BACKGROUNDAlthough several therapeutic agents have been evaluated for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 , no antiviral agents have yet been shown to be efficacious. METHODSWe conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of intravenous remdesivir in adults who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either remdesivir (200 mg loading dose on day 1, followed by 100 mg daily for up to 9 additional days) or placebo for up to 10 days. The primary outcome was the time to recovery, defined by either discharge from the hospital or hospitalization for infection-control purposes only. RESULTSA total of 1062 patients underwent randomization (with 541 assigned to remdesivir and 521 to placebo). Those who received remdesivir had a median recovery time of 10 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 9 to 11), as compared with 15 days (95% CI, 13 to 18) among those who received placebo (rate ratio for recovery, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.49; P<0.001, by a log-rank test). In an analysis that used a proportionalodds model with an eight-category ordinal scale, the patients who received remdesivir were found to be more likely than those who received placebo to have clinical improvement at day 15 (odds ratio, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2 to 1.9, after adjustment for actual disease severity). The Kaplan-Meier estimates of mortality were 6.7% with remdesivir and 11.9% with placebo by day 15 and 11.4% with remdesivir and 15.2% with placebo by day 29 (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.52 to 1.03). Serious adverse events were reported in 131 of the 532 patients who received remdesivir (24.6%) and in 163 of the 516 patients who received placebo (31.6%). CONCLUSIONSOur data show that remdesivir was superior to placebo in shortening the time to recovery in adults who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and had evidence of lower respiratory tract infection. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others; ACTT-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04280705.

Background Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is associated with dysregulated inflammation. The effects of combination treatment with baricitinib, a Janus kinase inhibitor, plus remdesivir are not known. Methods We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial evaluating baricitinib plus remdesivir in hospitalized adults with Covid-19. All the patients received remdesivir (≤10 days) and either baricitinib (≤14 days) or placebo (control). The primary outcome was the time to recovery. The key secondary outcome was clinical status at day 15. Results A total of 1033 patients underwent randomization (with 515 assigned to combination treatment and 518 to control). Patients receiving baricitinib had a median time to recovery of 7 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 6 to 8), as compared with 8 days (95% CI, 7 to 9) with control (rate ratio for recovery, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.32; P=0.03), and a 30% higher odds of improvement in clinical status at day 15 (odds ratio, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0 to 1.6). Patients receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation at enrollment had a time to recovery of 10 days with combination treatment and 18 days with control (rate ratio for recovery, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.10 to 2.08). The 28-day mortality was 5.1% in the combination group and 7.8% in the control group (hazard ratio for death, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.39 to 1.09). Serious adverse events were less frequent in the combination group than in the control group (16.0% vs. 21.0%; difference, −5.0 percentage points; 95% CI, −9.8 to −0.3; P=0.03), as were new infections (5.9% vs. 11.2%; difference, −5.3 percentage points; 95% CI, −8.7 to −1.9; P=0.003). Conclusions Baricitinib plus remdesivir was superior to remdesivir alone in reducing recovery time and accelerating improvement in clinical status among patients with Covid-19, notably among those receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive ventilation. The combination was associated with fewer serious adverse events. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04401579 .)

No abstract

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this letter was reported. The authors reply: Campochiaro and Caruso are correct that mention of cardiovascular associations with ankylosing spondylitis and axial spondyloarthritis, including specific conductionsystem lesions and aortic-root lesions, was largely absent from our review of spondyloarthritis. These specific lesions are uncommon and tend to occur late in the disease course, as does the other more common but less specific cardiovascular illness mentioned in their letter. The focus of our article was on early diagnosis and clinical management of the axial disease, and this priority, along with space and citation limitations, precluded our describing specific cardiovascular manifestations. Rudwaleit M, van derRudwaleit and colleagues make the important point that diagnosis in clinical practice cannot be based solely on fulfillment of classification criteria. We tried to make this point in the article, but perhaps our wording conveyed some unintended ambiguity. In order to introduce the new concept of axial spondyloarthritis, we described the classification criteria for this entity proposed by the ASAS in 2009. In discussing this concept, including the critical role of MRI, we referred to this entity as a diagnosis, in the sense of its being a defined medical condition. We did not intend by this to imply that one can rely strictly on these criteria to establish a diagnosis in clinical practice. In fact, we stated explicitly, "These classification criteria have limited use outside the arena of clinical research," to introduce the algorithm (in Fig. 2 of our article) for use in clinical practice.The algorithm itself is a modification of one published by the correspondents and their colleagues, 1 but it was modified specifically to further emphasize the importance of weighing clinical data and post-test probabilities 2 and of applying clinical judgment to the diagnostic process. Moreover, the discussion of MRI findings includes mention of lesions that are not part of the classification criteria but that can be helpful in supporting a diagnosis in clinical practice. Finally, the Summary section in our article reemphasizes the potential difficulty in accurately establishing or ruling out a diagnosis of axial spondyloarthritis, with no mention of criteria. Viral Load Kinetics of MERS Coronavirus InfectionTo the Editor: The outbreak of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) infection in South Korea involved 186 patients and resulted in 38 deaths, with four large hospital outbreaks accounting for 82% of the total cases. 1,2 Here, we report changes in viral load over time in patients with MERS.We included all patients who were admitted to three Seoul National University-affiliated hospitals; the institutional review boards of these hospitals approved this study and waived the need for written informed consent on public health grounds. The patients were categorized into a group with severe disease (severe group) or a group with mild disease (mild grou...

