Follow-up investigation of asymptomatic COVID-19 cases at diagnosis in Busan, Korea.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study was to conduct a follow-up investigation of 10 asymptomatic patients at diagnosis among the 98 confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases reported in Busan between February 21, 2020 and March 13, 2020 to determine whether asymptomatic infection and transmission during asymptomatic period are possible. METHODS: The study analyzed 10 asymptomatic, confirmed COVID-19 cases to determine whether asymptomatic infection is possible. We conducted in-depth interviews with patients and guardians; interviews with primary physicians; review of medical records and drug utilization review (DUR) reports; and base station-based location tracking. RESULTS: Among the 98, confirmed COVID-19 cases reported in Busan, the study analyzed 10 (10.2%) asymptomatic patients at diagnosis. The results confirmed that two (2.0%) patients reported to be asymptomatic during the initial epidemiological investigation, but turned symptomatic before diagnosis as per the in-depth interview results. Four cases (4.0%) of early detection led to confirmed diagnosis during the incubation period and presentation of symptoms after diagnosis. In addition, the remaining four patients (4.0%), having no subjective symptoms nor specific findings on chest radiography and computed tomography, remained asymptomatic until the isolation order was lifted. With regard to whether transmission during the asymptomatic period is possible, it was found that one out of 23 household contacts of the confirmed patients was identified as an additional confirmed case after coming in close contact with an index patient during the presymptomatic period. CONCLUSIONS: Among the 98 confirmed cases, asymptomatic infection was confirmed in four cases (4.0%). In addition, there was one additional confirmed case in which the patient was a family member who came in close contact with an index patient during the incubation period, thereby confirming that transmission during the asymptomatic period is possible. The possibility of transmission during the asymptomatic period has been confirmed; therefore, it is necessary to review the measures for expanding contact tracing that is currently being applied starting one day prior to the onset of symptoms.

Effectiveness and Safety of Regdanvimab in Patients With Mild-To-Moderate COVID-19: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Regdanvimab has decreased the time to clinical recovery from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and lowered the rate of oxygen therapy according to the results from phase 2/3 randomized controlled trial. More information is needed about the effects and safety of regdanvimab. METHODS: We analyzed data for patients with high-risk mild or moderate COVID-19 being admitted to Busan Medical Center between December 1, 2020 and April 16, 2021. A propensity score (PS) matched analysis was conducted to compare patients treated with and without regdanvimab. The primary outcome was in-hospital death or disease aggravation which means the need for oxygen therapy (low- or high-flow oxygen therapy and mechanical ventilation) and secondary outcomes comprised the length of hospital stay and adverse reactions. RESULTS: Among 1,617 selected patients, 970 (60.0%) were indicated for regdanvimab. Of these, 377 (38.9%) were administered with regdanvimab. Among a 1:1 PS-matched cohort of 377 patients each treated with and without regdanvimab, 19 (5%) and 81 (21.5%) reached the composite outcome of death, or disease aggravation, respectively (absolute risk difference, -16.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -21.1, -11.7; relative risk difference, 76.5%; P < 0.001). Regdanvimab significantly reduced the composite outcome of death, or disease aggravation in univariate (odds ratio [OR], 0.194; 95% CI, 0.112-0.320; P < 0.001) and multivariable-adjusted analyses (OR, 0.169; 95% CI, 0.095-0.289; P < 0.001). The hospital stay was shorter for the group with than without regdanvimab. Some hematological adverse reactions were more frequent in the group without regdanvimab, but other adverse reactions did not significantly differ between the groups. CONCLUSION: Regdanvimab was associated with a significantly lower risk of disease aggravation without increasing adverse reactions.

Comparative outcomes of lopinavir/ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19 with mild-to-moderate severity: A retrospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) are both being used to treat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but their relative effectiveness is unknown. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of patients treated for COVID-19 with LPV/r or HCQ. METHODS: A retrospective observational study was conducted at 2 hospitals in Busan, South Korea, where approximately 90% of COVID-19 patients were hospitalised during February/March 2020. All patients aged ≥15 years that were hospitalised with mild or moderately severe COVID-19 received LPV/r or HCQ as their initial treatment and were included in the analysis. RESULTS: Among the 72 patients with mild-to-moderate disease severity on admission, 45 received LPV/r and 27 received HCQ as their initial therapy. A higher proportion of the LPV/r group had pneumonia on admission (LPV/r, 49% vs HCQ, 15%), but there were no other significant differences in the demographic or clinical characteristics between groups. Switching therapy due to clinical failure was significantly more common in the HCQ group than in the LPV/r group (41% [11/27] and 2% [1/45], respectively, P = .001). Disease progression was also significantly more common in the HCQ group than in the LPV/r group (44% [12/27] and 18% [8/45], respectively, P = .030). CONCLUSION: Based on our study results, HCQ shows no apparent advantage compared to LPV/r for preventing progression to severe disease in patients with COVID-19.

Clinical Course and Outcomes of 3,060 Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Korea, January-May 2020.

BACKGROUND: The fatality rate of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) varies among countries owing to demographics, patient comorbidities, surge capacity of healthcare systems, and the quality of medical care. We assessed the clinical outcomes of patients with COVID-19 during the first wave of the epidemic in Korea. METHODS: Using a modified World Health Organization clinical record form, we obtained clinical data for 3,060 patients with COVID-19 treated at 55 hospitals in Korea. Disease severity scores were defined as: 1) no limitation of daily activities; 2) limitation of daily activities but no need for supplemental oxygen; 3) supplemental oxygen via nasal cannula; 4) supplemental oxygen via facial mask; 5) non-invasive mechanical ventilation; 6) invasive mechanical ventilation; 7) multi-organ failure or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation therapy; and 8) death. Recovery was defined as a severity score of 1 or 2, or discharge and release from isolation. RESULTS: The median age of the patients was 43 years of age; 43.6% were male. The median time from illness onset to admission was 5 days. Of the patients with a disease severity score of 3-4 on admission, 65 (71.5%) of the 91 patients recovered, and 7 (7.7%) died due to illness by day 28. Of the patients with disease severity scores of 5-7, 7 (19.5%) of the 36 patients recovered, and 8 (22.2%) died due to illness by day 28. None of the 1,324 patients who were < 50 years of age died; in contrast, the fatality rate due to illness by day 28 was 0.5% (2/375), 0.9% (2/215), 5.8% (6/104), and 14.0% (7/50) for the patients aged 50-59, 60-69, 70-79, and ≥ 80 years of age, respectively. CONCLUSION: In Korea, almost all patients of < 50 years of age with COVID-19 recovered without supplemental oxygen. In patients of ≥ 50 years of age, the fatality rate increased with age, reaching 14% in patients of ≥ 80 years of age.