Wastewater Knows Pathogen Spread: Analysis of Residential Wastewater for Infectious Microorganisms including SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to identify the genes of 35 pathogens, including viruses, bacteria, and protozoa that cause waterborne infectious diseases, and to assess the feasibility of a wastewater-based surveillance system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Wastewater was aseptically sampled once a month from 2 sites. A total of 1 L of wastewater from each site underwent 0.2 µm filtration to generate the sample A. Subsequently, 200 ul of the filtered water was ultra-filtered and concentrated to generate the sample B, which was mixed with sample A in a 1:1 ratio. We performed a Filmarray® Gastrointestinal (GI) panel (BioFire Diagnnostics', Salt Lake City, UT, USA) test to simultaneously detect 13 enterobacteria, 5 enterovirus, and 4 protozoa. RNA was extracted to assess 18 types of viruses. RESULTS: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 adenovirus, bocavirus, and rhinovirus was detected at both site. Norovirus GI/GII was continuously detected at both sites. Moreover, adenovirus, group A rotaviruses, and hepatitis A virus were frequently detected; however, hepatitis E virus was absent at either site. Campylobacter, enteroaggregative Escherichia coli, enterotoxigenic E. coli, Shiga toxin-producing E. coli, and Clostridioides difficile toxin A/B were detected at both sites. Giardia lamblia was also detected in both sites. CONCLUSION: We analyze multiple infectious disease pathogens under sample surveillance with incidence. Further in-depth studies on wastewater-based surveillance will be feasible and important.

A Randomized Clinical Trial of Regdanvimab in High-Risk Patients With Mild-to-Moderate Coronavirus Disease 2019.

Background: We evaluated clinical effectiveness of regdanvimab (CT-P59), a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 neutralizing monoclonal antibody, in reducing disease progression and clinical recovery time in patients with mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), primarily Alpha variant. Methods: This was phase 3 of a phase 2/3 parallel-group, double-blind, randomized clinical trial. Outpatients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 were randomized to single-dose regdanvimab 40 mg/kg (n = 656) or placebo (n = 659), alongside standard of care. The primary endpoint was COVID-19 disease progression up to day 28 among "high-risk" patients. Key secondary endpoints were disease progression (all randomized patients) and time to recovery (high-risk and all randomized patients). Results: Of 1315 randomized patients, 880 were high risk; the majority were infected with Alpha variant. The proportion with disease progression was lower (14/446, 3.1% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.9%-5.2%] vs 48/434, 11.1% [95% CI, 8.4%-14.4%]; P < .001) and time to recovery was shorter (median, 9.27 days [95% CI, 8.27-11.05 days] vs not reached [95% CI, 12.35-not calculable]; P < .001) with regdanvimab than placebo. Consistent improvements were seen in all randomized and non-high-risk patients who received regdanvimab. Viral load reductions were more rapid with regdanvimab. Infusion-related reactions occurred in 11 patients (4/652 [0.6%] regdanvimab, 7/650 [1.1%] placebo). Treatment-emergent serious adverse events were reported in 5 of (4/652 [0.6%] regdanvimab and 1/650 [0.2%] placebo). Conclusions: Regdanvimab was an effective treatment for patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19, significantly reducing disease progression and clinical recovery time without notable safety concerns prior to the emergence of the Omicron variant. Clinical Trials Registration: NCT04602000; 2020-003369-20 (EudraCT).

A Randomized Clinical Trial of Regdanvimab in High-Risk Patients with Mild-to-Moderate COVID-19

