ABSTRACT
Since 2019, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has spread worldwide, and the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic currently continues.In response to this unprecedented pandemic, several researchers and medical staff have struggled to find appropriate treatments for COVID-19. Patients with mild symptoms can recuperate with symptomatic care, however establishing treatment for severe to critically ill patients who can have a high mortality has been essential. Accordingly, the guidelines for COVID-19 treatment have evolved through numerous trials and errors and have been relatively well established to date. In the Republic of Korea, several evidence-based guidelines for COVID-19 treatment were released and revised, reflecting various research and regional medical conditions. To date, approximately 3 years after the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, we are reflecting on the changes in the guidelines thus far and have summarized the treatment experience of severe to critically ill patients with COVID-19. The Korean guidelines for COVID-19 treatment have been updated continuously as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) guidelines have changed. Dexamethasone is currently used as the backbone for the treatment of severe to critically ill patients with COVID-19, and remdesivir, baricitinib, and tocilizumab can be added depending on a patient’s situation. In addition, venous thromboembolism prophylaxis is one of the important adjunctive therapies for patients with severe COVID-19. In the clinical field, treatment of severely ill patients with COVID-19 based on guidelines is widely practiced by medical staff and established currently.
ABSTRACT
Despite the low prevalence of secondary bacterial infection in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients, most of them were administered antibiotic therapy empirically.However, the prognostic impact of empirical antibiotic therapy has not been evaluated.We conducted retrospective propensity score-matched case-control study of 233 COVID-19 patients with moderate to severe illnesses who required oxygen therapy and evaluated whether empirical antibiotic therapy could improve clinical outcomes. Empirical antibiotic therapy did not improve clinical outcomes including length of stay, days with oxygen requirement, the proportion of patients with increased oxygen demand, the proportion of patients who required mechanical ventilation, and overall mortality. This finding implies that routine administration of antibiotics for the treatment of COVID-19 is not essential and should be restricted.
ABSTRACT
Background@#The relationship between changes in anxiety levels and personal protective equipment (PPE) use is yet to be evaluated. The present study assessed this relationship among healthcare workers (HCWs) involved in the care of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). @*Methods@#An online survey was conducted in a municipal hospital with 195 nationally designated negative pressure isolation units in Korea. Anxiety level was measured using the self-rating anxiety scale (SAS), and changes in anxiety levels were assessed based on the time when COVID-19 vaccine was introduced in March 2021 in Korea. Monthly PPE usage between June 2020 and May 2021 was investigated. @*Results@#The mean SAS score (33.25 ± 5.97) was within normal range and was lower than those reported in previous studies conducted before COVID-19 vaccination became available.Among the 93 HCWs who participated, 64 (68.8%) answered that their fear of contracting COVID-19 decreased after vaccination. The number of coveralls used per patient decreased from 33.6 to 0. However, a demand for more PPE than necessary was observed in situations where HCWs were exposed to body fluids and secretions (n = 38, 40.9%). Excessive demand for PPE was not related to age, working experience, or SAS score. @*Conclusion@#Anxiety in HCWs exposed to COVID-19 was lower than it was during the early period of the pandemic, and the period before vaccination was introduced. The number of coveralls used per patient also decreased although an excessive demand for PPE was observed.
ABSTRACT
Background@#Co-infection with bacteria and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 may result in greater use of healthcare resources and a poor prognosis. Therefore, early selection and use of optimal antibiotics are essential. The direct rapid antibiotic susceptibility test (dRAST) can detect antibiotic resistance within 6 h of a Gram smear result. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of dRAST for improving early selection of appropriate antibiotics for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients with bacteremia. @*Materials and Methods@#This retrospective study included 96 blood culture-positive COVID-19 patients. Bacterial isolates and antimicrobial resistance profiles of each case were evaluated. Cases were divided into two groups based on whether they underwent conventional antibiotic susceptibility test (AST) or dRAST. The time to optimal targeted treatment for the two groups was investigated and compared. In addition, we examined the proportion of cases for which appropriate antibiotics were selected and broad spectrum antibiotics were administered at 72 h from blood sample collection. @*Results@#The mean time to optimal targeted antibiotic treatment was shorter for the dRAST group [55.7; standard deviation (SD), 28.7 vs. 92.3; SD, 51.1 h; P = 0.041]. The proportion of cases receiving optimal targeted antibiotics 72 h after blood collection for culture was higher [6/10 (60.0%) vs. 10/25 (40.0%)] and the percentage receiving broad spectrum antibiotics at 72 h was lower [6/10 (60.0%) vs. 19/25 (76.0%)] in the dRAST group than in the conventional AST group. In terms of microbiology profile, the contamination rate was high (35.5%) and multidrug-resistant strains were common (63.2%) in COVID-19 patients with bacteremia. @*Conclusion@#Application of dRAST for selection of antibiotics to treat bacteremia in COVID-19 patients may enable earlier and optimal treatment. The high incidence of contamination and resistant organisms in blood cultures from COVID-19 patients suggest that dRAST may speed up appropriate targeted treatment.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate the current status of infectious disease research in North Korea by analyzing recent trends in medical journals from North Korea in comparison with research from South Korea. METHODS: Three medical journals (Preventive Medicine, Basic Medicine, and Chosun Medicine) were analyzed from 2012 to 2016. Articles on tuberculosis (TB), malaria, and parasitic diseases were selected and classified by their subtopics and study areas. Two medical journals published in the South Korea were selected for a comparative analysis of research trends. RESULTS: Of the 2792 articles that were reviewed, 93 were extracted from North Korea journals. TB research in North Korea was largely focused on multi-drug resistant TB and extrapulmonary TB, whereas research in South Korea more frequently investigated non-tuberculous mycobacteria. Research on parasitic diseases in North Korea was focused on protozoan and intestinal nematodes, while the corresponding South Korea research investigated various species of parasites. Additionally, the studies conducted in North Korea were more likely to investigate the application of traditional medicine to diagnosis and treatment than those conducted in South Korea. CONCLUSIONS: This study presents an analysis of research trends in preventive medicine in North Korea focusing on infectious diseases, in which clear differences were observed between South and North Korea. Trends in research topics suggest a high prevalence of certain parasitic diseases in North Korea that are no longer widespread in South Korea. The large proportion of studies examining traditional medicine implies a lack of affordable medicine in North Korea.