No abstract available.
Humans ; Leukemia, Myeloid, Acute*

Background/Aims: The overall incidence of pneumococcal pneumonia is declining. However, the change in the pathogenic distribution of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients and the serotype specificity of Streptococcus pneumoniae have not been evaluated in the post-era of pneumococcal vaccination in Korea. Methods: We conducted a prospective, multi-center, cohort study from seven University-affiliated hospitals. The primary objective was the identification of serotype-specific prevalence of pneumococcal pneumonia in COPD patients hospitalized for CAP. For the purpose, we conducted serotype-specific urine antigen detection (SS-UAD) assays for S. pneumoniae. The secondary objectives were other clinical characteristics of pneumonia including vaccination status. Results: The total number of participants was 349. Most of them were male (95.1%) with old ages (75.55 ± 8.59 y). The positive rate for S. pneumoniae was 9.2% with SS-UAD assay and the common serotypes were 22F, 6A, and 6B. In the sputum, Pseudomonas aeruginosa (5.0%) and Haemophilus influenzae (4.0%) were common pathogens. The vaccination rate was 78.8%, 53.0%, and 25.8% for influenza, pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine 23 (PPV 23), and pneumococcal protein- conjugated vaccine 13 (PCV 13), respectively. Thirteen patients died during hospitalization (mortality rate; 3.7%). There was no difference in the respective rate of influenza vaccination (79.2% vs. 69.2%, p = 0.288) and PCV 13 vaccination (25.6% vs. 30.8%, p = 0.443) between survivors and the deceased. Conclusions Serotypes 22F, 6A, and 6B, which are covered either by PPV 23 or by PCV 13, are still common pneumococcal serotypes in COPD pneumonia in the post-vaccination era in Korea.

Background: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) expressing eosinophilia experience slightly fewer episodes of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), than those without eosinophilia. However, the severity and burden of hospitalized pneumonia patients with COPD involving eosinophilia have not been assessed. Methods: We evaluated the differences in clinical characteristics between patients with CAP and COPD with or without eosinophilia by a post hoc analysis of a prospective, multi-center, cohort study data. Results: Of 349 CAP patients with COPD, 45 (12.9%) had eosinophilia (blood eosinophil ≥300 cells/μL). Patients with eosinophilia had a lower sputum culture percentile (8.1% vs. 23.4%, p<0.05), a lower percentile of neutrophils (70.3% vs. 80.2%, p<0.05), reduced C-reactive protein levels (30.6 mg/L vs. 86.6 mg/L, p<0.05), and a lower pneumonia severity index score (82.5 vs. 90.0, p<0.05), than those without eosinophilia. The duration of antibiotic treatment (8.0 days vs. 10.0 days, p<0.05) and hospitalization (7.0 days vs. 9.0 days, p<0.05) were shorter in eosinophilic patients. The cost of medical care per day (256.4 US$ vs. 291.0 US$, p<0.05), cost for the medication (276.4 US$ vs. 349.9 US$, p<0.05), and cost for examination (685.5 US$ vs. 958.1 US$, p<0.05) were lower in patients with eosinophilia than those without eosinophilia. Conclusion Eosinophilia serves as a favorable marker for the severity of pneumonia, health-care consumption, and cost of medical care in patients with CAP and COPD.

