Exploring E-Health Literacy and Technology-Use Anxiety among Older Adults in Korea.

The COVID-19 pandemic has increased the importance of health literacy in disseminating information on health in a non-contact society. This study focused on examining the acceptance capacity by older adults of smart devices in Korea and investigating the potential differences between men and women in terms of e-health literacy and technology-use anxiety. The study included 1369 respondents who were adults over 50 years of age and used welfare centers, public health centers, senior citizen centers, and exercise centers in Seoul and Incheon. An online survey was conducted from 1 June 2021 to 24 June 2021. The study found that the older adults' low levels of digital literacy could limit their access to health information and negatively impact their health. The difference between men and women in terms of technology-use anxiety was statistically significant, with the latent mean for men being higher than that for women. The effect sizes of the potential mean differences were found to be at a medium level for e-health literacy and a significant level for technology-use anxiety. With Korea's aging population and the need for the continuous management of chronic diseases among older adults, it is essential to discuss internet-based health information for disease maintenance and treatment.

How health organizations communicate about COVID-19 on social media: a comparative content analysis.

BACKGROUND: This study examined how different health organizations (i.e., the Chinese CDC, the Korean CDC, the United States CDC, and WHO) communicated about the COVID-19 pandemic on social media, thus providing implications for organizations touse social media effectively in global health crises in the future. METHODS: Three bilingual researchers conducted a content analysis ofsocial media posts (N = 1,343) of these health organizations on Twitter and Sina Weibo to explore the frames of the COVID-19 pandemic, the purposes, and the strategies to communicate about it. RESULTS: Prevention was the dominant frame of the social media content of these four health organizations. Information update was the major communication purpose for WHO, the United States CDC, and the Korean CDC; however, guidance was the primary communication purpose for the Chinese CDC. The United States CDC, the Chinese CDC, and the Korean CDC heavily relied on multiple social media strategies (i.e., visual, hyperlink, and authority quotation) in their communication to the public about the COVID-19 pandemic, whereas WHO primarily employed quoting authorities. Significantdifferences were revealed across these health organizations in frames, communication purposes, and strategies. Theoretical and practical implications and limitations were discussed. CONCLUSIONS: This study examined how different global health organizations communicate about the COVID-19 pandemic on social media. We discussed how and why these global health organizations communicate the COVID-19 pandemic, which would help health-related organizations design messages strategically on global public health issues in the future.

Evaluation of the Kaira COVID-19/Flu/RSV Detection Kit for detection of SARS-CoV-2, influenza A/B, and respiratory syncytial virus: A comparative study with the PowerChek SARS-CoV-2, influenza A&B, RSV Multiplex Real-time PCR Kit.

BACKGROUND: Co-circulation of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and other respiratory viruses, such as influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), can be a severe threat to public health. The accurate detection and differentiation of these viruses are essential for clinical laboratories. Herein, we comparatively evaluated the performance of the Kaira COVID-19/Flu/RSV Detection Kit (Kaira; Optolane, Seongnam, Korea) for detection of SARS-CoV-2, influenza A and B, and RSV in nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) specimens with that of the PowerChek SARS-CoV-2, Influenza A&B, RSV Multiplex Real-time PCR Kit (PowerChek; Kogene Biotech, Seoul, Korea). METHODS: A total of 250 archived NPS specimens collected for routine clinical testing were tested in parallel by the Kaira and PowerChek assays. RNA standards were serially diluted and tested by the Kaira assay to calculate the limit of detection (LOD). RESULTS: The positive and negative percent agreements between the Kaira and PowerChek assays were as follows: 100% (49/49) and 100% (201/201) for SARS-CoV-2; 100% (50/50) and 99.0% (198/200) for influenza A; 100% (50/50) and 100% (200/200) for influenza B; and 100% (51/51) and 100% (199/199) for RSV, respectively. The LODs of the Kaira assay for SARS-CoV-2, influenza A and B, and RSV were 106.1, 717.1, 287.3, and 442.9 copies/mL, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The Kaira assay showed comparable performance to the PowerChek assay for detection of SARS-CoV-2, influenza A and B, and RSV in NPS specimens, indicating that the Kaira assay could be a useful diagnostic tool when these viruses are co-circulating.

Performance Evaluation of the PowerChek SARS-CoV-2, Influenza A & B Multiplex Real-Time PCR Kit in Comparison with the BioFire Respiratory Panel.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) and influenza viruses may pose enormous challenges to our healthcare system. We evaluated the performance of the PowerChek SARS-CoV-2, Influenza A & B Multiplex Real-time PCR Kit (PowerChek; Kogene Biotech, Seoul, Korea) in comparison with the BioFire Respiratory Panels 2 and 2.1 (RP2 and RP2.1; bioMérieux, Marcy l'Étoile, France), using 147 nasopharyngeal swabs. The limit of detection (LOD) of the PowerChek assay was determined using SARS-CoV-2, influenza A, and B RNA standards. The LOD values of the PowerChek assay for SARS-CoV-2 and influenza A and B were 1.12, 1.24, and 0.61 copies/µL, respectively. The positive and negative percent agreements of the PowerChek assay compared with RP2 and RP2.1 were 97.5% (39/40) and 100% (107/107) for SARS-CoV-2; 100% (39/39) and 100% (108/108) for influenza A; and 100% (35/35) and 100% (112/112) for influenza B, respectively. The performance of the PowerChek assay was comparable to that of RP2 and RP2.1 for detecting SARS-CoV-2 and influenza A and B, suggesting its use in diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 and influenza infections.

Serum Antibody Response Comparison and Adverse Reaction Analysis in Healthcare Workers Vaccinated with the BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 COVID-19 Vaccine.

