Objective: To investigate the effects of methylphenidate and atomoxetine treatment on motor coordination in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Methods: In this single-site, open-label, naturalistic follow-up study, 157 children (7.6±1.4 years; 139 males) with ADHD were recruited between March 2015 and May 2020 from the Department of Psychiatry, Asan Medical Center, and treated for 12 weeks with methylphenidate (n=48) or atomoxetine (n=109). Children completed the Advanced Test of Attention (ATA), and caregivers completed the ADHD Rating Scale (ARS) questionnaire and Developmental Coordination Disorder Questionnaire (DCDQ) at baseline and at 12 weeks. Paired t-tests, a mixed-effects model, and linear regression were used to compare treatment groups and assess factors influencing motor coordination changes. Results: Methylphenidate and atomoxetine resulted in significant improvement in DCDQ fine motor/handwriting, general coordination, and total scores over 12 weeks. Fine motor/handwriting had a significant main effect for time (F1=16.64, p<0.001, η2=0.097); however, the interaction effect between group and time was not significant (F1=0.24, p=0.625, η2=0.002). Changes in parent-reported ARS inattention scores (β=-0.174, p=0.029) and auditory commission errors of ATA (β=0.191, p=0.022) were significantly associated with changes in fine motor/handwriting. Additionally, changes in parent-reported ARS inattention scores (β=-0.177, p=0.034) and rater-reported ARS inattention scores (β=-0.198, p=0.017) were significant predictors of improvements in general coordination in separate models. Conclusion Methylphenidate and atomoxetine had a positive effect on motor coordination in children with ADHD. Improvement in motor coordination was associated with ADHD symptom improvement.

Objective: To investigate the effects of methylphenidate and atomoxetine treatment on motor coordination in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Methods: In this single-site, open-label, naturalistic follow-up study, 157 children (7.6±1.4 years; 139 males) with ADHD were recruited between March 2015 and May 2020 from the Department of Psychiatry, Asan Medical Center, and treated for 12 weeks with methylphenidate (n=48) or atomoxetine (n=109). Children completed the Advanced Test of Attention (ATA), and caregivers completed the ADHD Rating Scale (ARS) questionnaire and Developmental Coordination Disorder Questionnaire (DCDQ) at baseline and at 12 weeks. Paired t-tests, a mixed-effects model, and linear regression were used to compare treatment groups and assess factors influencing motor coordination changes. Results: Methylphenidate and atomoxetine resulted in significant improvement in DCDQ fine motor/handwriting, general coordination, and total scores over 12 weeks. Fine motor/handwriting had a significant main effect for time (F1=16.64, p<0.001, η2=0.097); however, the interaction effect between group and time was not significant (F1=0.24, p=0.625, η2=0.002). Changes in parent-reported ARS inattention scores (β=-0.174, p=0.029) and auditory commission errors of ATA (β=0.191, p=0.022) were significantly associated with changes in fine motor/handwriting. Additionally, changes in parent-reported ARS inattention scores (β=-0.177, p=0.034) and rater-reported ARS inattention scores (β=-0.198, p=0.017) were significant predictors of improvements in general coordination in separate models. Conclusion Methylphenidate and atomoxetine had a positive effect on motor coordination in children with ADHD. Improvement in motor coordination was associated with ADHD symptom improvement.

Background: We evaluated severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific humoral and cellular responses for up to 6 months after the 3rd dose of ancestral coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination in people living with HIV (PLWH) and healthy controls (HCs) who were not infected with COVID-19. Methods: Anti-spike receptor-binding domain IgG (anti-RBD IgG) concentrations using chemiluminescence immunoassay and neutralizing antibodies using focus reduction neutralization test (FRNT) were assessed at 1 week after each dose of vaccination, and 3 and 6 months after the 3rd dose in 62 PLWH and 25 HCs. T-cell responses using intracellular cytokine stain were evaluated at 1 week before, and 1 week and 6 months after the 3rd dose. Results: At 1 week after the 3rd dose, adequate anti-RBD IgG (> 300 binding antibody unit /mL) was elicited in all PLWH except for one patient with 36 CD4 T-cell count/mm3 . The geometric mean titers of 50% FRNT against wild type (WT) and omicron BA.5 strains of SARS-CoV-2 in PLWH with CD4 T-cell count ≥ 500 cells/mm3(high CD4 recovery, HCDR) were comparable to HC, but they were significantly decreased in PLWH with CD4 T-cell count < 500/mm3 (low CD4 recovery, LCDR). After adjusting for age, gender, viral suppression, and number of preexisting comorbidities, CD4 T-cell counts < 500/mm3 significantly predicted a poor magnitude of neutralizing antibodies against WT, omicron BA.5, and XBB 1.5 strains among PLWH. Multivariable linear regression adjusting for age and gender revealed that LCDR was associated with reduced neutralizing activity (P = 0.017) and interferon-γ-producing T-cell responses (P = 0.049 for CD T-cell; P = 0.014 for CD8 T-cell) against WT, and strongly associated with more decreased cross-neutralization against omicron BA.5 strains (P < 0.001). Conclusion HCDR demonstrated robust humoral and cell-mediated immune responses after a booster dose of ancestral SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, whereas LCDR showed diminished immune responses against WT virus and more impaired cross-neutralization against omicron BA.5 strain.

