E-cigarettes were considered safe at the early stage of market entry because they were thought not to contain harmful ingredients such as nicotine and because the smoke emitted was vapor. For this reason, the use of e-cigarettes as a safer alternative to tobacco cigarettes or as a smoking cessation aid has emerged. However, the study results on the effectiveness of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation are mixed. In response to the increased use of e-cigarettes, foreign countries have implemented various regulations, such as utilizing e-cigarettes for smoking cessation with a prescription in Australia; however, South Korea is still standing firm on recommending not to use e-cigarettes at all. Therefore, the effectiveness of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation and the regulatory trends of e-cigarette use overseas will be reviewed to discuss the future direction in South Korea needs to take.

PURPOSE: Amendment to the Act on Decisions on Life-sustaining Treatment was recently enacted to designate long-term care hospitals as providers of hospice and palliative care. Despite its benefit of providing improved accessibility to end-of-life care, the amendment has raised concerns about its effect on quality of service. This study aimed to use information obtained from an expert group interview and previous studies to compare how cancer patients, family caregivers, physicians, and the general Korean population perceive the potential benefits and risks of this amendment.METHODS: We conducted a multicenter cross-sectional study from July to October 2016. The included participants answered a structured questionnaire regarding the extent to which they agree or disagree with the questionnaire items indicating the potential benefits and risks of the amendment. Chi-square tests and univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed.RESULTS: Compared with the general population, physicians agreed more that long-term care hospitals are currently not adequately equipped to provide quality hospice and palliative care. Family caregivers found improved access to long-term care hospitals more favorable but were more likely to agree that these hospitals might prioritize profits, thereby threatening the philosophy of hospice care, and that families might cease to fulfill filial responsibilities. Compared with the general population, cancer patients were more concerned about the potentially decreased service quality in this setting.CONCLUSION: Although potential service beneficiaries and providers expected improved accessibility of hospice and palliative care services, they were also concerned whether the system can provide adequate quality of end-of-life care.
Caregivers ; Cross-Sectional Studies ; Health Personnel ; Hospice Care ; Hospices ; Humans ; Interviews as Topic ; Logistic Models ; Long-Term Care ; Palliative Care ; Philosophy ; Risk Assessment ; Terminal Care

Background: Before the omicron era, health care workers were usually vaccinated with either the primary 2-dose ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca) series plus a booster dose of BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) (CCB group) or the primary 2-dose BNT162b2 series plus a booster dose of BNT162b2 (BBB group) in Korea. Methods: The two groups were compared using quantification of the surrogate virus neutralization test for wild type severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SVNT-WT), the omicron variant (SVNT-O), spike-specific IgG, and interferon-gamma (IFN-γ), as well as the omicron breakthrough infection cases. Results: There were 113 participants enrolled in the CCB group and 51 enrolled in the BBB group. Before and after booster vaccination, the median SVNT-WT and SVNT-O values were lower in the CCB (SVNT-WT [before-after]: 72.02–97.61%, SVNT-O: 15.18–42.29%) group than in the BBB group (SVNT-WT: 89.19–98.11%, SVNT-O: 23.58–68.56%; all P < 0.001). Although the median IgG concentrations were different between the CCB and BBB groups after the primary series (2.677 vs. 4.700 AU/mL, respectively, P < 0.001), they were not different between the two groups after the booster vaccination (7.246 vs. 7.979 AU/mL, respectively, P = 0.108). In addition, the median IFN-γ concentration was higher in the BBB group than in the CCB group (550.5 and 387.5 mIU/mL, respectively, P = 0.014). There was also a difference in the cumulative incidence curves over time (CCB group 50.0% vs. BBB group 41.8%; P = 0.045), indicating that breakthrough infection occurred faster in the CCB group. Conclusion The cellular and humoral immune responses were low in the CCB group so that the breakthrough infection occurred faster in the CCB group than in the BBB group.

Background/Aims: To identify changes in symptoms and pulmonary sequelae in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods: Patients with COVID-19 hospitalized at seven university hospitals in Korea between February 2020 and February 2021 were enrolled, provided they had ≥ 1 outpatient follow-up visit. Between January 11 and March 9, 2021 (study period), residual symptom investigations, chest computed tomography (CT) scans, pulmonary function tests (PFT), and neutralizing antibody tests (NAb) were performed at the outpatient visit (cross-sectional design). Additionally, data from patients who already had follow-up outpatient visits before the study period were collected retrospectively. Results: Investigation of residual symptoms, chest CT scans, PFT, and NAb were performed in 84, 35, 31, and 27 patients, respectively. After 6 months, chest discomfort and dyspnea persisted in 26.7% (4/15) and 33.3% (5/15) patients, respectively, and 40.0% (6/15) and 26.7% (4/15) patients experienced financial loss and emotional distress, respectively. When the ratio of later CT score to previous ones was calculated for each patient between three different time intervals (1–14, 15–60, and 61–365 days), the median values were 0.65 (the second interval to the first), 0.39 (the third to the second), and 0.20 (the third to the first), indicating that CT score decreases with time. In the high-severity group, the ratio was lower than in the low-severity group. Conclusions In COVID-19 survivors, chest CT score recovers over time, but recovery is slower in severely ill patients. Subjects complained of various ongoing symptoms and socioeconomic problems for several months after recovery.