Background We evaluated clinical effectiveness of regdanvimab (CT-P59), a SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing monoclonal antibody, in reducing disease progression and clinical recovery time in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19, primarily alpha variant. Methods This was phase 3 of a phase 2/3 parallel-group, double-blind, randomized clinical trial. Outpatients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19, were randomized to single dose regdanvimab 40 mg/kg (n = 656) or placebo (n = 659), alongside standard-of-care. Primary endpoint: COVID-19 disease progression (clinical symptoms requiring hospitalization or oxygen therapy, or mortality) up to day 28 among “high risk” patients. Key secondary endpoints: disease progression (all randomized patients) and time to recovery (high-risk and all randomized patients). Results Of 1315 patients randomized to regdanvimab or placebo, 880 were high risk (regdanvimab, n = 446;placebo, n = 434);the majority (regdanvimab, n = 371;placebo n = 381) were infected with alpha variant. The proportion with disease progression was lower (14/446 [3.1%;95% CI, 1.9–5.2] vs. 48/434 [11.1%;95% CI, 8.4–14.4];P < 0.001) and time to recovery was shorter (median, 9.27 days [95% CI, 8.27–11.05] vs. not reached [95% CI, 12.35–not calculable];P < 0.001) with regdanvimab than placebo. Consistent improvements were seen in all randomized and non–high-risk patients who received regdanvimab. Viral load reductions were more rapid with regdanvimab. Infusion-related reactions occurred in 11/1302 patients (4/652 [0.6%] regdanvimab, 7/650 [1.1%] placebo). Treatment-emergent serious adverse events were reported in 5/1302 patients (4 [0.6%] regdanvimab, 1 [0.2%] placebo). Conclusions Regdanvimab was an effective treatment for patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19, significantly reducing disease progression and clinical recovery time without notable safety concerns prior to the emergence of the omicron variant. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT04602000;EudraCT number, 2020-003369-20

Clinical Characteristics and Pregnancy-Related Outcomes of Pregnant Women Hospitalized with COVID-19 During the Delta Wave: A Single-Center Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) during pregnancy is associated with increased disease severity and an increased risk of perinatal complications. However, few studies of pregnant women with COVID-19 have been conducted in Korea. The purpose of this study was to describe the clinical course and pregnancy outcomes of pregnant women admitted to our hospital with COVID-19 according to the severity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included women aged 18 years of age or older who were hospitalized in the Gachon University Gil Medical Center with COVID-19 during pregnancy between July 1, 2021 and January 31, 2022. COVID-19 severity was classified according to the "Criteria for severity classification by symptoms of COVID-19" presented by the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency. Severe cases were defined as those who required oxygen treatment administered via a high-flow nasal cannula or invasive mechanical ventilation or should be applied extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) or continuous renal replacement therapy. RESULTS: A total of 103 pregnant women were hospitalized with COVID-19 during the study period. Their mean age was 33 (± 4.14) years, and 4 (3.9%) had been vaccinated against COVID-19. At the time of diagnosis of COVID-19, 3 (2.9%), 33 (32.0%), and 67 (65.1%) patients were in the first, second, and third trimester, respectively. The most common symptoms were cough (99 patients, 96.1%) and fever (85 patients, 82.5%). There was 1 (1.0%) asymptomatic patient. Forty patients (38.8%) required supplemental oxygen and 19 patients (18.4%) had severe disease. Of the 19 severe cases, 7 were in the 2nd trimester and 12 were in the 3rd trimester. Forty-one (39.8%) patients delivered, including two twin deliveries. Of the 41 cases of delivery, 14 were premature, 4 out of 21 (19.0%) in mild, 4 out of 12 (25.0%) in moderate, and 6 out of 8 (75.0%) in severe. Severe disease was associated with an increased rate of preterm birth (P = 0.012). Four of the 43 neonates (9.1%) received oxygen treatment. CONCLUSION: Pregnant women with COVID-19 had a high rate of severe disease and a high preterm delivery rate, especially among those with severe disease.

Safety and immunogenicity of a SARS-CoV-2 recombinant protein nanoparticle vaccine (GBP510) adjuvanted with AS03: A randomised, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded phase 1/2 trial.

