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

BACKGROUND: Although the evidence of treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) changed rapidly, little is known about the patterns of potential pharmacological treatment during the early period of the COVID-19 pandemic in Korea and the risk factors for ineffective prescription. METHODS: Using claims data from the Korean National Health Insurance System, this retrospective cohort study included admission episodes for COVID-19 from February to December 2020. Ineffective antiviral prescriptions for COVID-19 were defined as lopinavir/ritonavir (LPN/r) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) prescribed after July 2020, according to the revised National Institute of Health COVID-19 treatment guidelines. Factors associated with ineffective prescriptions, including patient and hospital factors, were identified by multivariate logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Of the 15,723 COVID-19 admission episodes from February to June 2020, 4,183 (26.6%) included prescriptions of LPN/r, and 3,312 (21.1%) included prescriptions of HCQ. Of the 48,843 admission episodes from July to December 2020, after the guidelines were revised, 2,258 (4.6%) and 182 (0.4%) included prescriptions of ineffective LPN/r and HCQ, respectively. Patient factors independently associated with ineffective antiviral prescription were older age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] per 10-year increase, 1.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.14-1.20) and severe condition with an oxygen requirement (aOR, 2.49; 95% CI, 2.24-2.77). The prescription of ineffective antiviral drugs was highly prevalent in primary and nursing hospitals (aOR, 40.58; 95% CI, 31.97-51.50), public sector hospitals (aOR, 15.61; 95% CI, 12.76-19.09), and regions in which these drugs were highly prescribed before July 2020 (aOR, 10.65; 95% CI, 8.26-13.74). CONCLUSION: Ineffective antiviral agents were prescribed to a substantial number of patients during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in Korea. Treatment with these ineffective drugs tended to be prolonged in severely ill patients and in primary and public hospitals.

Meta-analysis of arbidol versus lopinavir/ritonavir in the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019.

OBJECTIVES: To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of arbidol and lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) in the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) using a meta-analysis method. METHODS: The China Knowledge Network, VIP database, WanFang database PubMed database, Embase database, and Cochrane Library were searched for a collection of comparative studies on arbidol and lopinavir/ritonavir in the treatment of COVID-19. Meta-analysis was used to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Arbidol and lopinavir/ritonavir in the treatment of COVID-19. RESULTS: The results of the systematic review indicated that Arbidol had a higher positive-to-negative conversion rate of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleic acid on Day 7 (p = 0.03), a higher positive-to-negative conversion rate of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid on Day 14 (p = 0.006), a higher improvement rate of chest computed tomography on Day 14 (p = 0.02), a lower incidence of adverse reactions (p = 0.002) and lower rate of mortality (p = 0.007). There was no difference in the rate of cough disappearance on Day 14 (p = 0.24) or the rate of severe/critical illness (p = 0.07) between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Arbidol may be superior to lopinavir/ritonavir in the treatment of COVID-19. However, due to the small number of included studies and the number of patients, high-quality multicenter large-sample randomized double-blind controlled trials are still needed for verification.

Optimal Drug Regimen and Combined Drug Therapy and Its Efficacy in the Treatment of COVID-19: A Within-Host Modeling Study.

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in more than 524 million cases and 6 million deaths worldwide. Various drug interventions targeting multiple stages of COVID-19 pathogenesis can significantly reduce infection-related mortality. The current within-host mathematical modeling study addresses the optimal drug regimen and efficacy of combination therapies in the treatment of COVID-19. The drugs/interventions considered include Arbidol, Remdesivir, Interferon (INF) and Lopinavir/Ritonavir. It is concluded that these drugs, when administered singly or in combination, reduce the number of infected cells and viral load. Four scenarios dealing with the administration of a single drug, two drugs, three drugs and all four are discussed. In all these scenarios, the optimal drug regimen is proposed based on two methods. In the first method, these medical interventions are modeled as control interventions and a corresponding objective function and optimal control problem are formulated. In this framework, the optimal drug regimen is derived. Later, using the comparative effectiveness method, the optimal drug regimen is derived based on the basic reproduction number and viral load. The average number of infected cells and viral load decreased the most when all four drugs were used together. On the other hand, the average number of susceptible cells decreased the most when Arbidol was administered alone. The basic reproduction number and viral load decreased the most when all four interventions were used together, confirming the previously obtained finding of the optimal control problem. The results of this study can help physicians make decisions about the treatment of the life-threatening COVID-19 infection.

