ABSTRACT
As nucleocapsid protein of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is immunogenic but not targeted in vaccines, it could be useful in distinguishing natural infection from vaccination. We aimed to investigate the clinical utility of sero-immunological responses against the nucleocapsid protein. Nucleocapsid antibody immunoassay study with 302 coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients showed lower titers in immunocompromised patients (P < 0.001), higher titers in higher severity (P = 0.031), and different seroconversion rates and titers according to variants of concern. Longitudinal evaluation of nucleocapsid antibodies using 513 samples from 291 COVID-19 patients revealed that it could persist up to 556 days from symptom onset. Interferon gamma release assay against the nucleocapsid protein showed poor response, precluding the deduction of a cut-off for the nucleocapsid protein. In conclusion, nucleocapsid antibody provides instructive clues about the immunogenicity of nucleocapsid proteins by different seroconversion rates and titers according to the severity of infection, host immune status, and different variants of concern.
ABSTRACT
Background@#The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused the death of thousands of patients worldwide. Although age is known to be a risk factor for morbidity and mortality in COVID-19 patients, critical illness or death is occurring even in the younger age group as the epidemic spreads. In early 2022, omicron became the dominant variant of the COVID-19 virus in South Korea, and the epidemic proceeded on a large scale. Accordingly, this study aimed to determine whether young adults (aged ≤ 50 years) with critical COVID-19 infection during the omicron period had different characteristics from older patients and to determine the risk factors for mortality in this specific age group. @*Methods@#We evaluated 213 critical adult patients (high flow nasal cannula or higher respiratory support) hospitalized for polymerase chain reaction-confirmed COVID-19 in nine hospitals in South Korea between February 1, 2022 and April 30, 2022. Demographic characteristics, including body mass index (BMI) and vaccination status; underlying diseases; clinical features and laboratory findings; clinical course; treatment received; and outcomes were collected from electronic medical records (EMRs) and analyzed according to age and mortality. @*Results@#Overall, 71 critically ill patients aged ≤ 50 years were enrolled, and 142 critically ill patients aged over 50 years were selected through 1:2 matching based on the date of diagnosis. The most frequent underlying diseases among those aged ≤ 50 years were diabetes and hypertension, and all 14 patients who died had either a BMI ≥ 25 kg/m 2 or an underlying disease. The total case fatality rate among severe patients (S-CFR) was 31.0%, and the S-CFR differed according to age and was higher than that during the delta period. The S-CFR was 19.7% for those aged ≤ 50 years, 36.6% for those aged > 50 years, and 38.1% for those aged ≥ 65 years. In multivariate analysis, age (odds ratio [OR], 1.084; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.043–1.127), initial low-density lipoprotein > 600 IU/L (OR, 4.782; 95% CI, 1.584–14.434), initial C-reactive protein > 8 mg/dL (OR, 2.940; 95% CI, 1.042–8.293), highest aspartate aminotransferase > 200 IU/L (OR, 12.931; 95% CI, 1.691–98.908), and mechanical ventilation implementation (OR, 3.671; 95% CI, 1.294–10.420) were significant independent predictors of mortality in critical COVID-19 patients during the omicron wave. A similar pattern was shown when analyzing the data by age group, but most had no statistical significance owing to the small number of deaths in the young critical group. Although the vaccination completion rate of all the patients (31.0%) was higher than that in the delta wave period (13.6%), it was still lower than that of the general population. Further, only 15 (21.1%) critically ill patients aged ≤ 50 years were fully vaccinated. Overall, the severity of hospitalized critical patients was significantly higher than that in the delta period, indicating that it was difficult to find common risk factors in the two periods only with a simple comparison. @*Conclusion@#Overall, the S-CFR of critically ill COVID-19 patients in the omicron period was higher than that in the delta period, especially in those aged ≤ 50 years. All of the patients who died had an underlying disease or obesity. In the same population, the vaccination rate was very low compared to that in the delta wave, indicating that non-vaccination significantly affected the progression to critical illness. Notably, there was a lack of prescription for Paxlovid for these patients although they satisfied the prescription criteria. Early diagnosis and active initial treatment was necessary, along with the proven methods of vaccination and personal hygiene. Further studies are needed to determine how each variant affects critically ill patients.
