Interim Guidelines on Antiviral Therapy for COVID-19

COVID-19 Outbreak in Daegu City, Korea and Response to COVID-19: How Have We Dealt and What Are the Lessons?

The first coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in Daegu city was overcome by efforts, including; 1) prompt isolation and quarantine action by local government with cooperative help from expert groups and the central government, 2) high-intensity social distancing and active cooperation of citizens, 3) admission of asymptomatic and mild patients in 'residential treatment centers', and 4) use of a telephone scoring system for the allocation of patients, with a mortality rate of 2.5%. A continuous suppression policy with test, tracing, and treatment (3 Ts) was implemented as an active response to the initial outbreaks in Korea. With the introduction of vaccines and therapeutic agents, the COVID-19 crisis had improved. Recently, the omicron variant was responsible for most domestic outbreaks, albeit with a low mortality rate (0.1%). Since the omicron outbreak, a damage mitigation policy has been implemented, focusing on protecting vulnerable groups. In the future, preparation including below are needed; 1) improving the national public health emergency response system, 2) strengthening the crisis response capacity of local governments, 3) cooperation between public healthcare and private healthcare, and 4) establishing a resilient medical response system.

How We Have Treated Severe to Critically Ill Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Korea

Since 2019, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has spread worldwide, and the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic currently continues. In response to this unprecedented pandemic, several researchers and medical staff have struggled to find appropriate treatments for COVID-19. Patients with mild symptoms can recuperate with symptomatic care, however establishing treatment for severe to critically ill patients who can have a high mortality has been essential. Accordingly, the guidelines for COVID-19 treatment have evolved through numerous trials and errors and have been relatively well established to date. In the Republic of Korea, several evidence-based guidelines for COVID-19 treatment were released and revised, reflecting various research and regional medical conditions. To date, approximately 3 years after the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, we are reflecting on the changes in the guidelines thus far and have summarized the treatment experience of severe to critically ill patients with COVID-19. The Korean guidelines for COVID-19 treatment have been updated continuously as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) guidelines have changed. Dexamethasone is currently used as the backbone for the treatment of severe to critically ill patients with COVID-19, and remdesivir, baricitinib, and tocilizumab can be added depending on a patient's situation. In addition, venous thromboembolism prophylaxis is one of the important adjunctive therapies for patients with severe COVID-19. In the clinical field, treatment of severely ill patients with COVID-19 based on guidelines is widely practiced by medical staff and established currently.

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

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) continues to threaten public health in Korea although several surges have passed in the past 3 years since 2019. Although patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 can usually recover at home, antiviral therapy to prevent disease progression and hospitalization is beneficial for those at high risk of progressing to severe COVID-19. The purpose of this article was to review how antivirals have been rolled out for the treatment of COVID-19 and how domestic and international guidelines for their use have evolved. Several evidence-based treatment guidelines have been developed in Korea, including those derived from domestic studies. Although many different antiviral agents were nominated as promising therapeutics at the onset of the pandemic, most failed to show efficacy in clinical trials. Currently, three types of antiviral agents-nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, molnupiravir, and remdesivir-are available in Korea to treat severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Each antiviral has its advantages and disadvantages. For most individuals, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir is preferred because of its high efficacy and convenience of administration. When serious drug interactions occur or are expected with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir administration, 3 days of remdesivir treatment is shown to be a reasonable alternative. Molnupiravir may be prescribed with caution only if no other therapeutic options are available or acceptable.

Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir Prescription Rate and Outcomes in Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Single Center Study

BACKGROUND

Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was Korea's first oral antiviral agent to treat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We analyzed the nirmatrelvir/ritonavir prescription rate and treatment outcomes in treatment-eligible patients with COVID-19 receiving home-based care.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively collected data of patients with COVID-19-eligible for nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment from January 14, 2022, to February 15, 2022. We analyzed the prescription rate of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, the reasons for non-prescription, and patient outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 414 patients were included, of whom 44.2% were male, and the mean age was 64.6 (standard deviation [SD] = 8.5). Approximately 73.2% (n = 303) of patients were not prescribed nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. More than fourth-fifths of the patients refused nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment (n = 262, 86.5%). The mean symptom duration was significantly shorter in the prescription group (5.2 days [SD = 2.3] vs. 4.4 days [SD = 1.9], P = 0.001). A total of 6 (1.4%) patients were hospitalized, and none of the patients who received nirmatrelvir/ritonavir required admission. Among the patients prescribed nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (n = 111), 17 (15.3%) patients experienced side effects, and 5 (4.5%) patients discontinued nirmatrelvir/ritonavir due to side effects.