Lopinavir/ritonavir is associated with pneumonia resolution in COVID-19 patients with influenza coinfection: A retrospective matched-pair cohort study.

During the early stages of the pandemic, some coronavirus disease (COVID-19) patients were misdiagnosed as having influenza, which aroused the concern that some deaths attributed to influenza were actually COVID-19-related. However, little is known about whether coinfection with influenza contributes to severity of COVID-19 pneumonia, and the optimal therapeutic strategy for these patients. We retrospectively studied 128 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. All patients were positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 positive by nucleic acid detection. Sixty-four cases were coinfected with influenza A/B and the other 64 were influenza negative, matched by age, sex, and days from onset of symptoms. Among the 64 coinfected patients, 54 (84.4%) were coinfected with influenza A, and 10 (15.6%) with influenza B. The median duration of viral shedding time from admission was longer for patients with influenza coinfection (17.0 days) than for those without influenza coinfection (12.0 days) (P < .001). The multivariable Cox proportional hazards model showed that the hazards ratio of resolution in lung involvement was 1.878 (P = .020) for patients administered lopinavir/ritonavir, compared with those not administered lopinavir/ritonavir (95% confidence interval: 1.103-3.196). Among influenza coinfected patients, those treated with lopinavir/ritonavir exhibited faster pneumonia resolution within 2 weeks after symptom onset (37% vs 1%; P = .001). There was no difference in lung involvement between influenza coinfected and noninfected groups. Lopinavir/ritonavir eliminated the difference of lung involvement between influenza coinfected and noninfected groups, indicating that lopinavir/ritonavir is associated with pneumonia resolution in COVID-19.

Clinical efficacy of methylprednisolone and the combined use of lopinavir/ritonavir with arbidol in treatment of coronavirus disease 2019.

This study aims to comparatively analyze the therapeutic efficacy upon multiple medication plans over lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r), arbidol (ARB), and methylprednisolone on patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Totally, 75 COVID-19 patients admitted to The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine from January 22, 2020 to February 29, 2020 were recruited and grouped based on whether or not LPV/r and ARB were jointly used and whether or not methylprednisolone was used. Indexes including body temperature, time for nucleic acid negative conversion, hospital stays, and laboratory indexes were examined and compared. For all patients, there were no significant differences in the change of body temperature, the time for negative conversion, and hospital stays whether LPV/r and ARB were jointly used or not. While for severe and critically severe patients, methylprednisolone noticeably reduced the time for negative conversion. Meanwhile, the clinical efficacy was superior on patients receiving methylprednisolone within 3 days upon admission, and the duration of hospital stays was much shorter when methylprednisolone was given at a total dose of 0-400 mg than a higher dose of >400 mg if all patients received a similar dose per day. Nonetheless, no significant changes across hepatic, renal, and myocardial function indexes were observed. LPV/r combined with ARB produced no noticeably better effect on COVID-19 patients relative to the single-agent treatment. Additionally, methylprednisolone was efficient in severe and critically severe cases, and superior efficacy could be realized upon its early, appropriate, and short-term application.