The COVID-19 pandemic is changing rapidly and requires different strategies to maintain immunization. In Korea, different COVID-19 vaccines are recommended and available for various populations, including healthcare workers (HCWs) at high risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We plan to evaluate the adverse events (AEs) and immunogenicity of the BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 vaccines in HCWs at a single center. This cohort study included HCWs fully vaccinated with either BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1. Blood samples were taken eight weeks after the second vaccination with both COVID-19 vaccines and six months after the second vaccination from participants with the BNT162b2 vaccine. The primary endpoint for immunogenicity was the serum neutralizing antibody responses eight weeks after vaccination. The secondary endpoint was the incidence of various AEs within 28 days of each vaccination. Between 16 March and 23 June 2021, 115 participants were enrolled (65 in the ChAdOx1 group and 50 in the BNT162b2 group). Significantly higher surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT) inhibition was observed in participants vaccinated with two doses of BNT162b2 (mean (SD) 91.4 (9.68)%) than in those vaccinated with ChAdOx1 (mean (SD) 73.3 (22.57)%). The effectiveness of the BNT162b2 vaccine was maintained across all age and gender categories. At six months after the second dose, serum antibody levels declined significantly in the BNT162b2 group. The main adverse events, including fever, myalgia, fatigue, and headache, were significantly higher in the ChAdOx1 group after the first dose, whereas, after the second dose, those AEs were significantly higher in the BNT162b2 group (p < 0.05). Two doses of either the ChAdOx1 or the BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine resulted in very high seropositivity among the HCWs at our center. The quality of the antibody response, measured by sVNT inhibition, was significantly better with the BNT162b2 vaccine than with the ChAdOx1 vaccine. There was no significant association between neutralizing antibody response and AE after each vaccination in our cohort.

Cytokine Drizzle-The Rationale for Abandoning "Cytokine Storm".

BACKGROUND: "Cytokine storm" has been used to implicate increased cytokine levels in the pathogenesis of serious clinical conditions. Similarities with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronoavirus-2 (SARS CoV-2) and the 2012 Middle Eastern Respiratory Syndrome led early investigators to suspect a "cytokine storm" resulting in an unregulated inflammatory response associated with the significant morbidity and mortality induced by SARS CoV-2. The threshold of blood cytokines necessary to qualify as a "cytokine storm" has yet to be defined. METHODS: A literature review was conducted to identify cytokine levels released during 11 assorted clinical conditions or diseases. Weighted averages for various cytokines were calculated by multiplying the number of patients in the paper by the average concentration of each cytokine. Correlation between cytokine levels for individual conditions or diseases were assessed using Pearson correlation coefficient. RESULTS: The literature was reviewed to determine blood levels of cytokines in a wide variety of clinical conditions. These conditions ranged from exercise and autoimmune disease to septic shock and therapy with chimeric antigen receptor T cells. The most frequently measured cytokine was IL-6 which ranged from 24,123 pg/mL in septic shock to 11 pg/mL after exercise. In patients with severe SARS CoV-2 infections, blood levels of IL-6 were only 43 pg/mL, nearly three magnitudes lower than IL-6 levels in patients with septic shock. The clinical presentations of these different diseases do not correlate with blood levels of cytokines. Additionally, there is poor correlation between the concentrations of different cytokines among the different diseases. Specifically, blood levels of IL-6 did not correlate with levels of IL-8, IL-10, or TNF. Septic shock had the highest concentrations of cytokines, yet multiple cytokine inhibitors have failed to demonstrate improved outcomes in multiple clinical trials. Patients with autoimmune diseases have very low blood levels of cytokines (rheumatoid arthritis, IL-6 = 34 pg/mL; Crohn's disease, IL-6 = 5 pg/mL), yet respond dramatically to cytokine inhibitors. CONCLUSION: The misleading term "cytokine storm" implies increased blood levels of cytokines are responsible for a grave clinical condition. Not all inflammatory conditions resulting in worsened disease states are correlated with significantly elevated cytokine levels, despite an association with the term "cytokine storm". "Cytokine storm" should be removed from the medical lexicon since it does not reflect the mediators driving the disease nor does it predict which diseases will respond to cytokine inhibitors.

Comparison of the PowerChek SARS-CoV-2, Influenza A&B, RSV Multiplex Real-time PCR Kit and BioFire Respiratory Panel 2.1 for simultaneous detection of SARS-CoV-2, influenza A and B, and respiratory syncytial virus.

The potential co-circulation of SARS-CoV-2, influenza, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) could pose an unprecedented challenge to healthcare systems worldwide. Here, we compared the performance of the PowerChek SARS-CoV-2, Influenza A&B, RSV Multiplex Real-time PCR Kit (PowerChek) for simultaneous detection of SARS-CoV-2, influenza A and B, and respiratory syncytial virus with that of BioFire Respiratory Panel 2.1 (RP2.1) using 175 nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) specimens. Positive percent agreement and negative percent agreement of the PowerChek assay compared to RP2.1 were as follows: 100 % (40/40) and 100 % (135/135) for SARS-CoV-2; 100 % (39/39) and 100 % (136/136) for influenza A; 100 % (35/35) and 100 % (140/140) for influenza B; and 93.1 % (27/29) and 100 % (146/146) for RSV, respectively. The limit of detection (LOD) was accessed using RNA standards for each virus, and the LOD values of the PowerChek assay for SARS-CoV-2, influenza A and B, and RSV were 0.36, 1.24, 0.09, and 0.63 copies/µL, respectively. Our results demonstrate that the PowerChek assay is sensitive and accurate for detection of SARS-CoV-2, influenza A and B, and RSV, suggesting that this assay can be a valuable diagnostic tool when SARS-CoV-2, influenza, and RSV are co-circulating.