Background: Vaccination has helped to mitigate the COVID-19 pandemic. Ten traditional and novel vaccines have been listed by the World Health Organization for emergency use. Additional alternative approaches may better address ongoing vaccination globally, where there remains an inequity in vaccine distribution. GBP510 is a recombinant protein vaccine, which consists of self-assembling, two-component nanoparticles, displaying the receptor-binding domain (RBD) in a highly immunogenic array. Methods: This randomised, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded phase 1/2 study was conducted to evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of GBP510 (2-doses at a 28-day interval) adjuvanted with or without AS03 in adults aged 19-85 years at 14 hospital sites in Korea. This study was consisted of two stages (stage I, healthy adults aged 19-55 years; stage II, 240 healthy adults aged 19-85 years). Healthy participants who did not previously receive any vaccine within 4 weeks (2 weeks for flu vaccine) prior to the study, no history of COVID-19 vaccination/medication, and were naïve to SARS-CoV-2 infection at screening were eligible for the study enrollment. Participants were block-randomized in a 2:2:1 ratio to receive 2 doses of 10 µg GBP510 adjuvanted with AS03 (group 1), 10 µg unadjuvanted GBP510 (group 2) or placebo intramuscularly in stage I, while they were block-randomized in a 2:2:1:1 ratio to receive 10 µg GBP510 adjuvanted with AS03 (group 1), 25 µg GBP510 adjuvanted with AS03 (group 3), 25 µg unadjuvanted GBP510 (group 4) or placebo in stage II. The primary safety outcomes were solicited and unsolicited adverse events, while primary immunogenicity outcomes included anti-SARS-CoV-2 RBD IgG antibodies; neutralizing antibody responses; and T-cell immune responses. Safety assessment included all participants who received at least 1 dose of study intervention (safety set). Immunogenicity assessment included all participants who completed the vaccination schedule and had valid immunogenicity assessment results without any major protocol deviations (per-protocol set). This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04750343). Findings: Of 328 participants who were enrolled between February 1 and May 28, 2021, 327 participants received at least 1 dose of vaccine. Each received either 10 µg GBP510 adjuvanted with AS03 (Group 1, n = 101), 10 µg unadjuvanted GBP510 (Group 2, n = 10), 25 µg GBP510 adjuvanted with AS03 (Group 3, n = 104), 25 µg unadjuvanted GBP510 (Group 4, n = 51), or placebo (n = 61). Higher reactogenicity was observed in the GBP510 adjuvanted with AS03 groups compared to the non-adjuvanted and placebo groups. The most frequently reported solicited local adverse event (AE) was injection site pain after any vaccination: (88·1% in group 1; 50·0% in group 2; 92·3% in group 3; 66·7% in group 4). Fatigue and myalgia were two most frequently reported systemic AEs and more frequently reported in GBP510 adjuvanted with AS03 recipients (79·2% and 78·2% in group 1; 75·0% and 79·8% in group 3, respectively) than in the unadjuvanted vaccine recipients (40·0% and of 40·0% in group 2; 60·8% and 47·1% in group 4) after any vaccination. Reactogenicity was higher post-dose 2 compared to post-dose 1, particularly for systemic AEs. The geometric mean concentrations of anti-SARS-CoV-2-RBD IgG antibody reached 2163·6/2599·2 BAU/mL in GBP510 adjuvanted with AS03 recipients (10 µg/25 µg) by 14 days after the second dose. Two-dose vaccination of 10 µg or 25 µg GBP510 adjuvanted with AS03 induced high titres of neutralizing antibody via pseudovirus (1369·0/1431·5 IU/mL) and wild-type virus (949·8/861·0 IU/mL) assay. Interpretation: GBP510 adjuvanted with AS03 was well tolerated and highly immunogenic. These results support further development of the vaccine candidate, which is currently being evaluated in Phase 3. Funding: This work was supported, in whole or in part, by funding from CEPI and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Investment ID OPP1148601. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation supported this project for the generation of IND-enabling data and CEPI supported this clinical study.

Clinical Characteristics and Risk Factors for Mortality in Critical Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients 50 Years of Age or Younger During the Delta Wave: Comparison With Patients > 50 Years in Korea.