Repurposed pharmacological agents for the potential treatment of COVID-19: a literature review.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has affected the world extraordinarily. This disease has a potential to cause a significantly severe course of disease leading to respiratory complications, multiple organ failure and possibly death. In the fight against this pandemic-causing disease, medical professionals around the world are searching for pharmacological agents that could treat and prevent disease progression and mortality. To speed the search of promising treatment options, already existing pharmacological agents are repurposed for the potential treatment of COVID-19 and tested in clinical trials. The aim of this literature review is to investigate the efficacy and safety of repurposed pharmacological agents for the treatment of COVID-19 at different pathophysiologic stages of the disease. For this literature review, online-databases PubMed and Google Scholar were utilised. Keywords "COVID-19", "SARS-CoV-2", "pathogenesis", "drug targets", "pharmacological treatment", "cytokine storm", "coagulopathy" and individual drug names were used. Scientific articles, including reviews, clinical trials, and observational cohorts, were collected and analysed. Furthermore, these articles were examined for references to find more clinical trials testing for the potential treatment of COVID-19. In total, 97 references were used to conduct this research paper. RESULTS: The most beneficial pharmacological agent for the treatment of COVID-19 are corticosteroids, especially dexamethasone, for the treatment of mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients. Other promising agents are remdesivir for the treatment of patients with COVID-19 pneumonia requiring minimal supplemental oxygen therapy, and IL-6 receptor antagonist monoclonal antibodies in severe COVID-19. Lopinavir/ritonavir, as well as chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine with or without azithromycin demonstrate the least efficacy in the treatment of COVID-19. The clinical benefits of the treatment of a COVID-19-specific coagulopathy with increased dosing of anticoagulation need further research and confirmation of randomised controlled trials. CONCLUSION: The search for pharmacological treatment of COVID-19 has elicited great controversy. Whereas drugs like chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, and lopinavir/ritonavir have not shown proven benefit, the agents remdesivir and dexamethasone are recommended for clinical use for the treatment of COVID-19. Further randomised trials for other pharmacological treatment strategies are awaited.

Pneumonia-targeted lopinavir/ritonavir-based treatment for patients with COVID-19: an early-period retrospective single center observational study.

BACKGROUND: Robust evidenced treatment strategy for Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has not been established yet. Early, targeted, comprehensive management approach can be essential. METHODS: A lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r)-based antiviral treatment was administered to the patients with computed tomography (CT)-documented pneumonia. Medical records of patients with COVID-19, previously discharged or hospitalized for ≥ 21 days at the Seoul Medical Center from January 29 to April 15, 2020 were reviewed to analyze clinical and virological outcomes. Patients were divided into two groups (PCR-Negative conversion group vs. Non-negative conversion group and requiring oxygen group vs. Non-requiring oxygen group). RESULTS: In total, 136 patients with a mean age of 41.8 ± 18.2 years were included with median 3-day delay of hospitalization after illness. Thirteen (9.56%) were initially asymptomatic, and 5 (3.67%) were persistently asymptomatic. Eighty-five (62.5%) had CT-documented pneumonia, 94% of whom received LPV/r treatments. A total of 53 patients (38.97%) had negative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) results within 28 days. Eight (9.4%) out of 85 pneumonic patients received oxygen supplementation. Patients with initial lower respiratory symptoms showed significant delay in PCR negative conversion (> 28 days) (odds ratio [OR] 0.166; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.067-0.477; P < 0.001). However, antiviral treatment for pneumonic patients was significantly related with early conversion within 28 days (OR 3.049; 95% CI 1.128-8.243; P = 0.028). Increasing age increased the likelihood of oxygen supplementation requirement in the pneumonic patient group (OR 1.108; 95% CI 1.021-1.202; P = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: Early, pneumonia targeted LPV/r-based antiviral therapy resulted in a significantly higher probability of negative conversion of PCR within 28 days compared to symptomatic treatment.

Current pharmacological modalities for management of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and the rationale for their utilization: A review.

SARS-CoV-2 has caused a pandemic which is putting strain on the health-care system and global economy. There is much pressure to develop both preventative and curative therapies for SARS-CoV-2 as there is no evidence to support therapies to improve outcomes in patients with SARS-CoV-2. Medications that inhibit certain steps of virus life cycle that are currently used to treat other illnesses such as Malaria, Ebola, HIV and Hepatitis C are being studied for use against SARS-CoV-2. To date, data is limited for medications that facilitate clinical improvement of COVID-19 infections.

Lopinavir-Ritonavir in SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Drug-Drug Interactions with Cardioactive Medications.

Lopinavir-ritonavir combination is being used for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection. A low dose of ritonavir is added to other protease inhibitors to take advantage of potent inhibition of cytochrome (CYP) P450 3A4, thereby significantly increasing the plasma concentration of coadministered lopinavir. Ritonavir also inhibits CYP2D6 and induces CYP2B6, CYP2C19, CYP2C9, and CYP1A2. This potent, time-dependent interference of major hepatic drug-metabolizing enzymes by ritonavir leads to several clinically important drug-drug interactions. A number of patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome and acute heart failure may have SARS-CoV-2 infection simultaneously. Lopinavir-ritonavir is added to their prescription of multiple cardiac medications leading to potential drug-drug interactions. Many cardiology, pulmonology, and intensivist physicians have never been exposed to clinical scenarios requiring co-prescription of cardiac and antiviral therapies. Therefore, it is essential to enumerate these drug-drug interactions, to avoid any serious drug toxicity, to consider alternate and safer drugs, and to ensure better patient care.

