ABSTRACT
Background@#The epidemiology of influenza is commonly used to understand and establish relevant health policies for emerging respiratory infections, including coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, Korea has no confirmed nationwide data on influenza incidence, severity, and mortality rate. @*Methods@#We conducted a cross-sectional study to obtain epidemic data on influenza at the national level using National Health Insurance claims data during 2010 to 2020. Influenza cases were defined as 90-day timeframe episodes based on all inpatient and outpatient claims data with disease code J09, J10, and J11. Influenza incidence, severity, and mortality rate were calculated, and logistic regressions were performed to assess the associations of demographic characteristics and comorbidity with influenza-related hospitalization, severe illness, and death. @*Results@#There were 0.3–5.9% influenza cases in the population from 2010 to 2020, with 9.7–18.9%, 0.2–0.9%, and 0.03–0.08% hospitalized, used in the intensive care unit, and dead, respectively. Age-standardized incidence and mortality rates were 424.3–6847.4 and 0.2–1.9 per 100,000 population, respectively. While more than half of the influenza cases occurred in populations aged younger than 20 years, deaths in older than 60 years accounted for more than two-thirds of all deaths. @*Conclusion@#This study provided the simplest but most important statistics regarding Korean influenza epidemics as a reference. These can be used to understand and manage other new acute respiratory diseases, including COVID-19, and establish influenza-related policies.
ABSTRACT
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.
ABSTRACT
The personal protective equipment (PPE) used to minimize exposure to hazards can hinder healthcare workers from performing sophisticated procedures. We retrospectively reviewed 77,535 blood cultures (202,012 pairs) performed in 28,502 patients from January 2020 to April 2022. The contamination rate of all blood cultures was significantly elevated in the coronavirus disease 2019 ward at 4.68%, compared to intensive care units at 2.56%, emergency rooms at 1.13%, hematology wards at 1.08%, and general wards at 1.07% (All of P < 0.001). This finding implies that wearing PPE might interfere with adherence to the aseptic technique. Therefore, a new PPE policy is needed that considers the balance between protecting healthcare workers and medical practices.
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
Concerns about the effectiveness of current vaccines against the rapidly spreading severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 omicron (B.1.1.529) variant are increasing. This study aimed to assess neutralizing antibody activity against the wild-type (BetaCoV/Korea/ KCDC03/2020), delta, and omicron variants after full primary and booster vaccinations with BNT162b2. A plaque reduction neutralization test was employed to determine 50% neutralizing dilution (ND 50 ) titers in serum samples. ND 50 titers against the omicron variant (median [interquartile range], 5.3 [50 titers than the detection threshold (50 titers against BetaCoV/Korea/KCDC03/2020, delta, and omicron, although titers against omicron remained lower than those against the other variants (P < 0.001). Our study suggests that booster vaccination with BNT162b2 significantly increases humoral immunity against the omicron variant.
ABSTRACT
We investigated the kinetics of the neutralizing antibody responses to the severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 delta variant over the course of 1 year in 16 patients infected at the beginning of the pandemic. In patients with severe disease, neutralizing responses to the delta variant were detectable, albeit at lower levels than responses to the wild type. Neutralizing responses to the delta variant were undetectable, however, in asymptomatic persons. This finding implies that the vaccination strategy for persons with past natural infection should depend on the severity of the previous infection.
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
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/Aims@#Although it is near concluded that renin-angiotensin system inhibitors do not have a harmful effect on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), there is no report about whether angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) offer any protective role. This study aimed to compare the association of ARBs and ACEIs with COVID-19-related mortality. @*Methods@#All patients with COVID-19 in Korea between January 19 and April 16, 2020 were enrolled. The association of ARBs and ACEIs with mortality within 60 days were evaluated. A comparison of hazard ratio (HR) was performed between COVID-19 patients and a retrospective cohort of pneumonia patients hospitalized in 2019 in Korea. @*Results@#Among 10,448 COVID-19 patients, ARBs and ACEIs were prescribed in 1,231 (11.7%) and 57 (0.6%) patients, respectively. After adjusting for age, sex, and history of comorbidities, the ARB group showed neutral association (HR, 1.034; 95% CI, 0.765 to 1.399; p = 0.8270) and the ACEI groups showed no significant associations likely owing to the small population size (HR, 0.736; 95% CI, 0.314 to 1.726; p = 0.4810). When comparing HR between COVID-19 patients and a retrospective cohort of patients hospitalized with pneumonia in 2019, the trend of ACEIs showed similar benefits, whereas the protective effect of ARBs observed in the retrospective cohort was absent in COVID-19 patients. Meta-analyses showed significant positive correlation with survival of ACEIs, whereas a neutral association between ARBs and mortality. @*Conclusions@#Although ARBs or ACEIs were not associated with fatal outcomes, potential beneficial effects of ARBs observed in pneumonia were attenuated in COVID-19.
