Background: The World Health Organization has declared the end of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) public health emergency. However, this did not indicate the end of COVID-19. Several months after the infection, numerous patients complain of respiratory or nonspecific symptoms; this condition is called long COVID. Even patients with mild COVID-19 can experience long COVID, thus the burden of long COVID remains considerable. Therefore, we conducted this study to comprehensively analyze the effects of long COVID using multi-faceted assessments. Materials and Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study involving patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between February 2020 and September 2021 in six tertiary hospitals in Korea. Patients were followed up at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after discharge. Long COVID was defined as the persistence of three or more COVID-19-related symptoms. The primary outcome of this study was the prevalence of long COVID after the period of COVID-19. Results: During the study period, 290 patients were enrolled. Among them, 54.5 and 34.6% experienced long COVID within 6 months and after more than 18 months, respectively. Several patients showed abnormal results when tested for post-traumatic stress disorder (17.4%) and anxiety (31.9%) after 18 months. In patients who underwent follow-up chest computed tomography 18 months after COVID-19, abnormal findings remained at 51.9%. Males (odds ratio [OR], 0.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.05–0.53; P=0.004) and elderly (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.00–1.09; P=0.04) showed a significant association with long COVID after 12–18 months in a multivariable logistic regression analysis. Conclusion Many patients still showed long COVID after 18 months post SARS-CoV-2 infection. When managing these patients, the assessment of multiple aspects is necessary.

Background: The World Health Organization has declared the end of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) public health emergency. However, this did not indicate the end of COVID-19. Several months after the infection, numerous patients complain of respiratory or nonspecific symptoms; this condition is called long COVID. Even patients with mild COVID-19 can experience long COVID, thus the burden of long COVID remains considerable. Therefore, we conducted this study to comprehensively analyze the effects of long COVID using multi-faceted assessments. Materials and Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study involving patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between February 2020 and September 2021 in six tertiary hospitals in Korea. Patients were followed up at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after discharge. Long COVID was defined as the persistence of three or more COVID-19-related symptoms. The primary outcome of this study was the prevalence of long COVID after the period of COVID-19. Results: During the study period, 290 patients were enrolled. Among them, 54.5 and 34.6% experienced long COVID within 6 months and after more than 18 months, respectively. Several patients showed abnormal results when tested for post-traumatic stress disorder (17.4%) and anxiety (31.9%) after 18 months. In patients who underwent follow-up chest computed tomography 18 months after COVID-19, abnormal findings remained at 51.9%. Males (odds ratio [OR], 0.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.05–0.53; P=0.004) and elderly (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.00–1.09; P=0.04) showed a significant association with long COVID after 12–18 months in a multivariable logistic regression analysis. Conclusion Many patients still showed long COVID after 18 months post SARS-CoV-2 infection. When managing these patients, the assessment of multiple aspects is necessary.

Background: The World Health Organization has declared the end of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) public health emergency. However, this did not indicate the end of COVID-19. Several months after the infection, numerous patients complain of respiratory or nonspecific symptoms; this condition is called long COVID. Even patients with mild COVID-19 can experience long COVID, thus the burden of long COVID remains considerable. Therefore, we conducted this study to comprehensively analyze the effects of long COVID using multi-faceted assessments. Materials and Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study involving patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between February 2020 and September 2021 in six tertiary hospitals in Korea. Patients were followed up at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after discharge. Long COVID was defined as the persistence of three or more COVID-19-related symptoms. The primary outcome of this study was the prevalence of long COVID after the period of COVID-19. Results: During the study period, 290 patients were enrolled. Among them, 54.5 and 34.6% experienced long COVID within 6 months and after more than 18 months, respectively. Several patients showed abnormal results when tested for post-traumatic stress disorder (17.4%) and anxiety (31.9%) after 18 months. In patients who underwent follow-up chest computed tomography 18 months after COVID-19, abnormal findings remained at 51.9%. Males (odds ratio [OR], 0.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.05–0.53; P=0.004) and elderly (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.00–1.09; P=0.04) showed a significant association with long COVID after 12–18 months in a multivariable logistic regression analysis. Conclusion Many patients still showed long COVID after 18 months post SARS-CoV-2 infection. When managing these patients, the assessment of multiple aspects is necessary.