CONCLUSION

The nirmatrelvir/ritonavir prescription rate was low, with more than fourth-fifths of non-prescriptions being due to patient refusal. Symptom resolution was faster, and no life-threatening side effects were reported. Accurate information about drug safety must be provided to patients to make informed decisions regarding nirmatrelvir/ritonavir treatment.

Use of combined treatment of 3rd-generation cephalosporin, azithromycin and antiviral agents on moderate SARs-CoV-2 patients in South Korea: A retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

To assess efficacy and safety of the combined treatment of antibiotics (3rd-generation cephalosporin and azithromycin) and antiviral agents (lopinavir/ritonavir or hydroxychloroquine) on moderate COVID-19 patients in South Korea.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of the 358 laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) patients was conducted. 299 patients met inclusion criteria for analysis. Propensity score matching (PSM) and Cox regression method were used to control and adjust for confounding factors. Mild to moderate COVID-19 patients were managed with either CA/LoP (cephalosporin, azithromycin, and lopinavir/ritonavir) (n = 57), CA/HQ (cephalosporin, azithromycin, and hydroxychloroquine) (n = 25) or standard supportive care (n = 217). We analyzed the association between treatment group and standard supportive group in terms of three endpoints: time to symptom resolution, time to viral clearance, and hospital stay duration. Using propensity-score matching analysis, three rounds of propensity-matching analysis were performed to balance baseline characteristics among three cohorts.

RESULTS

Kaplan-Meier curves fitted using propensity score-matched data revealed no significant differences on time to symptom resolution, time to viral clearance, hospital stay duration among the three treatment arms (CA/LoP vs Standard, log-rank p-value = 0.2, 0.58, and 0.74 respectively for the three endpoints) (CA/HQ vs Standard, log-rank p-value = 0.46, 0.99, and 0.75 respectively). Similarly, Cox regression analysis on matched cohorts of CA/LoP and standard supportive group showed that hazard ratios of time to symptom resolution (HR: 1.447 [95%-CI: 0.813-2.577]), time to viral clearance(HR: 0.861, [95%-CI: 0.485-1.527]), and hospital stay duration (HR: 0.902, [95%-CI: 0.510-1.595]) were not significant. For CA/HQ and standard supportive group, hazard ratios of the three endpoints all showed no statistical significance (HR: 1.331 [95%-CI:0.631-2.809], 1.005 [95%-CI:0.480-2.105], and 0.887, [95%-CI:0.422-1.862] respectively). No severe adverse event or death was observed in all groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined treatment of 3rd cephalosporin, azithromycin and either low-dose lopinavir/ritonavir or hydroxychloroquine was not associated with better clinical outcomes in terms of time to symptom resolution, time to viral clearance, and hospital stay duration compared to standard supportive treatment alone. Microbiological evidence should be closely monitored when treating SARS-CoV-2 patients with antibiotics to prevent indiscreet administration of empirical antimicrobial treatments.

A Transient Effect of Convalescent Plasma Therapy in a Patient with Severe Covonavirus Disease 2019: A Case Report

A 65-year-old male patient with an end-stage renal disease was diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction. The patient complained of cough, sputum, and respiratory distress that worsened three days ago. The patient required mechanical ventilation and extracorporeal mentrane oxygenation. On day 9, convalescent plasma collected from a 34-year old man who recovered from COVID-19 45 days ago was administered. The patient showed immediate clinical improvement. However, on day 14, the patient’s clinical course worsened again. On day 19 and day 24, vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium bacteremia and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus pneumonia were found. After long-term supportive care, he slowly recovered. He was discharged on day 91 without any oxygen requirement. This case report suggests that convalescent plasma therapy might just provide a short-term relief and that persistent effort for critical care is necessary to save patients from severe COVID-19.

