Treatment Options for Patients With Mild-to-Moderate Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Korea

Review of COVID-19 Therapeutics by Mechanism: From Discovery to Approval

The global research and pharmaceutical community rapidly mobilized to develop treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Existing treatments have been repurposed and new drugs have emerged. Here we summarize mechanisms and clinical trials of COVID-19 therapeutics approved or in development. Two reviewers, working independently, reviewed published data for approved COVID-19 vaccines and drugs, as well as developmental pipelines, using databases from the following organizations: United States Food and Drug Administration (US-FDA), European Medicines Agency (EMA), Japanese Pharmaceutical and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA), and ClinicalTrials.gov. In all, 387 drugs were found for initial review. After removing unrelated trials and drugs, 66 drugs were selected, including 17 approved drugs and 49 drugs under development. These drugs were classified into six categories: 1) drugs targeting the viral life cycle 2) Anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 Monoclonal Antibodies, 3) immunomodulators, 4) anti-coagulants, 5) COVID-19-induced neuropathy drugs, and 6) other therapeutics. Among the 49 drugs under development are the following: 6 drugs targeting the viral life cycle, 12 immunosuppression drugs, 2 immunostimulants, 2 HIF-PHD targeting drugs, 3 GM-CSF targeting drugs, 5 anti-coagulants, 2 COVID-19-induced neuropathy drugs, and 17 others. This review provides insight into mechanisms of action, properties, and indications for COVID-19 medications.

Adverse Drug Events Associated With Remdesivir in Real-World Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19, Including Vulnerable Populations: A Retrospective Multicenter Study

BACKGROUND

Remdesivir is a US Food and Drug Administration-approved drug for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Clinical trials were conducted under strictly controlled situations for a selected population, and their reported adverse events may not fully represent conditions in real-world patients. We aimed to estimate the incidence of adverse drug events (ADEs) associated with remdesivir in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, including vulnerable subpopulations, such as those with impaired renal or hepatic function and pregnant women.

METHODS

This retrospective observational study included hospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19 treated with remdesivir between January and December 2021 at ten hospitals. ADEs and severe ADEs (Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events grade ≥ 3) were operationally defined and analyzed through laboratory investigations. The incidence of ADEs was compared with that of each matched control in subpopulations with renal or hepatic impairment and pregnant women.

RESULTS

Among 2,140 patients, 1,416 (66.2%) and 295 (13.8%) experienced at least one ADE and severe ADE, respectively. The most frequent ADE was 'hepatic injury' (42.9%), followed by anemia (27.6%). The most common severe ADEs were 'hypokalemia' (5.3%), 'hepatic injury' (2.9%), and 'anemia' (3.6%). There was no significant difference in the incidence of ADEs in patients relative to their respective matched-control groups, including those with renal impairment (80.0% vs. control 71.8%, P = 0.063), hepatic impairment (70.4% vs. control 75.0%, P = 0.623) and pregnant women (78.6% vs. control 63.7%, P = 0.067). However, severe ADE incidence was significantly higher in patients with renal impairment (40.8% vs. 16.0%, P < 0.001). The most common severe ADEs in those were 'anemia' (15.3%), 'hypokalemia' (10.5%), and 'thrombocytopenia' (8.9%). There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of severe ADEs in patients with hepatic impairment or in pregnancy (P = 0.230; P = 0.085).

CONCLUSION

A significant proportion of patients with COVID-19 treated with remdesivir experienced ADEs and severe ADEs. Given the high incidence of severe ADEs, caution is required in patients with renal impairment. Further studies are needed to investigate ADEs in pregnant women and patients with hepatic impairment.

Risk Factors for the Prescription of Ineffective Antiviral Candidates for COVID-19 During the Early Pandemic Period in Korea

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.

Effective vaccination strategies to control COVID-19 in Korea: a modeling study

OBJECTIVES

In Korea, as immunity levels of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the population acquired through previous infections and vaccinations have decreased, booster vaccinations have emerged as a necessary measure to control new outbreaks. The objective of this study was to identify the most suitable vaccination strategy for controlling the surge in COVID-19 cases.

METHODS

A mathematical model was developed to concurrently evaluate the immunity levels induced by vaccines and infections. This model was then employed to investigate the potential for future resurgence and the possibility of control through the use of vaccines and antivirals.

RESULTS

As of May 11, 2023, if the current epidemic trend persists without further vaccination efforts, a peak in resurgence is anticipated to occur around mid-October of the same year. Under the most favorable circumstances, the peak number of severely hospitalized patients could be reduced by 43% (n=480) compared to the scenario without vaccine intervention (n=849). Depending on outbreak trends and vaccination strategies, the best timing for vaccination in terms of minimizing this peak varies from May 2023 to August 2023.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that if the epidemic persist, the best timing for administering vaccinations would need to be earlier than currently outlined in the Korean plan. It is imperative to continue monitoring outbreak trends, as this is key to determining the best vaccination timing in order to manage potential future surges.

Acute COVID-19 in unvaccinated children without a history of previous infection during the delta and omicron periods

BACKGROUND

The Omicron variant has been the predominant severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 variant circulating in Korea since January 2022. This study evaluated and compared the clinical characteristics of children with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) between the Delta and Omicron periods.

METHODS

The medical records of children aged < 12 years diagnosed with acute COVID-19 (<2 weeks of symptom onset) at seven university-affiliated hospitals were retrospectively reviewed. Children with a previous history of COVID-19 or vaccination were excluded. The clinical characteristics of the included children during the Delta (1 August 2021 to 15 January 2022) and Omicron (16 January to 30 June 2022) periods were compared.

RESULTS

Among the 515 children included in the study, 36 (7.0%) and 479 (93.0%) were diagnosed with COVID-19 during the Delta and Omicron periods, respectively. A total of 142 (27.6%) were hospitalized, and the hospitalization rate was higher during the Delta period than the Omicron period (91.7% vs. 22.8%, p < 0.001). The incidence of fever (p = 0.009), vomiting (p = 0.031), and seizures (p = 0.007) was higher during the Omicron period, whereas the incidence of rhinorrhea (p = 0.027) was higher during the Delta period. Clinical severity and outcomes were comparable between the two periods. During the Omicron period, 6.4% of the hospitalized children received oxygen therapy and 1.8% received intensive care.

CONCLUSION

The incidence of fever and seizures was higher during the Omicron period in pediatric patients without a history of vaccination or previous COVID-19. However, the clinical severity was similar during both periods.