Background: We evaluated severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific humoral and cellular responses for up to 6 months after the 3rd dose of ancestral coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination in people living with HIV (PLWH) and healthy controls (HCs) who were not infected with COVID-19. Methods: Anti-spike receptor-binding domain IgG (anti-RBD IgG) concentrations using chemiluminescence immunoassay and neutralizing antibodies using focus reduction neutralization test (FRNT) were assessed at 1 week after each dose of vaccination, and 3 and 6 months after the 3rd dose in 62 PLWH and 25 HCs. T-cell responses using intracellular cytokine stain were evaluated at 1 week before, and 1 week and 6 months after the 3rd dose. Results: At 1 week after the 3rd dose, adequate anti-RBD IgG (> 300 binding antibody unit /mL) was elicited in all PLWH except for one patient with 36 CD4 T-cell count/mm3 . The geometric mean titers of 50% FRNT against wild type (WT) and omicron BA.5 strains of SARS-CoV-2 in PLWH with CD4 T-cell count ≥ 500 cells/mm3(high CD4 recovery, HCDR) were comparable to HC, but they were significantly decreased in PLWH with CD4 T-cell count < 500/mm3 (low CD4 recovery, LCDR). After adjusting for age, gender, viral suppression, and number of preexisting comorbidities, CD4 T-cell counts < 500/mm3 significantly predicted a poor magnitude of neutralizing antibodies against WT, omicron BA.5, and XBB 1.5 strains among PLWH. Multivariable linear regression adjusting for age and gender revealed that LCDR was associated with reduced neutralizing activity (P = 0.017) and interferon-γ-producing T-cell responses (P = 0.049 for CD T-cell; P = 0.014 for CD8 T-cell) against WT, and strongly associated with more decreased cross-neutralization against omicron BA.5 strains (P < 0.001). Conclusion HCDR demonstrated robust humoral and cell-mediated immune responses after a booster dose of ancestral SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, whereas LCDR showed diminished immune responses against WT virus and more impaired cross-neutralization against omicron BA.5 strain.

Background: We evaluated severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific humoral and cellular responses for up to 6 months after the 3rd dose of ancestral coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination in people living with HIV (PLWH) and healthy controls (HCs) who were not infected with COVID-19. Methods: Anti-spike receptor-binding domain IgG (anti-RBD IgG) concentrations using chemiluminescence immunoassay and neutralizing antibodies using focus reduction neutralization test (FRNT) were assessed at 1 week after each dose of vaccination, and 3 and 6 months after the 3rd dose in 62 PLWH and 25 HCs. T-cell responses using intracellular cytokine stain were evaluated at 1 week before, and 1 week and 6 months after the 3rd dose. Results: At 1 week after the 3rd dose, adequate anti-RBD IgG (> 300 binding antibody unit /mL) was elicited in all PLWH except for one patient with 36 CD4 T-cell count/mm3 . The geometric mean titers of 50% FRNT against wild type (WT) and omicron BA.5 strains of SARS-CoV-2 in PLWH with CD4 T-cell count ≥ 500 cells/mm3(high CD4 recovery, HCDR) were comparable to HC, but they were significantly decreased in PLWH with CD4 T-cell count < 500/mm3 (low CD4 recovery, LCDR). After adjusting for age, gender, viral suppression, and number of preexisting comorbidities, CD4 T-cell counts < 500/mm3 significantly predicted a poor magnitude of neutralizing antibodies against WT, omicron BA.5, and XBB 1.5 strains among PLWH. Multivariable linear regression adjusting for age and gender revealed that LCDR was associated with reduced neutralizing activity (P = 0.017) and interferon-γ-producing T-cell responses (P = 0.049 for CD T-cell; P = 0.014 for CD8 T-cell) against WT, and strongly associated with more decreased cross-neutralization against omicron BA.5 strains (P < 0.001). Conclusion HCDR demonstrated robust humoral and cell-mediated immune responses after a booster dose of ancestral SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, whereas LCDR showed diminished immune responses against WT virus and more impaired cross-neutralization against omicron BA.5 strain.