Comparison of Comorbidities in Relation to Critical Conditions among Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients: A Network Meta-Analysis

Severe illness and poor outcome are mainly associated with aging or certain medical comorbidities, especially chronic diseases. However, factors for unfavorable prognosis have not been well described owing to relatively small sample sizes and single-center reports. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the contribution of comorbidities in the development of critical conditions in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. Pooled estimates of relative risks (RRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated by conducting a meta-analysis and network meta-analysis of 18 studies. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) was most strongly associated with the overall critical condition (RR = 4.22, 95% CI = 3.12 - 5.69), followed by cardiovascular disease (CVD) (RR = 3.00, 95% CI = 2.41 - 3.73), malignancy (RR = 2.91, 95% CI = 2.16 - 3.91), cerebrovascular accident (CVA) (RR = 2.86, 95% CI = 1.95 - 4.19), diabetes (RR = 2.10, 95% CI = 2.16 - 3.91), hypertension (RR = 2.02, 95% CI = 1.82 - 2.23), and chronic kidney disease (RR = 2.00, 95% CI = 1.36 - 2.94). The presence of comorbidities except for chronic liver disease and chronic kidney disease significantly increased the risk of severe infection, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and cardiac injury in the subgroup analysis by types of critical conditions. Preexisting hypertension and diabetes additionally increased the risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Among comorbidities, COPD had the highest probability of leading to severe COVID-19, ICU admission, and liver injury, while malignancy was most likely to cause ARDS and cardiac injury. In summary, preexisting COPD, CVD, CVA, hypertension, diabetes, and malignancy are more likely to worsen the progression of COVID-19, with severe infection, ICU admission requirement, and cardiac injury development.

Critical Review of the Scientific Evidence and Recommendations in COVID-19 Management Guidelines

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the quality and potential impacts of the guidelines for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) management.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, guideline databases, and specialty society websites to evaluate the quality of the retrieved guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II.

RESULTS

A total of 66 guidelines were identified. Only 24% were categorized as "recommended" for clinical practice. The 211 identified recommendations for COVID-19 management were classified into 4 topics: respiratory support (27), acute respiratory distress syndrome management (31), antiviral or immunomodulatory therapy (95), or other medicines (58). Only 63% and 56% of recommendations were supported by, respectively, assessment of the strength of the recommendations or level of evidence. There were notable discrepancies between the different guidelines regarding the recommendations on COVID-19 management.

CONCLUSIONS

The quality of the guidelines for COVID-19 management is heterogeneous, and the recommendations are rarely supported by evidence.

Genetic Susceptibility of ACE2 and TMPRSS2 in Six Common Cancers and Possible Impacts on COVID-19

PURPOSE

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has spread worldwide rapidly and patients with cancer have been considered as a vulnerable group for this infection. This study aimed to examine the expressions of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and transmembrane serine protease 2 (TMPRSS2) in tumor tissues of six common cancer types.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The expression levels of ACE2 and TMPRSS2 in tumors and control samples were obtained from online databases. Survival prognosis and biological functions of these genes were investigated for each tumor type.

RESULTS

There was the overexpression of ACE2 in colon and stomach adenocarcinomas compared to controls, meanwhile colon and prostate adenocarcinomas showed a significantly higher expression of TMPRSS2. Additionally, survival prognosis analysis has demonstrated that upregulation of ACE2 in liver hepatocellular carcinoma was associated with higher overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.65; p=0.016) and disease-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.66; p=0.007), while overexpression of TMPRSS2 was associated with a 26% reduced risk of death in lung adenocarcinoma (p=0.047) but 50% increased risk of death in breast invasive carcinoma (p=0.015).

CONCLUSION

There is a need to take extra precautions for COVID-19 in patients with colorectal cancer, stomach cancer, and lung cancer. Further information on other types of cancer at different stages should be investigated.