ABSTRACT
Tixagevimab/cilgavimab is a monoclonal antibody used to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 among immunocompromised hosts and maintained neutralizing activity against early omicron variants. Omicron BN.1 became a dominant circulating strain in Korea early 2023, but its susceptibility to tixagevimab/cilgavimab is unclear. We conducted plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT) against BN.1 in a prospective cohort (14 patients and 30 specimens). BN.1 PRNT was conducted for one- and three-months after tixagevimab/ cilgavimab administration and the average PRNT ND 50 of each point was lower than the positive cut-off value of 20 (12.9 ± 4.5 and 13.2 ± 4.2, respectively, P = 0.825). In the paired analyses, tixagevimab/cilgavimab-administered sera could not actively neutralize BN.1 (PRNT ND 50 11.5 ± 2.9, P = 0.001), compared with the reserved activity against BA.5 (ND 50 310.5 ± 180.4). Unlike virus-like particle assay, tixagevimab/cilgavimab was not active against BN.1 in neutralizing assay, and would not be effective in the present predominance of BA.2.75 sublineages.
ABSTRACT
This study evaluated the clinical outcome of carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB) bacteremia and the clinical effectiveness of tetracyclines-based therapy. In a retrospective cohort study over 5 years period, 108 patients were included in the study. The overall 30-day mortality rate was 71.4%. Pitt’s bacteremia score (PBS) (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.22–1.42 per 1-point), colistin-single regimens (aHR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.17–0.69), and tetracyclines single/tetracyclines-colistin combination regimens (aHR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.07–0.48) were independently associated with 30-day mortality. Among patients with a PBS < 6, only tetracycline-containing regimens were associated with decreased mortality. Among patients receiving appropriate definite antimicrobials, the tetracyclines-colistin combination (7 of 7, 100%) tended to a higher 30-day survival rate compared to a tetracycline (7 of 12, 57.1%) or colistin single regimen (10 of 22, 41.6%, P = 0.073). Our findings suggest tetracyclines might be effective for treating CRAB infections when combined with colistin.
ABSTRACT
Background@#A rapid decline in immunity and low neutralizing activity against the delta variant in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccinees has been observed. This study describes an outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) breakthrough infections caused by the SARS-CoV-2 delta variant in a psychiatric closed ward. @*Methods@#Data from epidemic intelligence service officers were utilized to obtain information regarding demographic, vaccination history, and clinical data along with SARSCoV-2 PCR test results for a COVID-19 outbreak that occurred in a closed psychiatric ward. @*Results@#Among the 164 residents, 144 (87.8%) received two doses of vaccines, with 137 (95.1%) receiving two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine. The mean interval between the second dose of vaccine and COVID-19 diagnosis was 132.77 ± 40.68 days. At the time of detection of the index case, SARS-CoV-2 had spread throughout the ward, infecting 162 of 164 residents. The case-fatality ratio was lower than that in the previously reported outbreak before vaccines were available (1.2%, 2/162 vs. 6.9%, P = 0.030). Prolonged hospitalization occurred in 17 patients (11.1%) and was less prevalent in the vaccinated group than in the unvaccinated group (8.5% vs. 25.0%, P = 0.040). @*Conclusion@#The findings of this study highlight that while vaccination can reduce mortality and the duration of hospitalization, it was not sufficient to prevent an outbreak of the SARSCoV-2 delta variant in this psychiatric hospital setting.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES@#Many countries have authorized the emergency use of oral antiviral agents for patients with mild-to-moderate cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We assessed the cost-effectiveness of these agents for reducing the number of severe COVID-19 cases and the burden on Korea’s medical system. @*METHODS@#Using an existing model, we estimated the number of people who would require hospital/intensive care unit (ICU) admission in Korea in 2022. The treatment scenarios included (1) all adult patients, (2) elderly patients only, and (3) adult patients with underlying diseases only, compared to standard care. Based on the current health system capacity, we calculated the incremental costs per severe case averted and hospital admission for each scenario. @*RESULTS@#We estimated that 236,510 COVID-19 patients would require hospital/ICU admission in 2022 with standard care only. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (87% efficacy) was predicted to reduce this number by 80%, 24%, and 17% when targeting all adults, adults with underlying diseases, and elderly patients (25, 8, and 4%, respectively, for molnupiravir, with 30% efficacy). Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir use is likely to be cost-effective, with predicted costs of US$8,878, US$8,964, and US$1,454, per severe patient averted for the target groups listed above, respectively, while molnupiravir is likely to be less cost-effective, with costs of US$28,492, US$29,575, and US$7,915, respectively. @*CONCLUSIONS@#In Korea, oral treatment using nirmatrelvir/ritonavir for symptomatic COVID-19 patients targeting elderly patients would be highly cost-effective and would substantially reduce the demand for hospital admission to below the capacity of the health system if targeted to all adult patients instead of standard care.