BACKGROUND: Numerous patients around the globe are dying from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). While age is a known risk factor, risk analysis in the young generation is lacking. The present study aimed to evaluate the clinical features and mortality risk factors in younger patients (≤ 50 years) with a critical case of COVID-19 in comparison with those among older patients (> 50 years) in Korea. METHODS: We analyzed the data of adult patients only in critical condition (requiring high flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy or higher respiratory support) hospitalized with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 at 11 hospitals in Korea from July 1, 2021 to November 30, 2021 when the delta variant was a dominant strain. Patients' electronic medical records were reviewed to identify clinical characteristics. RESULTS: During the study period, 448 patients were enrolled. One hundred and forty-two were aged 50 years or younger (the younger group), while 306 were above 50 years of age (the older group). The most common pre-existing conditions in the younger group were diabetes mellitus and hypertension, and 69.7% of the patients had a body mass index (BMI) > 25 kg/m². Of 142 younger patients, 31 of 142 patients (21.8%, 19 women) did not have these pre-existing conditions. The overall case fatality rate among severity cases was 21.0%, and it differed according to age: 5.6% (n = 8/142) in the younger group, 28.1% in the older group, and 38% in the ≥ 65 years group. Age (odds ratio [OR], 7.902; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.754-18.181), mechanical ventilation therapy (OR, 17.233; 95% CI, 8.439-35.192), highest creatinine > 1.5 mg/dL (OR, 17.631; 95% CI, 8.321-37.357), and combined blood stream infection (OR, 7.092; 95% CI, 1.061-18.181) were identified as independent predictors of mortality in total patients. Similar patterns were observed in age-specific analyses, but most results were statistically insignificant in multivariate analysis due to the low number of deaths in the younger group. The full vaccination rate was very low among study population (13.6%), and only three patients were fully vaccinated, with none of the patients who died having been fully vaccinated in the younger group. Seven of eight patients who died had a pre-existing condition or were obese (BMI > 25 kg/m²), and the one remaining patient died from a secondary infection. CONCLUSION: About 22% of the patients in the young critical group did not have an underlying disease or obesity, but the rate of obesity (BMI > 25 kg/m²) was high, with a fatality rate of 5.6%. The full vaccination rate was extremely low compared to the general population of the same age group, showing that non-vaccination has a grave impact on the progression of COVID-19 to a critical condition. The findings of this study highlight the need for measures to prevent critical progression of COVID-19, such as vaccinations and targeting young adults especially having risk factors.

Effects of Non-Pharmacological Interventions on Respiratory Viruses Other Than SARS-CoV-2: Analysis of Laboratory Surveillance and Literature Review From 2018 to 2021.

BACKGROUND: Since the global coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, non-pharmacological interventions (NPIs) such as extensive and comprehensive hand hygiene, mask-wearing, and social distancing have been implemented globally. This study aimed to investigate changes in respiratory viruses other than severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) that occurred following the implementation of these NPIs. METHODS: From January 2018 to December 2021, influenza-like illness patient specimens and specimens from the Korea Influenza and Respiratory Viruses Surveillance System were analyzed at the Incheon Metropolitan City Institute of Public Health and Environment. Oropharyngeal or nasopharyngeal swab samples from respiratory infection patients were transferred in a virus transport medium at 4°C. After RNA or DNA extraction, respiratory virus-specific genes for human influenza virus (IFV), adenovirus (ADV), parainfluenza virus (PIV), respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), human rhinovirus (hRV), human coronavirus, human bocavirus, and human metapneumovirus were detected by individual real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction. RESULTS: A total 3,334 samples were collected. After NPI was implemented, the detection of respiratory viruses other than SARS-CoV-2 decreased overall. The yearly detection rate of respiratory viruses was decreased from 69.5% (399/574) in 2018 and 73.3% (505/689) in 2019 to 19.8% (206/1,043) in 2020 and 34.9% (365/1,028) in 2021. The epidemic was more prominent in respiratory viruses such as IFV and RSV, which were considered dominant viruses, especially those with viral envelopes. Among viruses that were not considered dominant, hRV showed no clear change before and after NPI, while PIV showed a rapid increase compared to the existing dominant viruses between October-December 2021, after the increase in the number of gatherings started at the end of September and the "Relaxing COVID19 and mitigation policy," which was implemented on November 1. CONCLUSION: NPI seems to have influenced the isolation and transmission of respiratory viruses in South Korea. In the future, additional studies focusing on the isolation and transmission patterns of respiratory viruses following NPI are needed.

Efficacy and Safety of Regdanvimab (CT-P59): A Phase 2/3 Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial in Outpatients With Mild-to-Moderate Coronavirus Disease 2019.

