ABSTRACT
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.
ABSTRACT
The personal protective equipment (PPE) used to minimize exposure to hazards can hinder healthcare workers from performing sophisticated procedures. We retrospectively reviewed 77,535 blood cultures (202,012 pairs) performed in 28,502 patients from January 2020 to April 2022. The contamination rate of all blood cultures was significantly elevated in the coronavirus disease 2019 ward at 4.68%, compared to intensive care units at 2.56%, emergency rooms at 1.13%, hematology wards at 1.08%, and general wards at 1.07% (All of P < 0.001). This finding implies that wearing PPE might interfere with adherence to the aseptic technique. Therefore, a new PPE policy is needed that considers the balance between protecting healthcare workers and medical practices.
ABSTRACT
Despite the low prevalence of secondary bacterial infection in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients, most of them were administered antibiotic therapy empirically.However, the prognostic impact of empirical antibiotic therapy has not been evaluated.We conducted retrospective propensity score-matched case-control study of 233 COVID-19 patients with moderate to severe illnesses who required oxygen therapy and evaluated whether empirical antibiotic therapy could improve clinical outcomes. Empirical antibiotic therapy did not improve clinical outcomes including length of stay, days with oxygen requirement, the proportion of patients with increased oxygen demand, the proportion of patients who required mechanical ventilation, and overall mortality. This finding implies that routine administration of antibiotics for the treatment of COVID-19 is not essential and should be restricted.
ABSTRACT
Background@#The clinical features of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients in the COVID-19 vaccination era need to be clarified because breakthrough infection after vaccination is not uncommon. @*Methods@#We retrospectively analyzed hospitalized COVID-19 patients during a delta variantdominant period 6 months after the national COVID-19 vaccination rollout. The clinical characteristics and risk factors for severe progression were assessed and subclassified according to vaccination status. @*Results@#A total of 438 COVID-19 patients were included; the numbers of patients in the unvaccinated, partially vaccinated and fully vaccinated groups were 188 (42.9%), 117 (26.7%) and 133 (30.4%), respectively. The vaccinated group was older, less symptomatic and had a higher Charlson comorbidity index at presentation. The proportions of patients who experienced severe progression in the unvaccinated and fully vaccinated groups were 20.3% (31/153) and 10.8% (13/120), respectively. Older age, diabetes mellitus, solid cancer, elevated levels of lactate dehydrogenase and chest X-ray abnormalities were associated with severe progression, and the vaccination at least once was the only protective factor for severe progression. Chest X-ray abnormalities at presentation were the only predictor for severe progression among fully vaccinated patients. @*Conclusion@#In the hospitalized setting, vaccinated and unvaccinated COVID-19 patients showed different clinical features and risk of oxygen demand despite a relatively high proportion of patients in the two groups. Vaccination needs to be assessed as an initial checkpoint, and chest X-ray may be helpful for predicting severe progression in vaccinated patients.
ABSTRACT
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.
ABSTRACT
We investigated the kinetics of the neutralizing antibody responses to the severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 delta variant over the course of 1 year in 16 patients infected at the beginning of the pandemic. In patients with severe disease, neutralizing responses to the delta variant were detectable, albeit at lower levels than responses to the wild type. Neutralizing responses to the delta variant were undetectable, however, in asymptomatic persons. This finding implies that the vaccination strategy for persons with past natural infection should depend on the severity of the previous infection.
ABSTRACT
Background@#The relationship between changes in anxiety levels and personal protective equipment (PPE) use is yet to be evaluated. The present study assessed this relationship among healthcare workers (HCWs) involved in the care of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). @*Methods@#An online survey was conducted in a municipal hospital with 195 nationally designated negative pressure isolation units in Korea. Anxiety level was measured using the self-rating anxiety scale (SAS), and changes in anxiety levels were assessed based on the time when COVID-19 vaccine was introduced in March 2021 in Korea. Monthly PPE usage between June 2020 and May 2021 was investigated. @*Results@#The mean SAS score (33.25 ± 5.97) was within normal range and was lower than those reported in previous studies conducted before COVID-19 vaccination became available.Among the 93 HCWs who participated, 64 (68.8%) answered that their fear of contracting COVID-19 decreased after vaccination. The number of coveralls used per patient decreased from 33.6 to 0. However, a demand for more PPE than necessary was observed in situations where HCWs were exposed to body fluids and secretions (n = 38, 40.9%). Excessive demand for PPE was not related to age, working experience, or SAS score. @*Conclusion@#Anxiety in HCWs exposed to COVID-19 was lower than it was during the early period of the pandemic, and the period before vaccination was introduced. The number of coveralls used per patient also decreased although an excessive demand for PPE was observed.