Quality of and Recommendations for Relevant Clinical Practice Guidelines for COVID-19 Management: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal

Background: The morbidity and mortality of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are still increasing. This study aimed to assess the quality of relevant COVID-19 clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and to compare the similarities and differences between recommendations. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted using electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science) and representative guidelines repositories from December 1, 2019, to August 11, 2020 (updated to April 5, 2021), to obtain eligible CPGs. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool was used to evaluate the quality of CPGs. Four authors extracted relevant information and completed data extraction forms. All data were analyzed using R version 3.6.0 software. Results: In total, 39 CPGs were identified and the quality was not encouragingly high. The median score (interquartile range, IQR) of every domain from AGREE II for evidence-based CPGs (EB-CPGs) versus (vs.) consensus-based CPG (CB-CPGs) was 81.94% (75.00-84.72) vs. 58.33% (52.78-68.06) in scope and purpose, 59.72% (38.89-75.00) vs. 36.11% (33.33-36.11) in stakeholder involvement, 64.58% (32.29-71.88) vs. 22.92% (16.67-26.56) in rigor of development, 75.00% (52.78-86.81) vs. 52.78% (50.00-63.89) in clarity of presentation, 40.63% (22.40-62.50) vs. 20.83% (13.54-25.00) in applicability, and 58.33% (50.00-100.00) vs. 50.00% (50.00-77.08) in editorial independence, respectively. The methodological quality of EB-CPGs were significantly superior to the CB-CPGs in the majority of domains (P < 0.05). There was no agreement on diagnosis criteria of COVID-19. But a few guidelines show Remdesivir may be beneficial for the patients, hydroxychloroquine +/- azithromycin may not, and there were more consistent suggestions regarding discharge management. For instance, after discharge, isolation management and health status monitoring may be continued. Conclusions: In general, the methodological quality of EB-CPGs is greater than CB-CPGs. However, it is still required to be further improved. Besides, the consistency of COVID-19 recommendations on topics such as diagnosis criteria is different. Of them, hydroxychloroquine +/- azithromycin may be not beneficial to treat patients with COVID-19, but remdesivir may be a favorable risk-benefit in severe COVID-19 infection; isolation management and health status monitoring after discharge may be still necessary. Chemoprophylaxis, including SARS-CoV 2 vaccines and antiviral drugs of COVID-19, still require more trials to confirm this.

Current advances in pharmacological treatments for patients with COVID-19

Since the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak, more than 150 million people in over 200 countries have been infected, with over 3 million people dying due to it, as of May 1, 2021. Many researchers are working continuously to find effective drug treatments for COVID-19; however, the optimal treatment approach remains unclear. In this article, current advances in pharmacological treatments for patients with COVID-19 are discussed. Data obtained from recent studies indicate a mortality benefit with the administration of dexamethasone or adjunctive tocilizumab and potential clinical benefits with remdesivir (with or without baricitinib). Several monoclonal antibodies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 have been developed. The US Food and Drug Administration issued two emergency use authorizations: one for bamlanivimab/etesevimab and another for casirivimab/imdevimab for patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, at high risk of progression to severe disease and/or hospitalization. The pathogenesis of COVID-19 indicates that antiviral treatments would be most beneficial in the early phase of the infection that is primarily driven by replication of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, whereas immunosuppressive/anti-inflammatory therapies are likely to be more beneficial during the late phase of the infection, when the disease is driven by an exaggerated immune/inflammatory response to the virus that causes tissue damage.

A Flexible Transoral Robot Towards COVID-19 Swab Sampling

There are high risks of infection for surgeons during the face-to-face COVID-19 swab sampling due to the novel coronavirus's infectivity. To address this issue, we propose a flexible transoral robot with a teleoperated configuration for swab sampling. The robot comprises a flexible manipulator, an endoscope with a monitor, and a master device. A 3-prismatic-universal (3-PU) flexible parallel mechanism with 3 degrees of freedom (DOF) is used to realize the manipulator's movements. The flexibility of the manipulator improves the safety of testees. Besides, the master device is similar to the manipulator in structure. It is easy to use for operators. Under the guidance of the vision from the endoscope, the surgeon can operate the master device to control the swab's motion attached to the manipulator for sampling. In this paper, the robotic system, the workspace, and the operation procedure are described in detail. The tongue depressor, which is used to prevent the tongue's interference during the sampling, is also tested. The accuracy of the manipulator under visual guidance is validated intuitively. Finally, the experiment on a human phantom is conducted to demonstrate the feasibility of the robot preliminarily.