ABSTRACT
Purpose@#Real-world experience with tocilizumab in combination with dexamethasone in patients with severe coronavirus disease (COVID-19) needs to be investigated. @*Materials and Methods@#A retrospective cohort study was conducted to evaluate the effect of severity-adjusted dosing of dexamethasone in combination with tocilizumab for severe COVID-19 from August 2020 to August 2021. The primary endpoint was 30-day clinical recovery, which was defined as no oxygen requirement or referral after recovery. @*Results@#A total of 66 patients were evaluated, including 33 patients in the dexamethasone (Dexa) group and 33 patients in the dexamethasone plus tocilizumab (DexaToci) group. The DexaToci group showed a statistically significant benefit in 30-day clinical recovery, compared to the Dexa group (p=0.024). In multivariable analyses, peak FiO2 within 3 days and tocilizumab combination were consistently significant for 30-day recovery (all p<0.05). The DexaToci group showed a significantly steeper decrease in FiO2 (-4.2±2.6) than the Dexa group (−2.7±2.6; p=0.021) by hospital day 15. The duration of oxygen requirement was significantly shorter in the DexaToci group than the Dexa group (median, 10.0 days vs. 17.0 days; p=0.006). Infectious complications and cellular and humoral immune responses against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in the convalescence stage were not different between the two groups. @*Conclusion@#A combination of severity-adjusted dexamethasone and tocilizumab for the treatment of severe COVID-19 improved clinical recovery without increasing infectious complications or hindering the immune response against SARS-CoV-2.
ABSTRACT
Background@#Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is often accompanied by secondary infections, such as invasive aspergillosis. In this study, risk factors for developing COVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA) and their clinical outcomes were evaluated. @*Methods@#This multicenter retrospective cohort study included critically ill COVID-19 patients from July 2020 through March 2021. Critically ill patients were defined as patients requiring high-flow respiratory support or mechanical ventilation. CAPA was defined based on the 2020 European Confederation of Medical Mycology and the International Society for Human and Animal Mycology consensus criteria. Factors associated with CAPA were analyzed, and their clinical outcomes were adjusted by a propensity score-matched model. @*Results@#Among 187 eligible patients, 17 (9.1%) developed CAPA, which is equal to 33.10 per 10,000 patient-days. Sixteen patients received voriconazole-based antifungal treatment. In addition, 82.4% and 53.5% of patients with CAPA and without CAPA, respectively, received early high-dose corticosteroids (P = 0.022). In multivariable analysis, initial 10-day cumulative steroid dose > 60 mg of dexamethasone or dexamethasone equivalent dose) (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 3.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03–13.79) and chronic pulmonary disease (adjusted OR, 4.20; 95% CI, 1.26–14.02) were independently associated with CAPA. Tendencies of higher 90-day overall mortality (54.3% vs. 35.2%, P= 0.346) and lower respiratory support-free rate were observed in patients with CAPA (76.3% vs. 54.9%, P = 0.089). @*Conclusion@#Our study showed that the dose of corticosteroid use might be a risk factor for CAPA development and the possibility of CAPA contributing to adverse outcomes in critically ill COVID-19 patients.
