Background: Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are preferred over vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) as oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). This study aimed to estimate the current status and risk factors of OAC underutilization in the NOAC era.Method: A cross-sectional study using nationwide claims data was conducted. Elderly patients with NVAF at an increased risk of stroke were selected as candidates for OAC therapy before the index date (July 1, 2018). The status of anticoagulant utilization on the index date and factors influencing the use of anticoagulants was investigated in these patients. Results: Of the 11,056 patients with NVAF who were eligible for OAC therapy, 7238 (65.5%) were receiving OAC on the index date, and 6302 (87.1%) were receiving NOACs. Patients aged ≥ 75 years had higher anticoagulant utilization than those aged 65–69 years. Among comorbid diseases, while hypertension was the most influential positive factor (odds ratio [OR] = 1.644; confidence interval [CI] = 1.445–1.869) in OAC utilization, severe renal disease was the most influential negative factor (OR = 0.289; CI = 0.200–0.416). Aspirin use had a significantly low OR (OR = 0.097; CI = 0.085–0.110) of anticoagulant use. OAC use was approximately 1.5 times higher in patients with persistent or permanent AF than in those with paroxysmal AF. Conclusion Approximately one-third of patients who are recommended anticoagulation therapy do not take OACs, even though the use of NOACs has become more common. It should be widely recognized that aspirin cannot be an alternative to OACs, and anticoagulant therapy should be actively implemented.

Background: Regdanvimab has decreased the time to clinical recovery from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and lowered the rate of oxygen therapy according to the results from phase 2/3 randomized controlled trial. More information is needed about the effects and safety of regdanvimab. Methods: We analyzed data for patients with high-risk mild or moderate COVID-19 being admitted to Busan Medical Center between December 1, 2020 and April 16, 2021. A propensity score (PS) matched analysis was conducted to compare patients treated with and without regdanvimab. The primary outcome was in-hospital death or disease aggravation which means the need for oxygen therapy (low- or high-flow oxygen therapy and mechanical ventilation) and secondary outcomes comprised the length of hospital stay and adverse reactions. Results: Among 1,617 selected patients, 970 (60.0%) were indicated for regdanvimab. Of these, 377 (38.9%) were administered with regdanvimab. Among a 1:1 PS-matched cohort of 377 patients each treated with and without regdanvimab, 19 (5%) and 81 (21.5%) reached the composite outcome of death, or disease aggravation, respectively (absolute risk difference, −16.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], −21.1, −11.7; relative risk difference, 76.5%; P < 0.001).Regdanvimab significantly reduced the composite outcome of death, or disease aggravation in univariate (odds ratio [OR], 0.194; 95% CI, 0.112–0.320; P < 0.001) and multivariableadjusted analyses (OR, 0.169; 95% CI, 0.095–0.289; P < 0.001). The hospital stay was shorter for the group with than without regdanvimab. Some hematological adverse reactions were more frequent in the group without regdanvimab, but other adverse reactions did not significantly differ between the groups. Conclusion Regdanvimab was associated with a significantly lower risk of disease aggravation without increasing adverse reactions.

Background: Migraine is a common neurological disorder that affects the quality of life and causes several health problems. Preventive migraine treatment can reduce migraine frequency, headache severity, and health care costs. This study aimed to estimate the utilization of migraine preventive therapy and associated factors in eligible patients. Methods: We studied 534 patients with migraine who were eligible for migraine preventive therapy using 2017 National Patient Sample (NPS) data from the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service (HIRA). We estimated the migraine days by calculating the monthly average number of defined daily dose (DDD) of migraine-specific acute drug. Patients with a monthly average number of DDD of 4 or more were considered as subjects for preventive treatment. Chi-square test and multiple logistic regression analysis were used to determine the association between the preventive therapy and the influencing variables. Results Less than half of the eligible patients for prophylaxis (n=234, 43.8%) were prescribed preventive therapy. Multiple logistic regression results show that migraine preventive therapy was influenced by age, the type of migraine, and some comorbidities. Patients over the age of 50 tend to receive less prophylactic treatment than under the age of 40. On the other hand, migraine patients with epilepsy or depression were more likely to receive preventive therapy. Sumatriptan was the most preferred medication for acute treatment, and propranolol was the most commonly prescribed drug for prevention. Conclusions: More than half of the patients who were candidates for migraine prophylaxis were not receiving suitable preventive treatment. Positive factors affecting the use of migraine prevention were the presence of comorbidities such as epilepsy and depression.

Background: Migraine is a common neurological disorder that affects the quality of life and causes several health problems. Preventive migraine treatment can reduce migraine frequency, headache severity, and health care costs. This study aimed to estimate the utilization of migraine preventive therapy and associated factors in eligible patients. Methods: We studied 534 patients with migraine who were eligible for migraine preventive therapy using 2017 National Patient Sample (NPS) data from the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service (HIRA). We estimated the migraine days by calculating the monthly average number of defined daily dose (DDD) of migraine-specific acute drug. Patients with a monthly average number of DDD of 4 or more were considered as subjects for preventive treatment. Chi-square test and multiple logistic regression analysis were used to determine the association between the preventive therapy and the influencing variables. Results Less than half of the eligible patients for prophylaxis (n=234, 43.8%) were prescribed preventive therapy. Multiple logistic regression results show that migraine preventive therapy was influenced by age, the type of migraine, and some comorbidities. Patients over the age of 50 tend to receive less prophylactic treatment than under the age of 40. On the other hand, migraine patients with epilepsy or depression were more likely to receive preventive therapy. Sumatriptan was the most preferred medication for acute treatment, and propranolol was the most commonly prescribed drug for prevention. Conclusions: More than half of the patients who were candidates for migraine prophylaxis were not receiving suitable preventive treatment. Positive factors affecting the use of migraine prevention were the presence of comorbidities such as epilepsy and depression.

Background: Serotonin syndrome is a life-threatening disease if not appropriately treated. This study aimed to investigate the prescription status of contraindicated drug combinations that cause serotonin syndrome and identify the related factors. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted using nationwide claims data. Adult patients taking serotonergic drugs with Parkinson’s disease or mental disorders were selected. Based on international medical databases (MDBs) and the Korean Drug Utilization Review (DUR), the status of prescribing contraindicated drug combinations that induce serotonin syndrome, the related factors, and the difference between international MDBs and the Korean DUR were analyzed. Results: Of the 49,773 study subjects, 163 (0.3%) were prescribed contraindicated serotonergic drug combinations based on international MDBs, and among them, only 105 (64.4%) were contraindicated by the Korean DUR. Positive influencing factors for prescribing contraindicated drug combinations include patient age between 65 and 74 and physician’s specialties (neurologists, and orthopedists). Negative influencing factors were physician’s specialty (internists) and medical institution (primary institutions). Conclusion Despite the implementation of DUR, 3 out of 1,000 study subjects received contraindicated drug combinations that caused serotonin syndrome. Hence, it is necessary to comply with the DUR and improve it in accordance with international MDBs.

No abstract available.
Epidural Abscess* ; Meningitis, Bacterial*