ABSTRACT
Background/Aims@#This study aimed to assess the association between local and systemic reactogenicity and humoral immunogenicity after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination. @*Methods@#Adverse events were prospectively evaluated using an electronic diary in 135 healthy adults who received a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (AZD1222, AstraZeneca/Oxford, n = 42; or BNT162b2, Pfizer/BioNTech, n = 93). We semi-quantitatively measured anti-S1 immunoglobulin G (IgG) using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay at baseline, 3 weeks after the first dose of AZD1222 or BNT162b2, and 2 weeks after the second dose of BNT162b2. We evaluated the association between the maximum grade of local or systemic adverse events and the anti-S1 IgG optical density using multivariate linear regression with adjustment for age, sex, and use of antipyretics. @*Results@#The median age of the 135 vaccinees was 30 years (36 years in the AZD1222 group and 29 years in the BNT162b2 group) and 25.9% were male (9.5% in the AZD1222 group and 33.3% in the BNT162b2 group). Local and systemic adverse events were generally comparable after the first dose of AZD1222 and the second dose of BNT162b2. The grades of local and systemic adverse events were not significantly associated with anti-S1 IgG levels in the AZD1222 or BNT162b2 group. @*Conclusions@#Local and systemic reactogenicity may not be associated with humoral immunogenicity after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.
ABSTRACT
Tuberculosis (TB) is a common opportunistic infection in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients. Patients with multidrug-resistant (MDR)-TB have poor outcomes.This study aimed to determine the prevalence of MDR-TB in HIV/TB co-infected patients in the Korea. We reviewed the medical records of HIV/TB co-infected patients at two university hospitals between January 1998 and December 2020. During the study period, a total of 87 HIV/TB co-infected patients were identified, and drug susceptibility test results were available for 44 of them. The prevalence of MDR-TB in the study population was 15.9% (7/44, 95% confidence interval, 5.1 - 26.7).
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
Applying work restrictions for asymptomatic healthcare personnel (HCP) with potential exposure to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is recommended to prevent transmission from potentially contagious HCP to patients and other HCP. However, it can lead to understaffing, which threatens the safety of both patients and HCP. We evaluated 203 COVID-19 exposure events at a single tertiary hospital from January 2020 to June 2021. A total of 2,365 HCP were potentially exposed, and work restrictions were imposed on 320 HCP, leading to the loss of 3,311 working days. However, only one of the work-restricted HCP was confirmed with COVID-19. During the study period, the work restriction measures might be taken excessively compared to their benefit, so establishing more effective standards for work restriction is required.
ABSTRACT
Understanding the long-term kinetics of antibodies in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is essential in interpreting serosurvey data. We investigated the antibody response one year after infection in 52 mildly symptomatic patients with severe acute respiratory syndromecoronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, using three commercial immunoassays and a surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT) kit. Anti-N pan-immunoglobulin (Ig), anti-S IgG, and anti-S1 IgG were detected in 43 (82.7%), 44 (84.6%), and 30 (57.7%), respectively. In 49 (94.2%), the antibody could be detected by either anti-N pan-Ig or anti-S IgG assay. In the sVNT, 30 (57.7%) had positive neutralizing activity. Despite waning immunity, SARS-CoV-2 antibodies can be detected up to one year after infection, even in mild COVID-19 patients.
ABSTRACT
We evaluated the Standard Q COVID-19 Ag test for the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) compared to the reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test.We applied both tests to patients who were about to be hospitalized, had visited an emergency room, or had been admitted due to COVID-19 confirmed by RT-PCR. Two nasopharyngeal swabs were obtained; one was tested by RT-PCR and the other by the Standard Q COVID-19 Ag test. A total of 118 pairs of tests from 98 patients were performed between January 5 and 11, 2021. The overall sensitivity and specificity for detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) for the Standard Q COVID-19 Ag test compared to RT-PCR were 17.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.8–32.0%) and 100% (95% CI, 95.3–100.0%). Analysis of the results using RT-PCR cycle thresholds of ≤ 30 or ≤ 25 increased the sensitivity to 26.9% (95% CI, 13.7–46.1%), and 41.1% (95% CI, 21.6–64.0%), respectively.
