 3 weeks after the first dose of AZD1222 or BNT162b2, and 2 weeks after the second dose of BNT162b2. We evaluated the association between the maximum grade of local or systemic adverse events and the anti-S1 IgG optical density using multivariate linear regression with adjustment for age, sex, and use of antipyretics. Results: The median age of the 135 vaccinees was 30 years (36 years in the AZD1222 group and 29 years in the BNT162b2 group) and 25.9% were male (9.5% in the AZD1222 group and 33.3% in the BNT162b2 group). Local and systemic adverse events were generally comparable after the first dose of AZD1222 and the second dose of BNT162b2. The grades of local and systemic adverse events were not significantly associated with anti-S1 IgG levels in the AZD1222 or BNT162b2 group. Conclusions Local and systemic reactogenicity may not be associated with humoral immunogenicity after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.

BACKGROUND: Severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome (SFTS) is an emerging infectious disease with high mortality in East Asia. This study aimed to develop, for primary care providers, a prediction score using initial symptoms and basic laboratory blood tests to differentiate between SFTS and other endemic zoonoses in Korea.METHODS: Patients aged ≥ 18 years diagnosed with endemic zoonoses during a 3-year period (between January 2015 and December 2017) were retrospectively enrolled from 4 tertiary university hospitals. A prediction score was built based on multivariate logistic regression analyses.RESULTS: Of 84 patients, 35 with SFTS and 49 with other endemic zoonoses were enrolled. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, independent predictors of SFTS included neurologic symptoms (odds ratio [OR], 12.915; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.173–76.747), diarrhea (OR, 10.306; 95% CI, 1.588–66.895), leukopenia (< 4,000/mm3) (OR, 19.400; 95% CI, 3.290–114.408), and normal C-reactive protein (< 0.5 mg/dL) (OR, 24.739; 95% CI, 1.812–337.742). We set up a prediction score by assigning one point to each of these four predictors. A score of ≥ 2 had 82.9% sensitivity (95% CI, 71.7%–87.5%) and 95.9% specificity (95% CI, 88.0%–99.2%). The area under the curve of the clinical prediction score was 0.950 (95% CI, 0.903–0.997).CONCLUSION: This study finding suggests a simple and useful scoring system to predict SFTS in patients with endemic zoonoses. We expect this strategic approach to facilitate early differentiation of SFTS from other endemic zoonoses, especially by primary care providers, and to improve the clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome (SFTS) is an emerging infectious disease with high mortality in East Asia. This study aimed to develop, for primary care providers, a prediction score using initial symptoms and basic laboratory blood tests to differentiate between SFTS and other endemic zoonoses in Korea. METHODS: Patients aged ≥ 18 years diagnosed with endemic zoonoses during a 3-year period (between January 2015 and December 2017) were retrospectively enrolled from 4 tertiary university hospitals. A prediction score was built based on multivariate logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: Of 84 patients, 35 with SFTS and 49 with other endemic zoonoses were enrolled. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, independent predictors of SFTS included neurologic symptoms (odds ratio [OR], 12.915; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.173–76.747), diarrhea (OR, 10.306; 95% CI, 1.588–66.895), leukopenia (< 4,000/mm3) (OR, 19.400; 95% CI, 3.290–114.408), and normal C-reactive protein (< 0.5 mg/dL) (OR, 24.739; 95% CI, 1.812–337.742). We set up a prediction score by assigning one point to each of these four predictors. A score of ≥ 2 had 82.9% sensitivity (95% CI, 71.7%–87.5%) and 95.9% specificity (95% CI, 88.0%–99.2%). The area under the curve of the clinical prediction score was 0.950 (95% CI, 0.903–0.997). CONCLUSION This study finding suggests a simple and useful scoring system to predict SFTS in patients with endemic zoonoses. We expect this strategic approach to facilitate early differentiation of SFTS from other endemic zoonoses, especially by primary care providers, and to improve the clinical outcomes.