Background: Regdanvimab (CT-P59) is a monoclonal antibody with neutralizing activity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We report on part 1 of a 2-part randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study for patients with mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods: Outpatients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 received a single dose of regdanvimab 40 mg/kg (n = 100), regdanvimab 80 mg/kg (n = 103), or placebo (n = 104). The primary end points were time to negative conversion of SARS-CoV-2 from nasopharyngeal swab based on quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) up to day 28 and time to clinical recovery up to day 14. Secondary end points included the proportion of patients requiring hospitalization, oxygen therapy, or mortality due to COVID-19. Results: Median (95% CI) time to negative conversion of RT-qPCR was 12.8 (9.0-12.9) days with regdanvimab 40 mg/kg, 11.9 (8.9-12.9) days with regdanvimab 80 mg/kg, and 12.9 (12.7-13.9) days with placebo. Median (95% CI) time to clinical recovery was 5.3 (4.0-6.8) days with regdanvimab 40 mg/kg, 6.2 (5.5-7.9) days with regdanvimab 80 mg/kg, and 8.8 (6.8-11.6) days with placebo. The proportion (95% CI) of patients requiring hospitalization or oxygen therapy was lower with regdanvimab 40 mg/kg (4.0% [1.6%-9.8%]) and regdanvimab 80 mg/kg (4.9% [2.1%-10.9%]) vs placebo (8.7% [4.6%-15.6%]). No serious treatment-emergent adverse events or deaths occurred. Conclusions: Regdanvimab showed a trend toward a minor decrease in time to negative conversion of RT-qPCR results compared with placebo and reduced the need for hospitalization and oxygen therapy in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19. Clinical trial registration : NCT04602000 and EudraCT 2020-003369-20.

Ciclesonide Inhaler Treatment for Mild-to-Moderate COVID-19: A Randomized, Open-Label, Phase 2 Trial.

Although some intravenous drugs have been used to treat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), no effective antiviral agents are currently available in the outpatient setting. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and adverse events of 14-day ciclesonide treatment vs. standard care for patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19. A randomized, open-label, multicenter clinical trial of ciclesonide inhalers was conducted in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19. Patients were enrolled within 3 days of diagnosis or within 7 days from symptom onset and randomly assigned to receive either ciclesonide (320 µg inhalation twice per day for 14 days) or standard care. The primary endpoint was the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) eradication rate on day 14 from study enrollment. Clinical status was assessed once daily, and serial nasopharyngeal viral load was evaluated by quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction. There were 35 and 26 patients in the ciclesonide and standard care groups, respectively. The SARS-CoV-2 eradication rate at day 14 was significantly higher in the ciclesonide group (p = 0.021). In multivariate analysis, SARS-CoV-2 negative conversion within 14 days was 12 times more likely in the ciclesonide group (95% confidence interval, 1.187-125.240). Additionally, the clinical failure rate (high-flow nasal oxygen therapy or mechanical ventilation) was significantly lower in the ciclesonide group (p = 0.034). In conclusion, ciclesonide inhalation shortened SARS-CoV-2 viral shedding duration, and it may inhibit the progression to acute respiratory failure in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19. Clinical Trial Registration NCT04330586.

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.

Guidelines for Surgery of Confirmed or Suspected COVID-19 Patients.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread widely across the world since January 2020. There are many challenges when caring for patients with COVID-19, one of which is infection prevention and control. In particular, in cases where surgery must absolutely be performed, special infection control may be required in order to perform surgery without spreading infection within the hospital. We aim to present potentially useful recommendations for non-deferrable surgery for COVID-19 patients based on in vivo and in vitro research and clinical experiences from many countries.

Recommendations for the Management of Patients With Systemic Rheumatic Diseases During the Coronavirus Disease Pandemic

Patients with systemic rheumatic diseases (SRD) are vulnerable for coronavirus disease (COVID-19). The Korean College of Rheumatology recognized the urgent need to develop recommendations for rheumatologists and other physicians to manage patients with SRD during the COVID-19 pandemic. The working group was organized and was responsible for selecting key health questions, searching and reviewing the available literature, and formulating statements. The appropriateness of the statements was evaluated by voting panels using the modified Delphi method. Four general principles and thirteen individual recommendations were finalized through expert consensus based on the available evidence. The recommendations included preventive measures against COVID-19, medicinal treatment for stable or active SRD patients without COVID-19, medicinal treatment for SRD patients with COVID-19, and patient evaluation and monitoring. Medicinal treatments were categorized according to the status with respect to both COVID-19 and SRD. These recommendations should serve as a reference for individualized treatment for patients with SRD. As new evidence is emerging, an immediate update will be required.