Comparative effectiveness of Lopinavir/Ritonavir-based regimens in COVID-19.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an epidemic disease caused by the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Corona Virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and spreading throughout the world rapidly. Here we evaluated the efficacy of the Lopinavir/Ritonavir (LPV/r) and its combination with other drugs in the treatment of COVID-19. We included 170 confirmed COVID-19 patients who had been cured and discharged. Their antiviral therapies were LPV/r alone or combinations with interferon (IFN), Novaferon and Arbidol. We evaluated the medication efficacy by comparing the time of the negative nucleic acid conversion and the length of hospitalization mainly. The LPV/r + Novaferon [6.00 (4.00-8.00) and 7.50 (5.00-10.00) days] had shorter time of the negative nucleic acid conversion (P = .0036) and shorter time of hospitalization (P < .001) compared with LPV/r alone [9.00 (5.00-12.00) and 12.00 (11.00-15.00) days] and LPV/r + IFN [9.00 (7.25-11.00) and 12.00 (10.00-13.50) days]. On the contrary, LPV/r + IFN [9.00 (7.25-11.00) and 12.00 (10.00-13.50) days] had shorter time of the negative nucleic acid conversion (P = .031) and shorter time of hospitalization (P < .001) compared with LPV/r + IFN +Novaferon [10.00 (8.00-11.25) and 13.50 (11.50-17.00) days] and LPV/r + IFN +Arbidol [14.00 (9.75-19.00) and 19.50 (13.25-24.00) days]. In conclusion, the combination of LPV/r and Novaferon may have better efficacy against COVID-19. However, adding IFN based on LPV/r + Novaferon or adding Arbidol based on LPV/r + IFN may not improve the efficacy.

Effect of hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin and lopinavir/ritonavir on the QT corrected interval in patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Administration of Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) prolongs QTc corrected interval (QTc). The effect and safety of Lopinavir/Ritonavir in combination with these therapies have seldom been studied. OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to evaluate changes in QTc in patients receiving double (Hydroxychloroquine + Azithromycin) and triple therapy (Hydroxychloroquine + Azithromycin + Lopinavir/Ritonavir) to treat COVID-19. Secondary outcome was the incidence of in-hospital all-cause mortality. METHODS: Patients under treatment with double (DT) and triple therapy (TT) for COVID-19 were consecutively included in this prospective observational study. Serial in-hospital electrocardiograms were performed to measure QTc at baseline and during therapy. RESULTS: 168 patients (±66.2 years old) were included: 32.1% received DT and 67.9% received TT. The mean baseline QTc was 410.33 ms. Patients under DT and TT prolonged QTc interval respect baseline values (p < 0.001), without significant differences between both therapy groups (p = 0.748). Overall, 33 patients (19.6%) had a peak QTc and/or an increase QTc 60 ms from baseline, with a higher prevalence among those with hypokalemia (p = 0.003). All-cause mortality was similar between both strategy groups (p = 0.093) and high risk QTc prolongation was no related to clinical events in this series. CONCLUSIONS: DT and TT prolong the QTc in patients with COVID-19. Addition of Lopinavir/Ritonavir on top of Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin did not increase QTc compared to DT.

SARS CoV-2 (COVID-19) Current Pharmacotherapy for Mother and Infant.

The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), appeared in the United States over 1 year ago. This virus has a wide range of presentations, from being asymptomatic to causing severe acute respiratory syndrome, which can lead to death. It has led to a worldwide effort to find effective treatments, from repurposed medications to new discoveries, as well as the push to develop effective vaccines. As the race to fight this pandemic unfolds, this column provides what is currently available to combat this virus, how it has been utilized in the pregnant population, and what data have been made available about how these treatments affect fetal development and the neonate.