Background and Objectives: Inherited arrhythmia (IA) is a more common cause of sudden cardiac death in Asian population, but little is known about the genetic background of Asian IA probands. We aimed to investigate the clinical characteristics and analyze the genetic underpinnings of IA in a Korean cohort. Methods: This study was conducted in a multicenter cohort of the Korean IA Registry from 2014 to 2017. Genetic testing was performed using a next-generation sequencing panel including 174 causative genes of cardiovascular disease. Results: Among the 265 IA probands, idiopathic ventricular fibrillation (IVF) and Brugada Syndrome (BrS) was the most prevalent diseases (96 and 95 cases respectively), followed by long QT syndrome (LQTS, n=54). Two-hundred-sixteen probands underwent genetic testing, and 69 probands (31.9%) were detected with genetic variant, with yield of pathogenic or likely pathogenic variant as 6.4%. Left ventricular ejection fraction was significantly lower in genotype positive probands (54.7±11.3 vs. 59.3±9.2%, p=0.005). IVF probands showed highest yield of positive genotype (54.0%), followed by LQTS (23.8%), and BrS (19.5%). Conclusions There were significant differences in clinical characteristics and genetic yields among BrS, LQTS, and IVF. Genetic testing did not provide better yield for BrS and LQTS. On the other hand, in IVF, genetic testing using multiple gene panel might enable the molecular diagnosis of concealed genotype, which may alter future clinical diagnosis and management strategies.

Residential treatment centers (RTCs) are successful in isolating and closely monitoring adults confirmed with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but there are concerns for children who need care. This study was conducted as a retrospective analysis of the surveillance of guardians who entered an RTC with infected pediatric patients to identify the secondary attack rate of COVID-19 to close contacts in a single RTC and to provide directions for developing guidelines for caregivers who co-isolate with infected children. When caregivers were admitted to this RTC, aside from negative confirmation before discharge, tests were additionally performed one or two times. There were 57 index children and adolescent patients who entered the RTC with their parents as caregivers. The secondary attack rate by pediatric patients to close contacts outside their households was 25% (95% confidence interval, 10.0 to 40.0) (8 out of 32 contacts). The transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 in children was close to zero at 6 days after the confirmation tests. It is reasonable to test the close contacts of pediatric patients after 7 days of isolation to identify infections among caregivers.

Background: This study presents a framework for determining the allocation and distribution of the limited amount of vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Methods: After analyzing the pandemic strategies of the major organizations and countries and with a literature review conducted by a core panel, a modified Delphi survey was administered to 13 experts in the fields of vaccination, infectious disease, and public health in the Republic of Korea. The following topics were discussed: 1) identifying the objectives of the vaccination strategy, 2) identifying allocation criteria, and 3) establishing a step-bystep vaccination framework and prioritization strategy based on the allocation criteria. Two rounds of surveys were conducted for each topic, with a structured questionnaire provided via e-mail in the first round. After analyzing the responses, a meeting with the experts was held to obtain consensus on how to prioritize the population groups. Results: The first objective of the vaccination strategy was maintenance of the integrity of the healthcare system and critical infrastructure, followed by reduction of morbidity and mortality and reduction of community transmission. In the initial phase, older adult residents in care homes, high-risk health and social care workers, and personal support workers who work in direct contact with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients would be prioritized. Expansion of vaccine supply would allow immunization of older adults not included in phase 1, followed by healthcare workers not previously included and individuals with comorbidities. Further widespread vaccine supply would ensure availability to the extended adult age groups (50–64 years old), critical workers outside the health sector, residents who cannot socially distance, and, eventually, the remaining populations. Conclusion This survey provides the much needed insight into the decision-making process for vaccine allocation at the national level. However, flexibility in adapting to strategies will be essential, as new information is constantly emerging.