Middle East Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) was first isolated from a patient with severe pneumonia in 2012. The 2015 Korea outbreak of MERSCoV involved 186 cases, including 38 fatalities. A total of 83% of transmission events were due to five superspreaders, and 44% of the 186 MERS cases were the patients who had been exposed in nosocomial transmission at 16 hospitals. The epidemic lasted for 2 months and the government quarantined 16,993 individuals for 14 days to control the outbreak. This outbreak provides a unique opportunity to fill the gap in our knowledge of MERS-CoV infection. Therefore, in this paper, we review the literature on epidemiology, virology, clinical features, and prevention of MERS-CoV, which were acquired from the 2015 Korea outbreak of MERSCoV.

We investigated the kinetics of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 neutralizing antibodies in 7 asymptomatic persons and 11 patients with pneumonia. The geometric mean titer of neutralizing antibodies declined from 219.4 at 2 months to 143.7 at 5 months after infection, indicating a waning antibody response.

BackgroundSevere fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome (SFTS) is an emerging infectious disease that was recently identified in China, South Korea and Japan. The objective of the study was to evaluate the epidemiologic and clinical characteristics of SFTS in South Korea.Methods/Principal FindingsSFTS is a reportable disease in South Korea. We included all SFTS cases reported to the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (KCDC) from January 2013 to December 2015. Clinical information was gathered by reviewing medical records, and epidemiologic characteristics were analyzed using both KCDC surveillance data and patient medical records. Risk factors for mortality in patients with SFTS were assessed. A total of 172 SFTS cases were reported during the study period. SFTS occurred throughout the country, except in urban areas. Hilly areas in the eastern and southeastern regions and Jeju island (incidence, 1.26 cases /105 person-years) were the main endemic areas. The yearly incidence increased from 36 cases in 2013 to 81 cases in 2015. Most cases occurred from May to October. The overall case fatality ratio was 32.6%. The clinical progression was similar to the 3 phases reported in China: fever, multi-organ dysfunction, and convalescence. Confusion, elevated C-reactive protein, and prolonged activated partial thromboplastin times were associated with mortality in patients with SFTS. Two outbreaks of nosocomial SFTS transmission were observed.ConclusionsSFTS is an endemic disease in South Korea, with a nationwide distribution and a high case-fatality ratio. Confusion, elevated levels of C-reactive protein, and prolonged activated partial thromboplastin times were associated with mortality in patients with SFTS.

Background Functional impairment of interferon, a natural antiviral component of the immune system, is associated with the pathogenesis and severity of COVID-19. We aimed to compare the efficacy of interferon beta-1a in combination with remdesivir compared with remdesivir alone in hospitalised patients with COVID-19. Methods We did a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial at 63 hospitals across five countries (Japan, Mexico, Singapore, South Korea, and the USA). Eligible patients were hospitalised adults (aged ≥18 years) with SARS-CoV-2 infection, as confirmed by a positive RT-PCR test, and who met one of the following criteria suggestive of lower respiratory tract infection: the presence of radiographic infiltrates on imaging, a peripheral oxygen saturation on room air of 94% or less, or requiring supplemental oxygen. Patients were excluded if they had either an alanine aminotransferase or an aspartate aminotransferase concentration more than five times the upper limit of normal; had impaired renal function; were allergic to the study product; were pregnant or breast feeding; were already on mechanical ventilation; or were anticipating discharge from the hospital or transfer to another hospital within 72 h of enrolment. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous remdesivir as a 200 mg loading dose on day 1 followed by a 100 mg maintenance dose administered daily for up to 9 days and up to four doses of either 44 μg interferon beta-1a (interferon beta-1a group plus remdesivir group) or placebo (placebo plus remdesivir group) administered subcutaneously every other day. Randomisation was stratified by study site and disease severity at enrolment. Patients, investigators, and site staff were masked to interferon beta-1a and placebo treatment; remdesivir treatment was given to all patients without masking. The primary outcome was time to recovery, defined as the first day that a patient attained a category 1, 2, or 3 score on the eight-category ordinal scale within 28 days, assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as all randomised patients who were classified according to actual clinical severity. Safety was assessed in the as-treated population, defined as all patients who received at least one dose of the assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04492475 . Findings Between Aug 5, 2020, and Nov 11, 2020, 969 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group (n=487) or to the placebo plus remdesivir group (n=482). The mean duration of symptoms before enrolment was 8·7 days (SD 4·4) in the interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group and 8·5 days (SD 4·3) days in the placebo plus remdesivir group. Patients in both groups had a time to recovery of 5 days (95% CI not estimable) (rate ratio of interferon beta-1a plus remdesivir group vs plac...