ABSTRACT
Background@#Co-infection with bacteria and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 may result in greater use of healthcare resources and a poor prognosis. Therefore, early selection and use of optimal antibiotics are essential. The direct rapid antibiotic susceptibility test (dRAST) can detect antibiotic resistance within 6 h of a Gram smear result. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of dRAST for improving early selection of appropriate antibiotics for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients with bacteremia. @*Materials and Methods@#This retrospective study included 96 blood culture-positive COVID-19 patients. Bacterial isolates and antimicrobial resistance profiles of each case were evaluated. Cases were divided into two groups based on whether they underwent conventional antibiotic susceptibility test (AST) or dRAST. The time to optimal targeted treatment for the two groups was investigated and compared. In addition, we examined the proportion of cases for which appropriate antibiotics were selected and broad spectrum antibiotics were administered at 72 h from blood sample collection. @*Results@#The mean time to optimal targeted antibiotic treatment was shorter for the dRAST group [55.7; standard deviation (SD), 28.7 vs. 92.3; SD, 51.1 h; P = 0.041]. The proportion of cases receiving optimal targeted antibiotics 72 h after blood collection for culture was higher [6/10 (60.0%) vs. 10/25 (40.0%)] and the percentage receiving broad spectrum antibiotics at 72 h was lower [6/10 (60.0%) vs. 19/25 (76.0%)] in the dRAST group than in the conventional AST group. In terms of microbiology profile, the contamination rate was high (35.5%) and multidrug-resistant strains were common (63.2%) in COVID-19 patients with bacteremia. @*Conclusion@#Application of dRAST for selection of antibiotics to treat bacteremia in COVID-19 patients may enable earlier and optimal treatment. The high incidence of contamination and resistant organisms in blood cultures from COVID-19 patients suggest that dRAST may speed up appropriate targeted treatment.
ABSTRACT
Applying work restrictions for asymptomatic healthcare personnel (HCP) with potential exposure to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is recommended to prevent transmission from potentially contagious HCP to patients and other HCP. However, it can lead to understaffing, which threatens the safety of both patients and HCP. We evaluated 203 COVID-19 exposure events at a single tertiary hospital from January 2020 to June 2021. A total of 2,365 HCP were potentially exposed, and work restrictions were imposed on 320 HCP, leading to the loss of 3,311 working days. However, only one of the work-restricted HCP was confirmed with COVID-19. During the study period, the work restriction measures might be taken excessively compared to their benefit, so establishing more effective standards for work restriction is required.
ABSTRACT
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.
ABSTRACT
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.
ABSTRACT
We evaluated the Standard Q COVID-19 Ag test for the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) compared to the reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test.We applied both tests to patients who were about to be hospitalized, had visited an emergency room, or had been admitted due to COVID-19 confirmed by RT-PCR. Two nasopharyngeal swabs were obtained; one was tested by RT-PCR and the other by the Standard Q COVID-19 Ag test. A total of 118 pairs of tests from 98 patients were performed between January 5 and 11, 2021. The overall sensitivity and specificity for detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) for the Standard Q COVID-19 Ag test compared to RT-PCR were 17.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.8–32.0%) and 100% (95% CI, 95.3–100.0%). Analysis of the results using RT-PCR cycle thresholds of ≤ 30 or ≤ 25 increased the sensitivity to 26.9% (95% CI, 13.7–46.1%), and 41.1% (95% CI, 21.6–64.0%), respectively.
ABSTRACT
Applying work restrictions for asymptomatic healthcare personnel (HCP) with potential exposure to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is recommended to prevent transmission from potentially contagious HCP to patients and other HCP. However, it can lead to understaffing, which threatens the safety of both patients and HCP. We evaluated 203 COVID-19 exposure events at a single tertiary hospital from January 2020 to June 2021. A total of 2,365 HCP were potentially exposed, and work restrictions were imposed on 320 HCP, leading to the loss of 3,311 working days. However, only one of the work-restricted HCP was confirmed with COVID-19. During the study period, the work restriction measures might be taken excessively compared to their benefit, so establishing more effective standards for work restriction is required.
ABSTRACT
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.
ABSTRACT
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.
ABSTRACT
We evaluated the Standard Q COVID-19 Ag test for the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) compared to the reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test.We applied both tests to patients who were about to be hospitalized, had visited an emergency room, or had been admitted due to COVID-19 confirmed by RT-PCR. Two nasopharyngeal swabs were obtained; one was tested by RT-PCR and the other by the Standard Q COVID-19 Ag test. A total of 118 pairs of tests from 98 patients were performed between January 5 and 11, 2021. The overall sensitivity and specificity for detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) for the Standard Q COVID-19 Ag test compared to RT-PCR were 17.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.8–32.0%) and 100% (95% CI, 95.3–100.0%). Analysis of the results using RT-PCR cycle thresholds of ≤ 30 or ≤ 25 increased the sensitivity to 26.9% (95% CI, 13.7–46.1%), and 41.1% (95% CI, 21.6–64.0%), respectively.