ABSTRACT
Background/Aims@#Although it is near concluded that renin-angiotensin system inhibitors do not have a harmful effect on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), there is no report about whether angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) offer any protective role. This study aimed to compare the association of ARBs and ACEIs with COVID-19-related mortality. @*Methods@#All patients with COVID-19 in Korea between January 19 and April 16, 2020 were enrolled. The association of ARBs and ACEIs with mortality within 60 days were evaluated. A comparison of hazard ratio (HR) was performed between COVID-19 patients and a retrospective cohort of pneumonia patients hospitalized in 2019 in Korea. @*Results@#Among 10,448 COVID-19 patients, ARBs and ACEIs were prescribed in 1,231 (11.7%) and 57 (0.6%) patients, respectively. After adjusting for age, sex, and history of comorbidities, the ARB group showed neutral association (HR, 1.034; 95% CI, 0.765 to 1.399; p = 0.8270) and the ACEI groups showed no significant associations likely owing to the small population size (HR, 0.736; 95% CI, 0.314 to 1.726; p = 0.4810). When comparing HR between COVID-19 patients and a retrospective cohort of patients hospitalized with pneumonia in 2019, the trend of ACEIs showed similar benefits, whereas the protective effect of ARBs observed in the retrospective cohort was absent in COVID-19 patients. Meta-analyses showed significant positive correlation with survival of ACEIs, whereas a neutral association between ARBs and mortality. @*Conclusions@#Although ARBs or ACEIs were not associated with fatal outcomes, potential beneficial effects of ARBs observed in pneumonia were attenuated in COVID-19.
ABSTRACT
Applying work restrictions for asymptomatic healthcare personnel (HCP) with potential exposure to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is recommended to prevent transmission from potentially contagious HCP to patients and other HCP. However, it can lead to understaffing, which threatens the safety of both patients and HCP. We evaluated 203 COVID-19 exposure events at a single tertiary hospital from January 2020 to June 2021. A total of 2,365 HCP were potentially exposed, and work restrictions were imposed on 320 HCP, leading to the loss of 3,311 working days. However, only one of the work-restricted HCP was confirmed with COVID-19. During the study period, the work restriction measures might be taken excessively compared to their benefit, so establishing more effective standards for work restriction is required.
ABSTRACT
Understanding the long-term kinetics of antibodies in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is essential in interpreting serosurvey data. We investigated the antibody response one year after infection in 52 mildly symptomatic patients with severe acute respiratory syndromecoronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, using three commercial immunoassays and a surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT) kit. Anti-N pan-immunoglobulin (Ig), anti-S IgG, and anti-S1 IgG were detected in 43 (82.7%), 44 (84.6%), and 30 (57.7%), respectively. In 49 (94.2%), the antibody could be detected by either anti-N pan-Ig or anti-S IgG assay. In the sVNT, 30 (57.7%) had positive neutralizing activity. Despite waning immunity, SARS-CoV-2 antibodies can be detected up to one year after infection, even in mild COVID-19 patients.
ABSTRACT
We evaluated the Standard Q COVID-19 Ag test for the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) compared to the reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test.We applied both tests to patients who were about to be hospitalized, had visited an emergency room, or had been admitted due to COVID-19 confirmed by RT-PCR. Two nasopharyngeal swabs were obtained; one was tested by RT-PCR and the other by the Standard Q COVID-19 Ag test. A total of 118 pairs of tests from 98 patients were performed between January 5 and 11, 2021. The overall sensitivity and specificity for detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) for the Standard Q COVID-19 Ag test compared to RT-PCR were 17.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.8–32.0%) and 100% (95% CI, 95.3–100.0%). Analysis of the results using RT-PCR cycle thresholds of ≤ 30 or ≤ 25 increased the sensitivity to 26.9% (95% CI, 13.7–46.1%), and 41.1% (95% CI, 21.6–64.0%), respectively.
ABSTRACT
Novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) is found to cause a large outbreak started from Wuhan since December 2019 in China and SARS-CoV-2 infections have been reported with epidemiological linkage to China in 25 countries until now. We isolated SARS-CoV-2 from the oropharyngeal sample obtained from the patient with the first laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in Korea. Cytopathic effects of SARS-CoV-2 in the Vero cell cultures were confluent 3 days after the first blind passage of the sample. Coronavirus was confirmed with spherical particle having a fringe reminiscent of crown on transmission electron microscopy. Phylogenetic analyses of whole genome sequences showed that it clustered with other SARS-CoV-2 reported from Wuhan.