Purpose: Vaccine hesitancy is among the top ten threats to global health, and access to precise data on adverse events following immunization (AEFIs) is imperative to alleviate public concerns surrounding vaccines. This study aimed to present the overall trends of AEFIs reported in South Korea. Materials and Methods: We evaluated the trends of AEFIs using the Korea Institute of Drug Safety & Risk Management-Korea Adverse Event Reporting System database between January 2005 and December 2017. AEFIs were classified into five categories to evaluate associations between vaccines and AEFIs through a case-non-case study: neurologic reactions, general systemic reactions, local reactions, allergic reactions, and others. Results: Among 54378 reported adverse events (AEs) associated with all vaccines approved in South Korea, more than half (56.7%) occurred following influenza vaccination, followed by the pneumococcal (11.6%) and Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccines (5.0%). After immunization with most vaccines, general systemic reactions were most common, followed by local and neurologic reactions. Adjusted reporting odds ratios were calculated for all neurologic, general, local, and allergic reactions: of all vaccines, rotavirus [neurologic 2.43, 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.25–2.62], BCG (general; 2.20, 95% CI, 1.91–2.53), BCG (local; 3.15, 95% CI, 2.69–3.68), and Japanese encephalitis (allergic 2.38, 95% CI, 1.98–2.87) vaccines showed the highest values. Conclusion The majority of reported AEFIs were non-serious and mostly general systemic reactions. Sufficient knowledge on the AEFIs would secure public confidence on the safety of vaccines, thereby reducing public health burden from vaccine-preventable diseases.

Background: There is a dearth of research on the factors linked with adverse events (AEs) associated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NMVr) and molnupiravir (MOL), particularly in the elderly. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate self-reported AEs and identify factors associated with the occurrence of AEs following NMVr or MOL treatment among survey participants aged 60 years or older in South Korea. Methods: This nationwide survey was conducted through in-person interviews using structured questionnaires, from July 24 to August 31, 2023. Eligible participants included individuals aged 60 years or older who had been diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and received NMVr or MOL. The study outcomes included self-reported demographic, lifestyle, and health characteristics associated with the occurrence of AEs.Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to estimate the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of each characteristic in participants with and without AEs. Results: Of the 520 participants, 123 (23.7%) experienced at least one AE with oral COVID-19 treatment: 21.0% (96/458) for NMVr and 43.5% (27/62) for MOL. None of the participants reported any serious AEs. Increased odds of AE occurrence were observed in participants treated with MOL compared to those treated with NMVr (aOR, 3.05; 95% CI, 1.67–5.57), a history of two or more compared to one COVID-19 diagnosis (1.93; 1.03–3.62), and selfreported health status as “Unhealthy” compared to “Healthy” (2.65; 1.31–5.36). Conclusion No AEs required further evaluation to change treatment strategies in elderly patients on NMVr or MOL. Several factors, including the use of MOL, history of COVID-19, and reported health status, were associated with an increased incidence of AEs. Both treatments may still be useful choices for patients with non-severe COVID-19 aged 60 years or older. However, close monitoring of unidentified potential harm and further investigation of the factors associated with the occurrence of AEs are needed.

Background: There is a dearth of research on the factors linked with adverse events (AEs) associated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NMVr) and molnupiravir (MOL), particularly in the elderly. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate self-reported AEs and identify factors associated with the occurrence of AEs following NMVr or MOL treatment among survey participants aged 60 years or older in South Korea. Methods: This nationwide survey was conducted through in-person interviews using structured questionnaires, from July 24 to August 31, 2023. Eligible participants included individuals aged 60 years or older who had been diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and received NMVr or MOL. The study outcomes included self-reported demographic, lifestyle, and health characteristics associated with the occurrence of AEs.Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to estimate the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of each characteristic in participants with and without AEs. Results: Of the 520 participants, 123 (23.7%) experienced at least one AE with oral COVID-19 treatment: 21.0% (96/458) for NMVr and 43.5% (27/62) for MOL. None of the participants reported any serious AEs. Increased odds of AE occurrence were observed in participants treated with MOL compared to those treated with NMVr (aOR, 3.05; 95% CI, 1.67–5.57), a history of two or more compared to one COVID-19 diagnosis (1.93; 1.03–3.62), and selfreported health status as “Unhealthy” compared to “Healthy” (2.65; 1.31–5.36). Conclusion No AEs required further evaluation to change treatment strategies in elderly patients on NMVr or MOL. Several factors, including the use of MOL, history of COVID-19, and reported health status, were associated with an increased incidence of AEs. Both treatments may still be useful choices for patients with non-severe COVID-19 aged 60 years or older. However, close monitoring of unidentified potential harm and further investigation of the factors associated with the occurrence of AEs are needed.