Predicting the outcome in confirmed COVID-19 patients with coronary artery disease: a key role for the first chest computed tomography

Background

Serial chest computed tomography (CT) scans are used to detect coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia and monitor the disease course. This study investigates relationship between total severity score by first chest CT and the outcome of coronavirus COVID-19 patients with coronary artery disease (CAD).

Results

A total of 48 patients with a history of CAD (mean age=60.83±3.06 years, 75% male) with positive real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction for COVID-19 were included. Outcome was defined as acute respiratory distress syndrome or death. The unadjusted and adjusted effects of the CT score on the outcome were reported through odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Outcome occurred in 17 (35.5%) patients (8 deaths). The CT score was directly and significantly correlated with the outcome in the univariate analysis (OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.12–1.70; P=0.003) and remained significant after adjustment for diabetes, hypertension, body mass index, and serum level of highly sensitive C-reactive protein (OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.11–2.05; P=0.009). Outcome rate was 24.1% in patients with a CT score <2.5, whereas it was 8.3% in patients with a CT score>2.5.

Conclusions

The first chest CT score could be a robust predictor of adverse events in confirmed COVID-19 patients with coronary artery disease.

Clinical and Virologic Effectiveness of Remdesivir Treatment for Severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Korea: a Nationwide Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study

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 remdesivir-treated 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.

Consistency of recommendations and methodological quality of guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19

OBJECTIVE

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 epidemic, a large number of guidelines on diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19 have been developed, but the quality of those guidelines and the consistency of recommendations are unclear. The objective of this study is to evaluate the quality of the diagnosis and treatment guidelines on COVID-19 and analyze the consistency of the recommendations of these guidelines.

METHODS

We searched for guidelines on diagnosis and/or treatment of COVID-19 through PubMed, CBM, CNKI, and WanFang Data, from January 1, 2020 to August 31, 2020. In addition, we also searched official websites of the US CDC, European CDC and WHO, and some guideline collection databases. We included diagnosis and/or treatment guidelines for COVID-19, including rapid advice guidelines and interim guidelines. Two trained researchers independently extracted data and four trained researchers evaluated the quality of the guidelines using the AGREE II instruments. We extracted information on the basic characteristics of the guidelines, guideline development process, and the recommendations. We described the consistency of the direction of recommendations for treatment and diagnosis of COVID-19 across the included guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 37 guidelines were included. Most included guidelines were assessed as low quality, with only one of the six domains of AGREE II (clarity of presentation) having a mean score above 50%. The mean scores of three domains (stakeholder involvement, the rigor of development and applicability) were all below 30%. The recommendations on diagnosis and treatment were to some extent consistent between the included guidelines. Computed tomography (CT), X-rays, lung ultrasound, RT-PCR, and routine blood tests were the most commonly recommended methods for COVID-19 diagnosis. Thirty guidelines were on the treatment of COVID-19. The recommended forms of treatment included supportive care, antiviral therapy, glucocorticoid therapy, antibiotics, immunoglobulin, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), convalescent plasma, and psychotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The methodological quality of currently available diagnosis and treatment guidelines for COVID-19 is low. The diagnosis and treatment recommendations between the included guidelines are highly consistent. The main diagnostic methods for COVID-19 are RT-PCR and CT, with ultrasound as a potential diagnostic tool. As there is no effective treatment against COVID-19 yet, supportive therapy is at the moment the most important treatment option.

Comparison of antiviral effect for mild-to-moderate COVID-19 cases between lopinavir/ritonavir versus hydroxychloroquine: A nationwide propensity score-matched cohort study

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to compare the antiviral effect of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) in patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

Nationwide retrospective case-control study was conducted to compare the effect of HCQ and LPV/r on viral shedding duration among patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 using the reimbursement data of National Health Insurance Service. After propensity score matching (PSM), multivariate analysis was conducted to determine statistically significant risk factors associated with prolonged viral shedding.

