Search

The spread of COVID-19 has significantly increased research on antiviral drugs and measures such as case isolation and contact tracing. This study compared the effects of lopinavir/ritonavir and remdesivir on COVID-19 patients with a control group receiving no antiviral drugs. Patients confirmed to have a SARS-CoV-2 infection via real-time RT-PCR were divided into three groups: lopinavir/ritonavir, remdesivir, and control. We assessed the efficacy of these drugs in reducing viral load and viral shedding duration using real-time RT-PCR and Vero E6 cell cultures. Lopinavir/ritonavir led to no detectable infectious SARS-CoV-2, with a median viral clearance time of one day, whereas one remdesivir-treated case remained culture-positive until day 12. Lopinavir/ritonavir significantly reduced viral load compared to remdesivir and control groups (p = 0.0117 and p = 0.0478). No infectious virus was detected in the lopinavir/ritonavir group, and the non-infectious SARS-CoV-2 proportion remained constant at 90%, higher than in the remdesivir and control groups (p = 0.0097). There was a significant difference in culture positivity among the groups (p = 0.0234), particularly between the lopinavir/ritonavir and remdesivir groups (p = 0.0267). These findings suggest that lopinavir/ritonavir reduces viral load and shortens the viral shedding duration compared to remdesivir, despite not being an effective treatment option. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Since severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) was first reported in Wuhan, China, in December 2019, it has spread rapidly, and many coronavirus disease (COVID‐19) cases have occurred in Gwangju, South Korea. Viral mutations following the COVID‐19 epidemic have increased interest in the characteristics of epidemics in this region, and pathogen genetic analysis is required for infection control and prevention. Methods: In this study, SARS‐CoV‐2 whole‐genome analysis was performed on samples from patients with COVID‐19 in Gwangju from 2020 to 2022 to identify the trends in COVID‐19 prevalence and to analyze the phylogenetic relationships of dominant variants. B.41 and B.1.497 prevailed in 2020, the early stage of the COVID‐19 outbreak; then, B.1.619.1 mainly occurred until June 2021. B.1.617.2, classified as sublineages AY.69 and AY.122, occurred continuously from July to December 2021. Since strict measures to strengthen national quarantine management had been implemented in South Korea until this time, the analysis of mutations was also able to infer the epidemiological relationship between infection transmission routes. Since the first identification of the Omicron variant in late December 2021, the spread of infection has been very rapid, and weekly whole‐genome analysis of specimens has enabled us to monitor new Omicron sublineages occurring in Gwangju. Conclusions: Our study suggests that conducting regional surveillance in addition to nation‐level genomic surveillance will enable more rapid and detailed variant surveillance, which will be helpful in the overall prevention and management of infectious diseases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome (SFTS) is an emerging infectious disease. SFTS is caused by the SFTS virus, a novel phlebovirus, and is spread by ticks. Methods: A 50-year-old man was admitted to our hospital with the chief complaint of fever and was diagnosed with confirmed SFTS. An epidemiological investigation was conducted, and immunofluorescent antibody assays (IFAs) were performed to determine the role of the patient's three dogs in the transmission. PCR assays were performed using ticks that were collected with the dragging and flagging method from the patient's dogs and home. Results: PCR results were positive, and IFA confirmed an increased antibody titer. Although the reverse transcription PCR results of the three dogs were negative for SFTS virus, one dog had an elevated SFTS IFA immunoglobulin G (IgG) titer of 1:1,024. Moreover, a number of ticks were observed in the area surrounding the dog cages. Based on the findings of the patient interview, the patient was likely to have acquired SFTS by blood splash because he removed or burst ticks from the dogs with his bare hands. Although no tick bites were reported, tick transmission could not be ruled out. Studies have shown that only one in three individuals with a diagnosis of SFTS recalls a tick bite; thus, a definite exclusion of tick transmission in this case was not possible. Conclusions: The epidemiological findings of our case suggest a possible relationship between tick infestation in domestic dogs and SFTS virus transmission to humans. However, there is no direct evidence supporting this viral transmission route. Future studies are needed to further investigate a potential route of SFTS transmission by exposure to engorged tick blood or pet dogs.