Background: There is a dearth of research on the factors linked with adverse events (AEs) associated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NMVr) and molnupiravir (MOL), particularly in the elderly. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate self-reported AEs and identify factors associated with the occurrence of AEs following NMVr or MOL treatment among survey participants aged 60 years or older in South Korea. Methods: This nationwide survey was conducted through in-person interviews using structured questionnaires, from July 24 to August 31, 2023. Eligible participants included individuals aged 60 years or older who had been diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and received NMVr or MOL. The study outcomes included self-reported demographic, lifestyle, and health characteristics associated with the occurrence of AEs.Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to estimate the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of each characteristic in participants with and without AEs. Results: Of the 520 participants, 123 (23.7%) experienced at least one AE with oral COVID-19 treatment: 21.0% (96/458) for NMVr and 43.5% (27/62) for MOL. None of the participants reported any serious AEs. Increased odds of AE occurrence were observed in participants treated with MOL compared to those treated with NMVr (aOR, 3.05; 95% CI, 1.67–5.57), a history of two or more compared to one COVID-19 diagnosis (1.93; 1.03–3.62), and selfreported health status as “Unhealthy” compared to “Healthy” (2.65; 1.31–5.36). Conclusion No AEs required further evaluation to change treatment strategies in elderly patients on NMVr or MOL. Several factors, including the use of MOL, history of COVID-19, and reported health status, were associated with an increased incidence of AEs. Both treatments may still be useful choices for patients with non-severe COVID-19 aged 60 years or older. However, close monitoring of unidentified potential harm and further investigation of the factors associated with the occurrence of AEs are needed.

Background: There is a dearth of research on the factors linked with adverse events (AEs) associated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NMVr) and molnupiravir (MOL), particularly in the elderly. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate self-reported AEs and identify factors associated with the occurrence of AEs following NMVr or MOL treatment among survey participants aged 60 years or older in South Korea. Methods: This nationwide survey was conducted through in-person interviews using structured questionnaires, from July 24 to August 31, 2023. Eligible participants included individuals aged 60 years or older who had been diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and received NMVr or MOL. The study outcomes included self-reported demographic, lifestyle, and health characteristics associated with the occurrence of AEs.Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to estimate the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of each characteristic in participants with and without AEs. Results: Of the 520 participants, 123 (23.7%) experienced at least one AE with oral COVID-19 treatment: 21.0% (96/458) for NMVr and 43.5% (27/62) for MOL. None of the participants reported any serious AEs. Increased odds of AE occurrence were observed in participants treated with MOL compared to those treated with NMVr (aOR, 3.05; 95% CI, 1.67–5.57), a history of two or more compared to one COVID-19 diagnosis (1.93; 1.03–3.62), and selfreported health status as “Unhealthy” compared to “Healthy” (2.65; 1.31–5.36). Conclusion No AEs required further evaluation to change treatment strategies in elderly patients on NMVr or MOL. Several factors, including the use of MOL, history of COVID-19, and reported health status, were associated with an increased incidence of AEs. Both treatments may still be useful choices for patients with non-severe COVID-19 aged 60 years or older. However, close monitoring of unidentified potential harm and further investigation of the factors associated with the occurrence of AEs are needed.

Objective: To explore the perception of drug utilization review (DUR) system and DUR modernization pilot project among healthcare professionals and patients. Methods: We conducted 8 times of focus group interviews (FGI) between August 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019. The healthcare professionals and patients who participated in the DUR modernization pilot project were included in the present study. Based on the type of project participation or medical institution, the participants were divided into the following four groups: group 1, hospital; group 2, clinic; group 3, pharmacy; and group 4, patient. Within each group, interviews were conducted under a pre-defined agenda to identify the implicit perceptions of the participants; the contents of the interviews were, then, categorized. Results: Healthcare professionals established a consensus on the positive aspects of the DUR system and DUR modernization pilot project. However, substantial concerns remain, such as additional workload associated with monitoring adverse events or acquiring consents from patients. Furthermore, a difference of opinion over the DUR convenience system was observed. Among 3 DUR convenience system, the personal medication history review service was highly utilized, but pop-up hold function and communication system was rarely used. Conclusion We observed that systematic intervention using the DUR system is effective for both healthcare providers and consumers. Adverse events caused by inappropriate drug use can be prevented by continuous patient monitoring. Therefore, the role of DUR system needs to be expanded to establish a safe drug management system.