Background: This study presents a framework for determining the allocation and distribution of the limited amount of vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Methods: After analyzing the pandemic strategies of the major organizations and countries and with a literature review conducted by a core panel, a modified Delphi survey was administered to 13 experts in the fields of vaccination, infectious disease, and public health in the Republic of Korea. The following topics were discussed: 1) identifying the objectives of the vaccination strategy, 2) identifying allocation criteria, and 3) establishing a step-bystep vaccination framework and prioritization strategy based on the allocation criteria. Two rounds of surveys were conducted for each topic, with a structured questionnaire provided via e-mail in the first round. After analyzing the responses, a meeting with the experts was held to obtain consensus on how to prioritize the population groups. Results: The first objective of the vaccination strategy was maintenance of the integrity of the healthcare system and critical infrastructure, followed by reduction of morbidity and mortality and reduction of community transmission. In the initial phase, older adult residents in care homes, high-risk health and social care workers, and personal support workers who work in direct contact with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients would be prioritized. Expansion of vaccine supply would allow immunization of older adults not included in phase 1, followed by healthcare workers not previously included and individuals with comorbidities. Further widespread vaccine supply would ensure availability to the extended adult age groups (50–64 years old), critical workers outside the health sector, residents who cannot socially distance, and, eventually, the remaining populations. Conclusion This survey provides the much needed insight into the decision-making process for vaccine allocation at the national level. However, flexibility in adapting to strategies will be essential, as new information is constantly emerging.

Purpose: With changing fungal epidemiology and azole resistance in Aspergillus species, identifying fungal species and susceptibility patterns is crucial to the management of aspergillosis and mucormycosis. The objectives of this study were to evaluate performance of panfungal polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays on formalin-fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) samples in the identification of fungal species and in the detection of azole-resistance mutations in the Aspergillus fumigatus cyp51A gene at a South Korean hospital. Materials and Methods: A total of 75 FFPE specimens with a histopathological diagnosis of aspergillosis or mucormycosis were identified during the 10-year study period (2006–2015). After deparaffinization and DNA extraction, panfungal PCR assays were conducted on FFPE samples for fungal species identification. The identified fungal species were compared with histopathological diagnosis. On samples identified as A. fumigatus, sequencing to identify frequent mutations in the cyp51A gene [tandem repeat 46 (TR46), L98H, and M220 alterations] that confer azole resistance was performed. Results: Specific fungal DNA was identified in 31 (41.3%) FFPE samples, and of these, 16 samples of specific fungal DNA were in accord with a histopathological diagnosis of aspergillosis or mucormycosis; 15 samples had discordant histopathology and PCR results. No azole-mediating cyp51A gene mutation was noted among nine cases of aspergillosis. Moreover, no cyp51A mutations were identified among three cases with history of prior azole use. Conclusion Panfungal PCR assay with FFPE samples may provide additional information of use to fungal species identification. No azole-resistance mediating mutations in the A. fumigatus cyp51A gene were identified among FFPE samples during study period.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to analyze the research papers published in three nursing journals to suggest the direction for Journal of Korean Oncology Nursing (JKON). METHODS: To compare JKON with Journal of Korean Academic Society of Nursing Education and Cancer Nursing, all the research papers published in those three journals, 2010 were reviewed using an analysis criteria developed by the researchers, focusing on type of research, characteristics of authors and subjects, research design, data collection and analysis methods, sample size estimation, and ethical considerations regarding data collection. RESULTS: JKON lacked research papers which were supported by research funds, produced by multidisciplinary teams, addressing cancer survivors or patients with metastatic cancers, and written in qualitative methodologies. However, JKON showed higher ratio of research papers than the other two journals which were adapted from thesis or dissertations, describing sample size estimation process precisely, and participating subjects diagnosed with various cancers. CONCLUSION: The study found out that JKON is presenting well the area of oncology nursing in Korea and also has several weak points that need to be improved. The study therefore suggested several recommendations for the JKON to take the professional and global leader roles.
Data Collection ; Education, Nursing ; Financial Management ; Humans ; Korea ; Manuscripts as Topic ; Nursing Research ; Research Design ; Research Subjects ; Sample Size ; Survivors