ABSTRACT
Background@#Numerous patients around the globe are dying from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). While age is a known risk factor, risk analysis in the young generation is lacking. The present study aimed to evaluate the clinical features and mortality risk factors in younger patients (≤ 50 years) with a critical case of COVID-19 in comparison with those among older patients (> 50 years) in Korea. @*Methods@#We analyzed the data of adult patients only in critical condition (requiring high flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy or higher respiratory support) hospitalized with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 at 11 hospitals in Korea from July 1, 2021 to November 30, 2021 when the delta variant was a dominant strain. Patients’ electronic medical records were reviewed to identify clinical characteristics. @*Results@#During the study period, 448 patients were enrolled. One hundred and forty-two were aged 50 years or younger (the younger group), while 306 were above 50 years of age (the older group). The most common pre-existing conditions in the younger group were diabetes mellitus and hypertension, and 69.7% of the patients had a body mass index (BMI) > 25 kg/m 2 .Of 142 younger patients, 31 of 142 patients (21.8%, 19 women) did not have these pre-existing conditions. The overall case fatality rate among severity cases was 21.0%, and it differed according to age: 5.6% (n = 8/142) in the younger group, 28.1% in the older group, and 38% in the ≥ 65 years group. Age (odds ratio [OR], 7.902; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.754–18.181), mechanical ventilation therapy (OR, 17.233; 95% CI, 8.439–35.192), highest creatinine > 1.5 mg/dL (OR, 17.631; 95% CI, 8.321–37.357), and combined blood stream infection (OR, 7.092;95% CI, 1.061–18.181) were identified as independent predictors of mortality in total patients.Similar patterns were observed in age-specific analyses, but most results were statistically insignificant in multivariate analysis due to the low number of deaths in the younger group.The full vaccination rate was very low among study population (13.6%), and only three patients were fully vaccinated, with none of the patients who died having been fully vaccinated in the younger group. Seven of eight patients who died had a pre-existing condition or were obese (BMI > 25 kg/m 2 ), and the one remaining patient died from a secondary infection. @*Conclusion@#About 22% of the patients in the young critical group did not have an underlying disease or obesity, but the rate of obesity (BMI > 25 kg/m2 ) was high, with a fatality rate of 5.6%. The full vaccination rate was extremely low compared to the general population of the same age group, showing that non-vaccination has a grave impact on the progression of COVID-19 to a critical condition. The findings of this study highlight the need for measures to prevent critical progression of COVID-19, such as vaccinations and targeting young adults especially having risk factors.
ABSTRACT
Background@#Remdesivir is widely used for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but controversies regarding its efficacy still remain. @*Methods@#A retrospective cohort study was conducted to evaluate the effect of remdesivir on clinical and virologic outcomes of severe COVID-19 patients from June to July 2020. Primary clinical endpoints included clinical recovery, additional mechanical ventilator (MV) support, and duration of oxygen or MV support. Viral load reduction by hospital day (HD) 15 was evaluated by calculating changes in cycle threshold (Ct) values. @*Results@#A total of 86 severe COVID-19 patients were evaluated including 48 remdesivirtreated patients. Baseline characteristics were not significantly different between the two groups. Remdesivir was administered an average of 7.42 days from symptom onset. The proportions of clinical recovery of the remdesivir and supportive care group at HD 14 (56.3% and 39.5%) and HD 28 (87.5% and 78.9%) were not statistically different. The proportion of patients requiring MV support by HD 28 was significantly lower in the remdesivir group than in the supportive care group (22.9% vs. 44.7%, P = 0.032), and MV duration was significantly shorter in the remdesivir group (average, 1.97 vs. 5.37 days; P = 0.017). Analysis of upper respiratory tract specimens demonstrated that increases of Ct value from HD 1–5 to 11–15 were significantly greater in the remdesivir group than the supportive care group (average, 10.19 vs. 5.36; P = 0.007), and the slope of the Ct value increase was also significantly steeper in the remdesivir group (average, 5.10 vs. 2.68; P = 0.007). @*Conclusion@#The remdesivir group showed clinical and virologic benefit in terms of MV requirement and viral load reduction, supporting remdesivir treatment for severe COVID-19.
ABSTRACT
Background@#This study presents a framework for determining the allocation and distribution of the limited amount of vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). @*Methods@#After analyzing the pandemic strategies of the major organizations and countries and with a literature review conducted by a core panel, a modified Delphi survey was administered to 13 experts in the fields of vaccination, infectious disease, and public health in the Republic of Korea. The following topics were discussed: 1) identifying the objectives of the vaccination strategy, 2) identifying allocation criteria, and 3) establishing a step-bystep vaccination framework and prioritization strategy based on the allocation criteria. Two rounds of surveys were conducted for each topic, with a structured questionnaire provided via e-mail in the first round. After analyzing the responses, a meeting with the experts was held to obtain consensus on how to prioritize the population groups. @*Results@#The first objective of the vaccination strategy was maintenance of the integrity of the healthcare system and critical infrastructure, followed by reduction of morbidity and mortality and reduction of community transmission. In the initial phase, older adult residents in care homes, high-risk health and social care workers, and personal support workers who work in direct contact with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients would be prioritized. Expansion of vaccine supply would allow immunization of older adults not included in phase 1, followed by healthcare workers not previously included and individuals with comorbidities. Further widespread vaccine supply would ensure availability to the extended adult age groups (50–64 years old), critical workers outside the health sector, residents who cannot socially distance, and, eventually, the remaining populations. @*Conclusion@#This survey provides the much needed insight into the decision-making process for vaccine allocation at the national level. However, flexibility in adapting to strategies will be essential, as new information is constantly emerging.