Outcomes of COVID-19 Patients Hospitalized at Acute Care Services: Real-World Experience in the New York Metropolitan Area During the Early Pandemic Before Initiation of Clinical Trials.

As New York became the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic early on, clinicians were challenged to provide optimal medical and pharmaceutical care, despite the paucity of supporting literature and guidance. We sought to describe prescribing patterns and outcomes of physician response to the urgent need to treat COVID-19 patients before initiation of randomized clinical trials. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of adult patients with COVID-19 initially admitted to acute care services during March 2020. Critically ill patients requiring intensive care unit level of care on admission were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 639 consecutive patients (supportive care, n = 247; treatment n = 392) were included in the analysis. Overall, the 28-day mortality rate was 12.2%. The mortality was 8.7% higher in the treatment group (15.6% vs 6.9% in the supportive care group, P < 0.001). Treatment was not protective against progression to severe disease (18.4% vs 3.6% with supportive care, P < 0.0001). Time to defervescence, duration of oxygen support, and hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay were also higher in the treatment group. In multivariate analysis, 60 years or older, presence of severe disease, and need for ICU admission were identified as independent predictors of 28-day mortality. There were 41 (10.5%) adverse event in the treatment group, with the majority being QT prolongation and gastrointestinal effects. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of hospitalized patients admitted to acute care services, treatment with hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir or both could not be shown to improve mortality, progression to severe disease, or clinical response.

The comparison of favipiravir and lopinavir/ritonavir combination in COVID-19 treatment

Background/aim: SARS-CoV-2, a ribonucleic acid coronavirus, rapidly spread worldwide within a short timeframe. Although different antiviral, antiinflammatory, and immunomodulatory drugs are used, current evidence is insufficient as to which drug is more efficient. Our study compared favipiravir and lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/RTV) therapies in inpatient care for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia. Materials and methods: Demographic data, test results, treatments, and latest status of patients receiving inpatient COVID-19 pneumonia therapy were recorded. The initial favipiravir and LPV/RTV receiving groups were compared regarding the need for intensive care units (ICU) and mortality. Logistic regression analysis was performed by including variables showing significant differences as a result of paired comparisons into the model. Results: Of the 204 patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, 59 (28.9%), 131 (64.2%), and 14 were administered LPV/RTV, favipiravir, and favipiravir with LPV/RTV, respectively. No difference was found in age, sex, presence of comorbidity, and tocilizumab, systemic corticosteroid, and plasma therapy use between patients administered with these three different treatment regimens. The mean mortality age of the patients was 71 ± 14.3 years, which was substantially greater than that of the survivors (54.2 ± 15.5 years). Compared with patients administered with LPV/RTV, ICU admission and mortality rates were lower in patients administered with favipiravir. CK-MB, AST, CRP, LDH, and creatinine levels were higher, whereas lymphocyte counts were lower in patients who died. Age, AST, CRP, LDH, and neutrophil counts were higher in patients needing ICU, and eosinophil and lymphocyte counts were significantly lower. Logistic regression analysis showed that favipiravir use independently decreased mortality (p = 0.006). Conclusion: The use of favipiravir was more effective than LPV/RTV in reducing mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

Effect of Systemic Inflammatory Response to SARS-CoV-2 on Lopinavir and Hydroxychloroquine Plasma Concentrations.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) leads to inflammatory cytokine release, which can downregulate the expression of metabolizing enzymes. This cascade affects drug concentrations in the plasma. We investigated the association between lopinavir (LPV) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) plasma concentrations and the levels of the acute-phase inflammation marker C-reactive protein (CRP). LPV plasma concentrations in 92 patients hospitalized at our institution were prospectively collected. Lopinavir-ritonavir was administered every 12 hours, 800/200 mg on day 1 and 400/100 mg on day 2 until day 5 or 7. HCQ was given at 800 mg, followed by 400 mg after 6, 24, and 48 h. Hematological, liver, kidney, and inflammation laboratory values were analyzed on the day of drug level determination. The median age of study participants was 59 (range, 24 to 85) years, and 71% were male. The median durations from symptom onset to hospitalization and treatment initiation were 7 days (interquartile range [IQR], 4 to 10) and 8 days (IQR, 5 to 10), respectively. The median LPV trough concentration on day 3 of treatment was 26.5 µg/ml (IQR, 18.9 to 31.5). LPV plasma concentrations positively correlated with CRP values (r = 0.37, P < 0.001) and were significantly lower when tocilizumab was preadministered. No correlation was found between HCQ concentrations and CRP values. High LPV plasma concentrations were observed in COVID-19 patients. The ratio of calculated unbound drug fraction to published SARS-CoV-2 50% effective concentrations (EC50) indicated insufficient LPV concentrations in the lung. CRP values significantly correlated with LPV but not HCQ plasma concentrations, implying inhibition of cytochrome P450 3A4 (CYP3A4) metabolism by inflammation.