RESULTS

Overall, 4197 patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 were included. Patients were categorized into three groups: LPV/r (n = 1268), HCQ (n = 801), and standard care without HCQ or LPV/r (controls, n = 2128). The median viral shedding duration was 23 (IQR 17-32), 23 (IQR 16-32), and 18 (IQR 12-25) days in the LPV/r, HCQ, and control groups, respectively. Even after PSM, the viral shedding duration was not significantly different between LPV/r and HCQ groups: 23 (IQR, 17-32) days versus 23 (IQR, 16-32) days. On multivariate analysis, old age, malignancy, steroid use, and concomitant pneumonia were statistically significant risk factors for prolonged viral shedding.

CONCLUSION

The viral shedding duration was similar between HCQ and LPV/r treatment groups. There was no benefit in improving viral clearance compared to the control group.

Effect of sex hormones on coronavirus disease 2019: an analysis of 5,061 laboratory-confirmed cases in South Korea

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of female sex hormones on the clinical outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 patients using national claims data.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study used the Health Insurance Review and Assessment data of 5,061 adult patients with laboratory-confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 in South Korea from January 20 to April 8, 2020. To evaluate the effect of hormone therapy on clinical outcomes among women, subgroup analyses using age-matched case-control data were performed.

RESULTS

Coronavirus disease 2019 was most prevalent in women in the 20-39 years age group (1,250 [44.14%]). Men were more likely to receive oxygen therapy (144 [6.46%] vs 131 [4.63%], P = 0.004), be admitted to the intensive care unit (60 [2.69%] vs 53 [1.87%], P = 0.049), and have a longer length of stay after admission to the intensive care unit (19.70 ± 11.80 vs 14.75 ± 9.23, P = 0.016). However, there was no significant difference in the mortality rate (men vs women: 42 [1.88%] vs 42 [1.48%], P = 0.267). In the multivariable Cox analysis, older age and underlying comorbidities, but not sex, were independent risk factors for mortality. Hormone therapy was not significantly associated with clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

This study, using nationwide data, suggests that female sex hormones are not associated with the morbidity and clinical outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 in South Korea.

Differential Diagnosis and Hospital Emergency Management for Fastlane Treatment of Central Nervous System Infection Under the COVID-19 Epidemic in Changsha, China

Importance: Corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has long latent period, strong infectivity, and non-specific symptoms and signs in the upper respiratory tract. Some initial neurological symptoms appear, including dizziness, headache, seizures, slurred speech, disturbance of consciousness, and limb paralysis among a few COVID-19 patients, which share similar manifestations with central nervous system (CNS) infection. Improving the diagnostic efficiency of suspected CNS infection patients on the basis of preventing and controlling COVID-19 plays a key role in preventing nosocomial and cross infections. This study intends to formulate a hospital emergency management system of fastlane treatment of CNS infection for epidemic prevention and control, aiming at providing references and guidelines for the government and medical institutions to improve the efficiency of treating CNS infection patients in the clinical practice during COVID-19. Observations: This study formulated a framework of a fastlane treatment of CNS infection based on the cooperation of resources and experience, aiming at the key and difficult problems faced by the hospital emergency management system during the COVID-19 outbreak in Changsha, China. The main problem of formulating the hospital emergency management system is efficiently identifying whether CNS infection was caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The framework improves the efficiency of diagnosing and treating CNS infections by standardizing the diagnosis and treatment process of patients in emergency observation and strengthening the management of inpatient wards, aiming at assisting medical staff during clinical practice. Conclusions and Relevance: The hospital emergency management system of a fastlane treatment of CNS infection for epidemic prevention and control of the COVID-19 outbreak is a professional and multisystem project, which needs the cooperation of various resources and the experience of clinical leadership.

Convalescent Plasma Therapy for Coronavirus Disease 2019

Convalescent plasma has been used for decades to prevent and treat a wide range of infectious diseases for which no specific treatment is available. The use of convalescent plasma involves transfusing plasma collected from patients who have recovered from a viral illness, in an attempt to transfer virus-neutralizing antibodies and confer passive immunity. In addition to the antiviral mechanisms of neutralizing antibodies, the immunomodulatory effects of plasma components could have benefits. Several small and large-scale studies have shown the effects of convalescent plasma for the treatment of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In addition to transfusion-related side effects, unexpected side effects such as antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) may occur during convalescent plasma therapy, but early safety studies have not found any cases of ADE among more than 5,000 participants. With historical precedents and recent clinical studies, convalescent plasma therapy should be considered as a candidate therapy for COVID-19 given the limited effectiveness of antiviral drugs and lack of a vaccine. A system to secure safe collection and use of convalescent plasma should be developed as a response to the pandemic. Further clinical trials should be conducted to determine the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy concurrently with its clinical use.