ABSTRACT
We used the nationwide claims database to calculate the incidence of thrombotic events and predict their overall 2-week incidence. From 2006 to 2020, the incidence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), and disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) tended to increase. Unlike intracranial venous thrombosis (ICVT) and intracranial thrombophlebitis (ICTP), which showed no age difference, other venous embolism, and thrombosis (OVET), DIC, DVT, and PE were significantly more common in over 65 years.The overall 2-week incidence of ICVT was 0.21/1,000,000 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.11–0.32). ICTP, OVET, DIC, DVT and PE were expected to occur in 0.08 (95% CI, 0.02– 0.14), 7.66 (95% CI, 6.08–9.23), 5.95 (95% CI, 4.88–7.03), 13.28 (95% CI, 11.92–14.64), 14.09 (95% CI, 12.80–15.37) per 1,000,000, respectively. To date, of 8,548,231 patients vaccinated with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 in Korea, two had confirmed thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome within 2 weeks. The observed incidence of ICVT after vaccination was 0.23/1,000,000.
ABSTRACT
Coronavirus disease 2019 vaccinations for healthcare workers (HCWs) have begun in South Korea. To investigate adverse events (AEs) of the first dose of each vaccine, any symptom was collected daily for seven days after vaccination in a tertiary hospital. We found that 1,301 of 1,403 ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 recipients and 38 of 80 BNT162b2 recipients reported AEs respectively (90.9% vs. 52.5%): injection-site pain (77.7% vs. 51.2%), myalgia (60.5% vs.11.2%), fatigue (50.7% vs. 7.5%), headache (47.4% vs. 7.5%), and fever (36.1% vs. 5%; P < 0.001 for all). Young HCWs reported more AEs with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 than with BNT162b2.No incidences of anaphylaxis were observed. Only one serious AE required hospitalization for serious vomiting, and completely recovered. In conclusion, reported AEs were more common in recipients with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 than in those with BNT162b2. However, most of the reported AEs were mild to moderate in severity. Sufficient explanation and preparation for expected AEs required to promote widespread vaccination.
ABSTRACT
Despite the global effort to mitigate the spread, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a pandemic that took more than 2 million lives. There are numerous ongoing clinical studies aiming to find treatment options and many are being published daily. Some effective treatment options, albeit of variable efficacy, have been discovered. Therefore, it is necessary to develop an evidence-based methodology, to continuously check for new evidence, and to update recommendations accordingly. Here we provide guidelines on pharmaceutical treatment for COVID-19 based on the latest evidence.
ABSTRACT
Neutralizing antibodies targeted at the receptor-binding domain of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike protein have been developed and now under evaluation in clinical trials. The US Food and Drug Administration currently issued emergency use authorizations for neutralizing monoclonal antibodies in non-hospitalized patients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who are at high risk for progressing to severe disease and/or hospitalization. In terms of this situation, there is an urgent need to investigate the clinical aspects and to develop strategies to deploy them effectively in clinical practice. Here we provide guidance for the use of anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies for the treatment of COVID-19 based on the latest evidence.
ABSTRACT
Background@#Remdesivir is widely used for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but controversies regarding its efficacy still remain. @*Methods@#A retrospective cohort study was conducted to evaluate the effect of remdesivir on clinical and virologic outcomes of severe COVID-19 patients from June to July 2020. Primary clinical endpoints included clinical recovery, additional mechanical ventilator (MV) support, and duration of oxygen or MV support. Viral load reduction by hospital day (HD) 15 was evaluated by calculating changes in cycle threshold (Ct) values. @*Results@#A total of 86 severe COVID-19 patients were evaluated including 48 remdesivirtreated patients. Baseline characteristics were not significantly different between the two groups. Remdesivir was administered an average of 7.42 days from symptom onset. The proportions of clinical recovery of the remdesivir and supportive care group at HD 14 (56.3% and 39.5%) and HD 28 (87.5% and 78.9%) were not statistically different. The proportion of patients requiring MV support by HD 28 was significantly lower in the remdesivir group than in the supportive care group (22.9% vs. 44.7%, P = 0.032), and MV duration was significantly shorter in the remdesivir group (average, 1.97 vs. 5.37 days; P = 0.017). Analysis of upper respiratory tract specimens demonstrated that increases of Ct value from HD 1–5 to 11–15 were significantly greater in the remdesivir group than the supportive care group (average, 10.19 vs. 5.36; P = 0.007), and the slope of the Ct value increase was also significantly steeper in the remdesivir group (average, 5.10 vs. 2.68; P = 0.007). @*Conclusion@#The remdesivir group showed clinical and virologic benefit in terms of MV requirement and viral load reduction, supporting remdesivir treatment for severe COVID-19.