Background: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) expressing eosinophilia experience slightly fewer episodes of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), than those without eosinophilia. However, the severity and burden of hospitalized pneumonia patients with COPD involving eosinophilia have not been assessed. Methods: We evaluated the differences in clinical characteristics between patients with CAP and COPD with or without eosinophilia by a post hoc analysis of a prospective, multi-center, cohort study data. Results: Of 349 CAP patients with COPD, 45 (12.9%) had eosinophilia (blood eosinophil ≥300 cells/μL). Patients with eosinophilia had a lower sputum culture percentile (8.1% vs. 23.4%, p<0.05), a lower percentile of neutrophils (70.3% vs. 80.2%, p<0.05), reduced C-reactive protein levels (30.6 mg/L vs. 86.6 mg/L, p<0.05), and a lower pneumonia severity index score (82.5 vs. 90.0, p<0.05), than those without eosinophilia. The duration of antibiotic treatment (8.0 days vs. 10.0 days, p<0.05) and hospitalization (7.0 days vs. 9.0 days, p<0.05) were shorter in eosinophilic patients. The cost of medical care per day (256.4 US$ vs. 291.0 US$, p<0.05), cost for the medication (276.4 US$ vs. 349.9 US$, p<0.05), and cost for examination (685.5 US$ vs. 958.1 US$, p<0.05) were lower in patients with eosinophilia than those without eosinophilia. Conclusion Eosinophilia serves as a favorable marker for the severity of pneumonia, health-care consumption, and cost of medical care in patients with CAP and COPD.

Background: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) expressing eosinophilia experience slightly fewer episodes of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), than those without eosinophilia. However, the severity and burden of hospitalized pneumonia patients with COPD involving eosinophilia have not been assessed. Methods: We evaluated the differences in clinical characteristics between patients with CAP and COPD with or without eosinophilia by a post hoc analysis of a prospective, multi-center, cohort study data. Results: Of 349 CAP patients with COPD, 45 (12.9%) had eosinophilia (blood eosinophil ≥300 cells/μL). Patients with eosinophilia had a lower sputum culture percentile (8.1% vs. 23.4%, p<0.05), a lower percentile of neutrophils (70.3% vs. 80.2%, p<0.05), reduced C-reactive protein levels (30.6 mg/L vs. 86.6 mg/L, p<0.05), and a lower pneumonia severity index score (82.5 vs. 90.0, p<0.05), than those without eosinophilia. The duration of antibiotic treatment (8.0 days vs. 10.0 days, p<0.05) and hospitalization (7.0 days vs. 9.0 days, p<0.05) were shorter in eosinophilic patients. The cost of medical care per day (256.4 US$ vs. 291.0 US$, p<0.05), cost for the medication (276.4 US$ vs. 349.9 US$, p<0.05), and cost for examination (685.5 US$ vs. 958.1 US$, p<0.05) were lower in patients with eosinophilia than those without eosinophilia. Conclusion Eosinophilia serves as a favorable marker for the severity of pneumonia, health-care consumption, and cost of medical care in patients with CAP and COPD.

Background: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) expressing eosinophilia experience slightly fewer episodes of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), than those without eosinophilia. However, the severity and burden of hospitalized pneumonia patients with COPD involving eosinophilia have not been assessed. Methods: We evaluated the differences in clinical characteristics between patients with CAP and COPD with or without eosinophilia by a post hoc analysis of a prospective, multi-center, cohort study data. Results: Of 349 CAP patients with COPD, 45 (12.9%) had eosinophilia (blood eosinophil ≥300 cells/μL). Patients with eosinophilia had a lower sputum culture percentile (8.1% vs. 23.4%, p<0.05), a lower percentile of neutrophils (70.3% vs. 80.2%, p<0.05), reduced C-reactive protein levels (30.6 mg/L vs. 86.6 mg/L, p<0.05), and a lower pneumonia severity index score (82.5 vs. 90.0, p<0.05), than those without eosinophilia. The duration of antibiotic treatment (8.0 days vs. 10.0 days, p<0.05) and hospitalization (7.0 days vs. 9.0 days, p<0.05) were shorter in eosinophilic patients. The cost of medical care per day (256.4 US$ vs. 291.0 US$, p<0.05), cost for the medication (276.4 US$ vs. 349.9 US$, p<0.05), and cost for examination (685.5 US$ vs. 958.1 US$, p<0.05) were lower in patients with eosinophilia than those without eosinophilia. Conclusion Eosinophilia serves as a favorable marker for the severity of pneumonia, health-care consumption, and cost of medical care in patients with CAP and COPD.