A comparative study on the time to achieve negative nucleic acid testing and hospital stays between danoprevir and lopinavir/ritonavir in the treatment of patients with COVID-19.

In late December 2019, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) first broke out in Wuhan, China, and has now become a global pandemic. However, there is no specific antiviral treatment for COVID-19. This study enrolled 33 COVID-19 patients in the nineth hospital of Nanchang from 27th January to 24th February 2020. Clinical indexes of patients upon admission/discharge were examined. Patients were divided into two groups according to different treatment plans (danoprevir and lopinavir/ritonavir). The days to achieve negative nucleic acid testing and the days of hospital stays were counted and statistically analyzed. COVID-19 patients treated with danoprevir or lopinavir/ritonavir were all improved and discharged. Indexes like blood routine, inflammation and immune-related indexes were significantly recovered after treatment. Additionally, under the circumstance that there was no significant difference in patients' general information between the two groups, we found that the mean time to achieve both negative nucleic acid testing and hospital stays of patients treated with danoprevir were significantly shorter than those of patients with lopinavir/ritonavir. Collectively, applying danoprevir is a good treatment plan for COVID-19 patients.

Effect of combination antiviral therapy on hematological profiles in 151 adults hospitalized with severe coronavirus disease 2019.

OBJECTIVES: The current diagnosis and medicines approach in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) does not reflect the heterogeneous characteristics of this disease. This study aims to find a new antiviral combination regimen by investigating the frequency of clinically relevant and objectively identified comorbidities, and the clustering of these clinical syndromes and varying results of treatment with antiviral drugs in patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19. METHODS: This study recruited 151 severe COVID-19 infection cases diagnosed in our hospital examination and illustrated the clinical potential during a consecutive 25-day medication period. Potential differences in disease severity and clinical characteristics, hematological profile, and current pharmacologic treatments (single agent, double or triple combinations, and the combined antiviral drugs plus Lianhua Qingwen) among comorbidity clusters were explored. RESULTS: Although disease severity was comparable among three clusters, it was markedly different in terms of laboratory test status. Coagulable abnormality was mainly present in cluster 1 and cluster 2. Other indicators were normal, except for a significant increase of neutrophils presented in cluster 2. Patients showed the most complicated haematological results in cluster 3, including severe coagulation abnormalities, leukocytosis, neutrophilic granulocytosis, and lymphopenia. Our results for the first time suggest that a quadruple combination therapy (Ribavirin, Lopinavir/ritonavir, Umifenovir, and Lianhua Qingwen) can be considered as a preferred treatment approach to severe COVID-19 patients. After treatment, abnormal coagulation and leukocyte had markedly improved with a better prognosis. CONCLUSION: This study expands the understanding of the co-occurrence of combination therapy in patients with COVID-19, which provides the probability of developing novel combined therapy. Furthermore, explore clinical trials of variable antivirus treatments based on subgroup analyses or on using subgroups in the selection criteria would be the next step.