Recommendations for the management of patients with systemic rheumatic diseases during the coronavirus disease pandemic.

Patients with systemic rheumatic diseases (SRD) are vulnerable for coronavirus disease (COVID-19). The Korean College of Rheumatology recognized the urgent need to develop recommendations for rheumatologists and other physicians to manage patients with SRD during the COVID-19 pandemic. The working group was organized and was responsible for selecting key health questions, searching and reviewing the available literature, and formulating statements. The appropriateness of the statements was evaluated by voting panels using the modified Delphi method. Four general principles and thirteen individual recommendations were finalized through expert consensus based on the available evidence. The recommendations included preventive measures against COVID-19, medicinal treatment for stable or active SRD patients without COVID-19, medicinal treatment for SRD patients with COVID-19, and patient evaluation and monitoring. Medicinal treatments were categorized according to the status with respect to both COVID-19 and SRD. These recommendations should serve as a reference for individualized treatment for patients with SRD. As new evidence is emerging, an immediate update will be required.

Guidelines for Surgery of Confirmed or Suspected COVID-19 Patients

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread widely across the world since January 2020. There are many challenges when caring for patients with COVID-19, one of which is infection prevention and control. In particular, in cases where surgery must absolutely be performed, special infection control may be required in order to perform surgery without spreading infection within the hospital. We aim to present potentially useful recommendations for non-deferrable surgery for COVID-19 patients based on in vivo and in vitro research and clinical experiences from many countries.

South Korea's responses to stop the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: South Korea's aggressive responses to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have greatly slowed the epidemic without regional lockdowns. METHODS: The Korean Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's daily briefings were thoroughly reviewed. Information about hospital countermeasures and government coordination was collected via telephone interviews with 4 infection control team leaders, 1 emergency department nurse, and 1 infectious disease physician in Korea. RESULTS: After the 2015 Middle East Respiratory Syndrome outbreak, the government and hospitals prepared for the inevitable outbreak of emerging infectious diseases by reforming the epidemic preparedness system. As a result, COVID-19 diagnostic test kits were quickly developed, enabling extensive early detection of potential cases. Other key steps were tracking cases, finding exposed individuals, coordinating case assignments with health care facilities, and selective clinic screenings for visitors' entering hospitals with mandatory mask wearing. Consequently, after overcoming the initial peak of the outbreak, which was related to a religious group, Korea has been able to maintain daily new cases at around 100 and to less than 50 daily cases in the second week of April. CONCLUSIONS: To counter the COVID-19 pandemic, which may persist, long-term, sustained response strategies must be prepared along with coordination between government and health systems.

Protection and Response of a Tertiary Hospital in South Korea to the COVID-19 Outbreak.

OBJECTIVE: Here, we present an overview of how a tertiary hospital responded to maintain necessary activities and protect patients and staff from the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak. METHODS: Gil Medical Center, a tertiary hospital in Incheon, has operated a special response team since January 21, 2020. All visitors were assessed for body temperature and respiratory symptoms, and screened for recent overseas travel. Suspected COVID-19 patients were taken to a screening clinic. All febrile patients with or without respiratory symptoms were taken to a respiratory safety clinic. An isolation ward, which consisted of 10 negative-pressure rooms, was used to treat confirmed cases. More than 120 beds were prepared for the outbreak, and patients with pneumonia were preemptively isolated. RESULTS: By May 5, 480 960 visitors were assessed at the control station, 3350 patients visited the triage center, and 1794 were treated in the respiratory safety clinic. Seventeen confirmed cases were admitted to the negative isolation ward, and 350 patients with pneumonia were preemptively isolated. A total of 2977 severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) polymerase chain reaction tests were performed. CONCLUSIONS: While tertiary hospitals play an important role in treating both COVID-19 patients and non-COVID-19 patients, hospital staff have to protect themselves from unexpected in-hospital transmission. A multifaceted response must be undertaken to protect tertiary hospitals and their staff during the COVID-19 epidemic.