Cough is the most common respiratory symptom that can have various causes. It is a major clinical problem that can reduce a patient’s quality of life. Thus, clinical guidelines for the treatment of cough were established in 2014 by the cough guideline committee under the Korean Academy of Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases. From October 2018 to July 2020, cough guidelines were revised by members of the committee based on the first guidelines. The purpose of these guidelines is to help clinicians efficiently diagnose and treat patients with cough. This article highlights the recommendations and summary of the revised Korean cough guidelines. It includes a revised algorithm for the evaluation of acute, subacute, and chronic cough. For a chronic cough, upper airway cough syndrome (UACS), cough variant asthma (CVA), and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) should be considered in differential diagnoses. If UACS is suspected, first-generation antihistamines and nasal decongestants can be used empirically. In cases with CVA, inhaled corticosteroids are recommended to improve cough. In patients with suspected chronic cough due to symptomatic GERD, proton pump inhibitors are recommended. Chronic bronchitis, bronchiectasis, bronchiolitis, lung cancer, aspiration, intake of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, intake of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, habitual cough, psychogenic cough, interstitial lung disease, environmental and occupational factors, tuberculosis, obstructive sleep apnea, peritoneal dialysis, and unexplained cough can also be considered as causes of a chronic cough. Chronic cough due to laryngeal dysfunction syndrome has been newly added to the guidelines.

Cough is the most common respiratory symptom that can have various causes. It is a major clinical problem that can reduce a patient’s quality of life. Thus, clinical guidelines for the treatment of cough were established in 2014 by the cough guideline committee under the Korean Academy of Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases. From October 2018 to July 2020, cough guidelines were revised by members of the committee based on the first guidelines. The purpose of these guidelines is to help clinicians efficiently diagnose and treat patients with cough. This article highlights the recommendations and summary of the revised Korean cough guidelines. It includes a revised algorithm for the evaluation of acute, subacute, and chronic cough. For a chronic cough, upper airway cough syndrome (UACS), cough variant asthma (CVA), and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) should be considered in differential diagnoses. If UACS is suspected, first-generation antihistamines and nasal decongestants can be used empirically. In cases with CVA, inhaled corticosteroids are recommended to improve cough. In patients with suspected chronic cough due to symptomatic GERD, proton pump inhibitors are recommended. Chronic bronchitis, bronchiectasis, bronchiolitis, lung cancer, aspiration, intake of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, intake of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, habitual cough, psychogenic cough, interstitial lung disease, environmental and occupational factors, tuberculosis, obstructive sleep apnea, peritoneal dialysis, and unexplained cough can also be considered as causes of a chronic cough. Chronic cough due to laryngeal dysfunction syndrome has been newly added to the guidelines.

Background: Because the etiologies of bronchiectasis and related diseases vary significantly among different regions and ethnicities, this study aimed to develop a diagnostic bundle for bronchiectasis in South Korea. Methods: A modified Delphi method was used to develop expert consensus statements on a diagnostic bundle for bronchiectasis in South Korea. Initial statements proposed by a core panel, based on international bronchiectasis guidelines, were discussed in an online meeting and two email surveys by a panel of experts (≥70% agreement). Results: The study involved 21 expert participants, and 30 statements regarding a diagnostic bundle for bronchiectasis were classified as recommended, conditional, or not recommended. The consensus statements of the expert panel were as follows: A standardized diagnostic bundle is useful in clinical practice; diagnostic tests for specific diseases, including immunodeficiency and allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis, are necessary when clinically suspected; initial diagnostic tests, including sputum microbiology and spirometry, are essential in all patients with bronchiectasis, and patients suspected with rare causes such as primary ciliary dyskinesia should be referred to specialized centers. Conclusion Based on this Delphi survey, expert consensus statements were generated including specific diagnostic, laboratory, microbiological, and pulmonary function tests required to manage patients with bronchiectasis in South Korea.