ABSTRACT
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.
ABSTRACT
Background@#Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF)-induced nephrotoxicity is related to high plasma tenofovir concentrations. Tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) is a tenofovir prodrug with 90% lower plasma tenofovir concentrations. The aim of this study was to evaluate changes in tenofovir-induced nephrotoxicity in Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV)-positive patients who switched from TDF to TAF. @*Materials and Methods@#We identified all HIV-positive patients who switched from elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/TDF to elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/TAF at a tertiary hospital. We assessed tubulopathy and renal dysfunction before TDF administration, at the time TAF was used following at least 3 months of TDF use, and 3 months after TAF administration. Tubulopathy was defined by the presence of at least three abnormalities in fractional excretion of phosphate, fractional excretion of uric acid, urinary β2-microglobulin, urinary N-acetyl-β-D-glucosaminidase, glucosuria or proteinuria. Renal dysfunction was defined as decreased by more than 25% in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) relative to baseline. @*Results@#In 80 patients, the mean eGFR was 96.8 mL/min/1.73 m 2 before administration of TDF, 81.2 (P <0.001) at the time of change to TAF, 90.9 (P <0.001) after TAF administration.Renal dysfunction occurred in 19 patients (23.8%) after TDF use for a median 15 months, 11 (57.9%) of these patients recovered from renal dysfunction after TAF administration.Six patients (7.5%) had tubulopathy before TDF administration, 36 (45.0%) after TDF administration (P <0.001), 12 (15.0%) after TAF administration (P = 0.002). @*Conclusion@#Tenofovir-induced nephrotoxicity in HIV-positive patients receiving TDF was mostly reversible after changing to TAF. Thus, TAF-containing regimens can be administered safely to HIV-positive patients with tenofovir-induced nephrotoxicity.
ABSTRACT
Background/Aims@#As the novel coronavirus (coronavirus disease 2019 [COVID-19]) outbreak progresses rapidly, staying home is recommended for suspected patients; however, the safety of this recommendation is uncertain. In Korea, non-hospital facilities called “living and treatment centers (LTCs)” have been established since 5 March 2020. The LTCs provided a unique opportunity to evaluate the safety of selection criteria for low-risk groups. @*Methods@#Between 5 March and 9 April 2020, patients with COVID-19 who met the following criteria were admitted to the LTC; alert, age below 65 years old, no underlying disease or well-controlled underlying disease, body temperature below 38.0°C, whether taking antipyretics or not, and no dyspnea. Patients were closely observed by doctors or nurses’ interviews twice a day and transferred to hospitals when symptoms worsened. @*Results@#A total of 113 patients were admitted to the LTC; 52.2% were female, with a median age of 25 years (interquartile range, 21.5 to 39.5). Of 113 patients, 54 (47.8%) were asymptomatic at diagnosis, and 15 (13.3%) had no symptoms until they were released from isolation. During the follow-up period, two (1.8%) patients were transferred to a hospital but did not progress to severe status during hospitalization. @*Conclusions@#The risk of progression was negligible in COVID-19 patients who met the admission criteria for LTC at the time of diagnosis. LTCs could be a safe alternative considering shortage of hospital beds.
ABSTRACT
Background/Aims@#As the coronavirus disease-2019 global pandemic progresses, screening of antiviral agents effective against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is urgently needed. In addition, considering the viral load kinetics of SARS-CoV-2, which peaks early in the illness, and the massive burden of the disease, which may increase in the near future, identifying well-tolerated oral antivirals becomes increasingly important. We examined the in vitro activity of lopinavir/ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine on SARS-CoV-2, at concentrations which can be used to treat coronavirus-19 patients with little concern of toxicity. @*Methods@#Lopinavir/ritonavir (7/1.75 μg/mL), hydroxychloroquine base (1 or 2 μg/mL), or a combination thereof were administered 1 hour after the inoculation of SARS-CoV-2 to Vero cells at a multiplicity of infection of 0.05. We examined cytopathic effects of virus 48 hours after administration of the respective treatments and measured viral loads at three time points (0, 24, and 48 hours post-treatment) by quantitative real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction, and compared the results obtained from the different antiviral regimens tested. @*Results@#The severity of cytopathic effects was lower in lopinavir/ritonavir-treated cells, and viral load was significantly reduced in this group compared with the control group (p < 0.001). However, hydroxychloroquine did not show significant inhibitory effects on anti-SARS-CoV-2-mediated cytotoxicity or on viral load at either concentration. @*Conclusions@#Lopinavir/ritonavir showed significant inhibitory effects on SARS-CoV-2 in vitro at its usual plasma concentration. However, the in vitro antiviral activity of hydroxychloroquine at concentrations commonly used in humans was minimal, whether used alone or in combination with lopinavir/ritonavir.