Objective: To explore the perception of drug utilization review (DUR) system and DUR modernization pilot project among healthcare professionals and patients. Methods: We conducted 8 times of focus group interviews (FGI) between August 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019. The healthcare professionals and patients who participated in the DUR modernization pilot project were included in the present study. Based on the type of project participation or medical institution, the participants were divided into the following four groups: group 1, hospital; group 2, clinic; group 3, pharmacy; and group 4, patient. Within each group, interviews were conducted under a pre-defined agenda to identify the implicit perceptions of the participants; the contents of the interviews were, then, categorized. Results: Healthcare professionals established a consensus on the positive aspects of the DUR system and DUR modernization pilot project. However, substantial concerns remain, such as additional workload associated with monitoring adverse events or acquiring consents from patients. Furthermore, a difference of opinion over the DUR convenience system was observed. Among 3 DUR convenience system, the personal medication history review service was highly utilized, but pop-up hold function and communication system was rarely used. Conclusion We observed that systematic intervention using the DUR system is effective for both healthcare providers and consumers. Adverse events caused by inappropriate drug use can be prevented by continuous patient monitoring. Therefore, the role of DUR system needs to be expanded to establish a safe drug management system.

Background: Although coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines have been distributed worldwide under emergency use authorization, the real-world safety profiles of mRNA vaccines still need to be clearly defined. We aimed to identify the overall incidence and factors associated with adverse events (AEs) following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination. Methods: We conducted web-based survey from December 2 to 10 in 2021 with a 2,849 nationwide sampled panel. Study participants were individuals who had elapsed at least twoweeks after completing two dosing schedules of COVID-19 vaccination aged between 18–49 years. We weighted the participants to represent the Korean population. The outcome was the overall incidence of AEs following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination and associated factors.We estimated the weighted odds ratios (ORs) using multivariable logistic regression models to identify the factors associated with AEs. Results: Of the 2,849 participants (median [interquartile range] age, 35 [27–42] years; 51.6% male), 90.8% (n = 2,582) for the first dose and 88.7% (n = 2,849) for the second dose reported AEs, and 3.3% and 4.3% reported severe AEs, respectively. Occurrence of AEs was more prevalent in mRNA-1273 (OR, 2.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.59–2.67 vs. BNT162b2), female sex (1.88; 1.52–2.32), and those with dermatologic diseases (2.51; 1.32–4.77). History of serious allergic reactions (1.96; 1.06–3.64) and anticoagulant medication use (4.72; 1.92–11.6) were associated with severe AEs. Conclusion Approximately 90% of participants reported AEs following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination. Substantial factors, including vaccine type (mRNA-1273), female sex, and dermatologic diseases were associated with AEs. Our findings could aid policymakers in establishing vaccination strategies tailored to those potentially susceptible to AEs.

Purpose: This study investigated changes in attitudes toward marriage and childbearing assuming a BRCA1/2 mutation carrier status among healthy, unmarried individuals in Korea. Methods: A nationally representative sample of healthy, unmarried individuals aged 20–39 years was surveyed. A questionnaire on marriage and childbearing intentions was administered to the participants before and after providing them with information on BRCA1/2 mutation carriers’ breast and ovarian cancer risks and their autosomal dominant inheritance pattern. The participants were asked about their attitudes toward childbearing through preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). Results: Of the participants who initially wanted to marry, the assumption that they or their partners had BRCA1/2 mutation caused 25.3% to no longer want to get married and 36.2% to change their attitude from wanting to bear children to no longer wanting them. Females were more likely than males to change their attitudes toward marriage and childbearing. The participants who had negative attitudes toward genetic testing were more likely to change their attitudes regarding marriage and childbearing than those who were favorable toward both disclosure and testing. More than 50% of the participants who did not want children were willing to bear children through PGD when it was assumed that they were BRCA mutation carriers. Conclusion On the assumption of being carriers, general, young, and healthy females were more likely than males to negatively change their attitudes toward marriage and childbearing. Public education on the implications of living with mutation carriers and reproductive options may be required.

Purpose: This study investigated the attitudes toward risk-reducing mastectomy (RRM) and risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) as cancer prevention options for BRCA1/2 carriers in healthy, young, unmarried Korean women. Materials and Methods: A nationally representative sample of 600 women, aged 20-39 years, completed a questionnaire on sociodemographic variables, preference for genetic testing, and intention to undergo risk-reducing surgeries after receiving information on the cancer risk of BRCA1/2 mutations and benefits of risk-reducing surgeries. Results: A total of 54.7% and 57.7% had the intention to undergo RRM and RRSO, respectively, on the assumption that they were BRCA1/2 carriers. Older age and no intention to undergo genetic testing were associated with a reduced likelihood of undergoing RRM (odds ratio [OR], 0.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.14 to 0.61 for age 35-39 years and OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.62 for no intention for genetic testing) and RRSO (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.79 for age 35-39 years and OR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.17 to 0.53 for no intention for genetic testing). Women who chose to be single were likely to undergo risk-reducing surgeries (OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.07 to 2.60 for RRM and OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.00 to 2.44 for RRSO). Conclusion More than 50% of healthy, unmarried, young Korean women were inclined to undergo prophylactic surgeries if they were BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Further studies on decision-making process for cancer prevention in individuals at high risk for cancer need to be conducted.