Comparison of hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, and standard of care in critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia: an opportunistic retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) outbreak is spreading worldwide. To date, no specific treatment has convincingly demonstrated its efficacy. Hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir have potential interest, but virological and clinical data are scarce, especially in critically ill patients. METHODS: The present report took the opportunity of compassionate use and successive drug shortages to compare the effects of two therapeutic options, lopinavir/ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine, as compared to standard of care only. The primary outcomes were treatment escalation (intubation, extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation support, or renal replacement therapy) after day 1 until day 28. Secondary outcomes included ventilator-free days at day 28, mortality at day 14 and day 28, treatment safety issues and changes in respiratory tracts, and plasma viral load (as estimated by cycle threshold value) between admission and day 7. RESULTS: Eighty patients were treated during a 4-week period and included in the analysis: 22 (28%) received standard of care only, 20 (25%) patients received lopinavir/ritonavir associated to standard of care, and 38 (47%) patients received hydroxychloroquine and standard of care. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the 3 groups. Treatment escalation occurred in 9 (41%), 10 (50%), and 15 (39%) patients who received standard of care only, standard of care and lopinavir/ritonavir, and standard of care and hydroxychloroquine, respectively (p = 0.567). There was no significant difference between groups regarding the number of ventilator-free days at day 28 and mortality at day 14 and day 28. Finally, there was no significant change between groups in viral respiratory or plasma load between admission and day 7. CONCLUSION: In critically ill patients admitted for SARS-CoV-2-related pneumonia, no difference was found between hydroxychloroquine or lopinavir/ritonavir as compared to standard of care only on the proportion of patients who needed treatment escalation at day 28. Further randomized controlled trials are required to demonstrate whether these drugs may be useful in this context.

A sporadic COVID-19 pneumonia treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in Tokyo, Japan: A case report.

INTRODUCTION: An ongoing outbreak of a novel coronavirus disease (coronavirus disease 2019, COVID-19) has become a global threat. While clinical reports from China to date demonstrate that the majority of cases remain relatively mild and recover with supportive care, it is also crucial to be well prepared for severe cases warranting intensive care. Initiating appropriate infection control measures may not always be achievable in primary care or in acute-care settings. CASE: A 45-year-old man was admitted to the intensive care unit due to severe pneumonia, later confirmed as COVID-19. His initial evaluation in the resuscitation room and treatments in the intensive care unit was performed under droplet and contact precaution with additional airborne protection using the N95 respirator mask. He was successfully treated in the intensive care unit with mechanical ventilation and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for respiratory support; and antiretroviral treatment with lopinavir/ritonavir. His total intensive care unit stay was 15 days and was discharged on hospital day 24. CONCLUSIONS: Strict infection control precautions are not always an easy task, especially under urgent care in an intensive care unit. However, severe cases of COVID-19 pneumonia, or another novel infectious disease, could present at any moment and would be a continuing challenge to pursue appropriate measures. We need to be well prepared to secure healthcare workers from exposure to infectious diseases and nosocomial spread, as well as to provide necessary intensive care.

Lopinavir/ritonavir combination therapy amongst symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 patients in India: Protocol for restricted public health emergency use.

As of February 29, 2020, more than 85,000 cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been reported from China and 53 other countries with 2,924 deaths. On January 30, 2020, the first laboratory-confirmed case of COVID was reported from Kerala, India. In view of the earlier evidence about effectiveness of repurposed lopinavir/ritonavir against severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) coronavirus (CoV), as well as preliminary docking studies conducted by the ICMR-National Institute of Virology, Pune, the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization approved the restricted public health use of lopinavir/ritonavir combination amongst symptomatic COVID-19 patients detected in the country. Hospitalized adult patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection with any one of the following criteria will be eligible to receive lopinavir/ritonavir for 14 days after obtaining written informed consent: (i) respiratory distress with respiratory rate ≥22/min or SpO2of <94 per cent; (ii) lung parenchymal infiltrates on chest X-ray; (iii) hypotension defined as systolic blood pressure <90 mmHg or need for vasopressor/inotropic medication; (iv) new-onset organ dysfunction; and (v) high-risk groups - age >60 yr, diabetes mellitus, renal failure, chronic lung disease and immunocompromised persons. Patients will be monitored to document clinical (hospital length of stay and mortality at 14, 28 and 90 days), laboratory (presence of viral RNA in serial throat swab samples) and safety (adverse events and serious adverse events) outcomes. Treatment outcomes amongst initial cases would be useful in providing guidance about the clinical management of patients with COVID-19. If found useful in managing initial SARS-CoV-2-infected patients, further evaluation using a randomized control trial design is warranted to guide future therapeutic use of this combination.