Objective: To investigate the effects of methylphenidate and atomoxetine treatment on motor coordination in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Methods: In this single-site, open-label, naturalistic follow-up study, 157 children (7.6±1.4 years; 139 males) with ADHD were recruited between March 2015 and May 2020 from the Department of Psychiatry, Asan Medical Center, and treated for 12 weeks with methylphenidate (n=48) or atomoxetine (n=109). Children completed the Advanced Test of Attention (ATA), and caregivers completed the ADHD Rating Scale (ARS) questionnaire and Developmental Coordination Disorder Questionnaire (DCDQ) at baseline and at 12 weeks. Paired t-tests, a mixed-effects model, and linear regression were used to compare treatment groups and assess factors influencing motor coordination changes. Results: Methylphenidate and atomoxetine resulted in significant improvement in DCDQ fine motor/handwriting, general coordination, and total scores over 12 weeks. Fine motor/handwriting had a significant main effect for time (F1=16.64, p<0.001, η2=0.097); however, the interaction effect between group and time was not significant (F1=0.24, p=0.625, η2=0.002). Changes in parent-reported ARS inattention scores (β=-0.174, p=0.029) and auditory commission errors of ATA (β=0.191, p=0.022) were significantly associated with changes in fine motor/handwriting. Additionally, changes in parent-reported ARS inattention scores (β=-0.177, p=0.034) and rater-reported ARS inattention scores (β=-0.198, p=0.017) were significant predictors of improvements in general coordination in separate models. Conclusion Methylphenidate and atomoxetine had a positive effect on motor coordination in children with ADHD. Improvement in motor coordination was associated with ADHD symptom improvement.

Objective: To investigate the effects of methylphenidate and atomoxetine treatment on motor coordination in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Methods: In this single-site, open-label, naturalistic follow-up study, 157 children (7.6±1.4 years; 139 males) with ADHD were recruited between March 2015 and May 2020 from the Department of Psychiatry, Asan Medical Center, and treated for 12 weeks with methylphenidate (n=48) or atomoxetine (n=109). Children completed the Advanced Test of Attention (ATA), and caregivers completed the ADHD Rating Scale (ARS) questionnaire and Developmental Coordination Disorder Questionnaire (DCDQ) at baseline and at 12 weeks. Paired t-tests, a mixed-effects model, and linear regression were used to compare treatment groups and assess factors influencing motor coordination changes. Results: Methylphenidate and atomoxetine resulted in significant improvement in DCDQ fine motor/handwriting, general coordination, and total scores over 12 weeks. Fine motor/handwriting had a significant main effect for time (F1=16.64, p<0.001, η2=0.097); however, the interaction effect between group and time was not significant (F1=0.24, p=0.625, η2=0.002). Changes in parent-reported ARS inattention scores (β=-0.174, p=0.029) and auditory commission errors of ATA (β=0.191, p=0.022) were significantly associated with changes in fine motor/handwriting. Additionally, changes in parent-reported ARS inattention scores (β=-0.177, p=0.034) and rater-reported ARS inattention scores (β=-0.198, p=0.017) were significant predictors of improvements in general coordination in separate models. Conclusion Methylphenidate and atomoxetine had a positive effect on motor coordination in children with ADHD. Improvement in motor coordination was associated with ADHD symptom improvement.