ABSTRACT
Background@#This study presents a framework for determining the allocation and distribution of the limited amount of vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). @*Methods@#After analyzing the pandemic strategies of the major organizations and countries and with a literature review conducted by a core panel, a modified Delphi survey was administered to 13 experts in the fields of vaccination, infectious disease, and public health in the Republic of Korea. The following topics were discussed: 1) identifying the objectives of the vaccination strategy, 2) identifying allocation criteria, and 3) establishing a step-bystep vaccination framework and prioritization strategy based on the allocation criteria. Two rounds of surveys were conducted for each topic, with a structured questionnaire provided via e-mail in the first round. After analyzing the responses, a meeting with the experts was held to obtain consensus on how to prioritize the population groups. @*Results@#The first objective of the vaccination strategy was maintenance of the integrity of the healthcare system and critical infrastructure, followed by reduction of morbidity and mortality and reduction of community transmission. In the initial phase, older adult residents in care homes, high-risk health and social care workers, and personal support workers who work in direct contact with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients would be prioritized. Expansion of vaccine supply would allow immunization of older adults not included in phase 1, followed by healthcare workers not previously included and individuals with comorbidities. Further widespread vaccine supply would ensure availability to the extended adult age groups (50–64 years old), critical workers outside the health sector, residents who cannot socially distance, and, eventually, the remaining populations. @*Conclusion@#This survey provides the much needed insight into the decision-making process for vaccine allocation at the national level. However, flexibility in adapting to strategies will be essential, as new information is constantly emerging.
ABSTRACT
We used the nationwide claims database to calculate the incidence of thrombotic events and predict their overall 2-week incidence. From 2006 to 2020, the incidence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), and disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) tended to increase. Unlike intracranial venous thrombosis (ICVT) and intracranial thrombophlebitis (ICTP), which showed no age difference, other venous embolism, and thrombosis (OVET), DIC, DVT, and PE were significantly more common in over 65 years.The overall 2-week incidence of ICVT was 0.21/1,000,000 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.11–0.32). ICTP, OVET, DIC, DVT and PE were expected to occur in 0.08 (95% CI, 0.02– 0.14), 7.66 (95% CI, 6.08–9.23), 5.95 (95% CI, 4.88–7.03), 13.28 (95% CI, 11.92–14.64), 14.09 (95% CI, 12.80–15.37) per 1,000,000, respectively. To date, of 8,548,231 patients vaccinated with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 in Korea, two had confirmed thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome within 2 weeks. The observed incidence of ICVT after vaccination was 0.23/1,000,000.
ABSTRACT
Coronavirus disease 2019 vaccinations for healthcare workers (HCWs) have begun in South Korea. To investigate adverse events (AEs) of the first dose of each vaccine, any symptom was collected daily for seven days after vaccination in a tertiary hospital. We found that 1,301 of 1,403 ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 recipients and 38 of 80 BNT162b2 recipients reported AEs respectively (90.9% vs. 52.5%): injection-site pain (77.7% vs. 51.2%), myalgia (60.5% vs.11.2%), fatigue (50.7% vs. 7.5%), headache (47.4% vs. 7.5%), and fever (36.1% vs. 5%; P < 0.001 for all). Young HCWs reported more AEs with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 than with BNT162b2.No incidences of anaphylaxis were observed. Only one serious AE required hospitalization for serious vomiting, and completely recovered. In conclusion, reported AEs were more common in recipients with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 than in those with BNT162b2. However, most of the reported AEs were mild to moderate in severity. Sufficient explanation and preparation for expected AEs required to promote widespread vaccination.
ABSTRACT
Despite the global effort to mitigate the spread, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a pandemic that took more than 2 million lives. There are numerous ongoing clinical studies aiming to find treatment options and many are being published daily. Some effective treatment options, albeit of variable efficacy, have been discovered. Therefore, it is necessary to develop an evidence-based methodology, to continuously check for new evidence, and to update recommendations accordingly. Here we provide guidelines on pharmaceutical treatment for COVID-19 based on the latest evidence.