Treatment Options for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome, and Coronavirus Disease 2019: a Review of Clinical Evidence

Coronaviruses have caused serious Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), and Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreaks, and only remdesivir has been recently indicated for the treatment of COVID-19. In the line of therapeutic options for SARS and MERS, this study aims to summarize the current clinical evidence of treatment options for COVID-19. In general, the combination of antibiotics, ribavirin, and corticosteroids was considered as a standard treatment for patients with SARS. The addition of this conventional treatment with lopinavir/ritonavir, interferon, and convalescent plasma showed potential clinical improvement. For patients with MERS, ribavirin, lopinavir/ritonavir, interferon, and convalescent plasma were continuously recommended. However, a high-dose of corticosteroid was suggested for severe cases only. The use of lopinavir/ritonavir and convalescent plasma was commonly reported. There was limited evidence for the effect of corticosteroids, other antiviral drugs like ribavirin, and favipiravir. Monoclonal antibody of tocilizumab and antimalarial agents of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine were also introduced. Among antibiotics for infection therapy, azithromycin was suggested. In conclusion, this study showed the up-to-date evidence of treatment options for COVID-19 that is helpful for the therapy selection and the development of further guidelines and recommendations. Updates of on-going clinical trials and observational studies may confirm the current findings.

Role of Lopinavir/Ritonavir in the Treatment of Covid-19: A Review of Current Evidence, Guideline Recommendations, and Perspectives

A life-threatening respiratory illness (COVID-19) due to severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV-2 coronavirus was first described in December 2019 in Wuhan (China), rapidly evolving into a pandemic. In the first phase, when the viral replication plays a pivotal pathogenetic role, antiviral drugs could be crucial in limiting viral-induced organ damage. Unfortunately, there are no specific antivirals of proven efficacy for COVID-19, and several drugs have been repurposed to face this dramatic pandemic. In this paper we review the studies evaluating lopinavir/ritonavir association (LPV/r) use in COVID-19, and previously in SARS and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS). We searched PubMed to identify all relevant clinical and laboratory studies published up to 15 May 2020; the guidelines on the use of LPV/r in COVID-19 were further directly searched on the website of the main international scientific societies and agencies. Available evidence is currently scarce and of low quality. The recommendations issued for COVID-19 vary from positions clearly against the use of LPV/r to other positions that are more favorable. In our opinion, despite the controversial results of an important randomized clinical trial, and some recommendations, clinicians should not abandon the use of LPV/r for the treatment of COVID-19, possibly using this drug inside a prospective randomized trial, waiting for the results of the numerous ongoing trials evaluating its efficacy.

Empirical Treatment and Prevention of COVID-19

The rapid spread of severe acute respiratory coronavirus syndrome 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in the population and throughout the cells within our body has been developing. Another major cycle of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which is expected in the coming fall, could be even more severe than the current one. Therefore, effective countermeasures should be developed based on the already obtained clinical and research information about SARS-CoV-2. The aim of this review was to summarize the data on the empirical treatment of COVID-19 acquired during this SARS-CoV-2 infection cycle; this would aid the establishment of an appropriate healthcare policy to meet the challenges in the future. The infectious disease caused by SARS-CoV-2 is characterized by common cold along with hypersensitivity reaction. Thus, in addition to treating common cold, it is essential to minimize the exposure of cells to the virus and to mitigate the uncontrolled immune response. A proper combination of antiviral agents, immune modulators such as prednisolone, and anticoagulants such as heparin and anti-C5a antagonists could be employed to minimize lung damage and prevent systemic involvements. Finally, strategies to achieve population immunity against SARS-CoV-2 should be developed through understanding of the interaction between the immune system and the virus.