Objective: To investigate the effects of methylphenidate and atomoxetine treatment on motor coordination in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Methods: In this single-site, open-label, naturalistic follow-up study, 157 children (7.6±1.4 years; 139 males) with ADHD were recruited between March 2015 and May 2020 from the Department of Psychiatry, Asan Medical Center, and treated for 12 weeks with methylphenidate (n=48) or atomoxetine (n=109). Children completed the Advanced Test of Attention (ATA), and caregivers completed the ADHD Rating Scale (ARS) questionnaire and Developmental Coordination Disorder Questionnaire (DCDQ) at baseline and at 12 weeks. Paired t-tests, a mixed-effects model, and linear regression were used to compare treatment groups and assess factors influencing motor coordination changes. Results: Methylphenidate and atomoxetine resulted in significant improvement in DCDQ fine motor/handwriting, general coordination, and total scores over 12 weeks. Fine motor/handwriting had a significant main effect for time (F1=16.64, p<0.001, η2=0.097); however, the interaction effect between group and time was not significant (F1=0.24, p=0.625, η2=0.002). Changes in parent-reported ARS inattention scores (β=-0.174, p=0.029) and auditory commission errors of ATA (β=0.191, p=0.022) were significantly associated with changes in fine motor/handwriting. Additionally, changes in parent-reported ARS inattention scores (β=-0.177, p=0.034) and rater-reported ARS inattention scores (β=-0.198, p=0.017) were significant predictors of improvements in general coordination in separate models. Conclusion Methylphenidate and atomoxetine had a positive effect on motor coordination in children with ADHD. Improvement in motor coordination was associated with ADHD symptom improvement.

Background: We evaluated severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific humoral and cellular responses for up to 6 months after the 3rd dose of ancestral coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination in people living with HIV (PLWH) and healthy controls (HCs) who were not infected with COVID-19. Methods: Anti-spike receptor-binding domain IgG (anti-RBD IgG) concentrations using chemiluminescence immunoassay and neutralizing antibodies using focus reduction neutralization test (FRNT) were assessed at 1 week after each dose of vaccination, and 3 and 6 months after the 3rd dose in 62 PLWH and 25 HCs. T-cell responses using intracellular cytokine stain were evaluated at 1 week before, and 1 week and 6 months after the 3rd dose. Results: At 1 week after the 3rd dose, adequate anti-RBD IgG (> 300 binding antibody unit /mL) was elicited in all PLWH except for one patient with 36 CD4 T-cell count/mm3 . The geometric mean titers of 50% FRNT against wild type (WT) and omicron BA.5 strains of SARS-CoV-2 in PLWH with CD4 T-cell count ≥ 500 cells/mm3(high CD4 recovery, HCDR) were comparable to HC, but they were significantly decreased in PLWH with CD4 T-cell count < 500/mm3 (low CD4 recovery, LCDR). After adjusting for age, gender, viral suppression, and number of preexisting comorbidities, CD4 T-cell counts < 500/mm3 significantly predicted a poor magnitude of neutralizing antibodies against WT, omicron BA.5, and XBB 1.5 strains among PLWH. Multivariable linear regression adjusting for age and gender revealed that LCDR was associated with reduced neutralizing activity (P = 0.017) and interferon-γ-producing T-cell responses (P = 0.049 for CD T-cell; P = 0.014 for CD8 T-cell) against WT, and strongly associated with more decreased cross-neutralization against omicron BA.5 strains (P < 0.001). Conclusion HCDR demonstrated robust humoral and cell-mediated immune responses after a booster dose of ancestral SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, whereas LCDR showed diminished immune responses against WT virus and more impaired cross-neutralization against omicron BA.5 strain.

This study aimed to evaluate the differences in the baseline characteristics and patterns of antibiotic usage among hospitals based on their participation in the Korea National Antimicrobial Use Analysis System (KONAS). We obtained claims data from the National Health Insurance for inpatients admitted to all secondary- and tertiary-care hospitals between January 2020 and December 2021 in Korea. 15.9% (58/395) of hospitals were KONAS participants, among which the proportion of hospitals with > 900 beds (31.0% vs.2.6%, P < 0.001) and tertiary care (50.0% vs. 5.2%, P < 0.001) was higher than that among non-participants. The consumption of antibiotics targeting antimicrobial-resistant gram positive bacteria (33.7 vs. 27.1 days of therapy [DOT]/1,000 patient-days, P = 0.019) and antibiotics predominantly used for resistant gram-negative bacteria (4.8 vs. 3.7 DOT/1,000 patient-days, P = 0.034) was higher in KONAS-participating versus -non-participating hospitals. The current KONAS data do not fully represent all secondary- and tertiary-care hospitals in Korea; thus, the KONAS results should be interpreted with caution.