Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination is effective in preventing the disease transmission and progression. However, the relatively mild disease course of the omicron variant and the decrease in antibodies over time after vaccination raise questions about the effectiveness of vaccination, especially in young people. We compared the prevalence of pneumonia and chest X-ray severity score according to vaccination status among patients < 50 years old with COVID-19. Methods: From January 17 to March 17, 2022, 579 patients with COVID-19, who were < 50 years old and had a known vaccination history in our institution, were all included in this study. All patients underwent initial chest radiography, and follow-up chest radiographs were obtained every two days until discharge. Pneumonia was scored from the radiographs using the Brixia scoring system. The scores of the six lung zones were added for a total score ranging from 0 to 18. Patients were divided into four groups according to 10-year age intervals. Differences between groups were analyzed using the χ2 or Fisher’s exact tests for categorical variables and the Kruskal–Wallis test or analysis of variance for continuous variables. Results: Among patients aged 12–19 years, the prevalence of pneumonia did not differ depending on vaccination status (non-vaccinated vs. vaccinated, 1/47 [2.1%] vs. 1/18 [5.6%]; P = 0.577).Among patients in their 20s, the prevalence of pneumonia was significantly higher among nonvaccinated patients than among vaccinated patients (8/28, 28.6% vs. 7/138, 5.1%, P < 0.001), similar to patients in their 40s (32/52 [61.5%] vs. 18/138 [13.0%]; P < 0.001). The chest X-ray severity score was also significantly higher in non-vaccinated patients than that in vaccinated patients in their 20s to their 40s (P < 0.001), but not among patients aged 12–19 years (P = 0.678). Conclusion In patients aged 20–49 years, vaccinated patients had a significantly lower prevalence of pneumonia and chest X-ray severity score than non-vaccinated patients.

Background: While inhalation therapy efficacy hinges on attaining proper peak inspiratory flow rate (PIFR), the prevalence of inappropriate PIFR among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) remains unstudied in Korea. This study aimed to assess the prevalence of inappropriate PIFR, its correlation with COPD assessment test (CAT) scores, and factors associated with suboptimal PIFR. Methods: We enrolled 108 patients with COPD who had been using the same inhaler for at least 1 year without exacerbations. PIFR was measured using an inspiratory flow meter (In-Check DIAL G16). Demographic, clinical, pulmonary function, and CAT score data were collected. Inappropriate was defined as PIFR <60 L/min for dry power inhaler (DPI) users, and >90 L/min for aerosol device users. Results: The cohort comprised 87 (80.6%) men, mean age 71.0±8.5 years, with mean post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second of 69.1%±1.8% predicted. Twenty-nine (26.9%) used aerosol devices only, 76 (70.4%) used DPIs only, and three (2.8%) used both. Inappropriate PIFRs were found in 17.2% of aerosol device users, and 42.1% of DPI users. CAT scores were significantly higher in the inappropriate PIFR group than in the appropriate PIFR group (11.2±7.7 vs. 7.5±4.9, p=0.003). In DPI users, female, shorter height, lower body weight and maximal voluntary ventilation (MVV) were associated with inappropriate PIFR. Conclusion The prevalence of inappropriate PIFR among patients with COPD is 17.2% for aerosol device users, and 42.1% for DPI users. Suboptimal PIFR correlates with female gender, shorter stature, lower weight and MVV in DPI users.

Background: The Fleischner Society established consensus guidelines for imaging in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We investigated the prevalence of pneumonia and the adverse outcomes by dividing groups according to the symptoms and risk factors of patients and assessed the suitability of the Fleischner society imaging guidelines in evaluating chest radiographs of COVID-19 patients. Methods: From February 2020 to May 2020, 685 patients (204 males, mean 58 ± 17.9 years) who were diagnosed with COVID-19 and hospitalized were included. We divided patients into four groups according to the severity of symptoms and presence of risk factors (age > 65 years and presence of comorbidities). The patient groups were defined as follows: group 1 (asymptomatic patients), group 2 (patients with mild symptoms without risk factors), group 3 (patients with mild symptoms and risk factors), and group 4 (patients with moderate to severe symptoms). According to the Fleischner society, chest imaging is not indicated for groups 1–2 but is indicated for groups 3–4. We compared the prevalence and score of pneumonia on chest radiographs and compare the adverse outcomes (progress to severe pneumonia, intensive care unit admission, and death) between groups. Results: Among the 685 COVID-19 patients, 138 (20.1%), 396 (57.8%), 102 (14.9%), and 49 (7.1%) patients corresponded to groups 1 to 4, respectively. Patients in groups 3–4 were significantly older and showed significantly higher prevalence rates of pneumonia (group 1–4: 37.7%, 51.3%, 71.6%, and 98%, respectively, P < 0.001) than those in groups 1-2. Adverse outcomes were also higher in groups 3–4 than in groups 1–2 (group 1–4: 8.0%, 3.5%, 6.9%, and 51%, respectively, P < 0.001). Patients with adverse outcomes in group 1 were initially asymptomatic but symptoms developed during follow-up. They were older (mean age, 80 years) and most of them had comorbidities (81.8%). Consistently asymptomatic patients had no adverse events. Conclusion The prevalence of pneumonia and adverse outcomes were different according to the symptoms and risk factors in COVID-19 patients. Therefore, as the Fleischner Society recommended, evaluation and monitoring of COVID-19 pneumonia using chest radiographs is necessary for old symptomatic patients with comorbidities.

Thousands of new patients are diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) daily worldwide. We reviewed the role of chest imaging in the diagnosis and treatment of patients with COVID-19.Current Concepts: Chest imaging is not recommended as a primary diagnostic tool for COVID-19. However, when real-time polymerase chain reaction is difficult to perform or when COVID-19 is strongly suspected, chest imaging can assist in the diagnosis. Thus, chest imaging is recommended for high-risk patients and patients with worsening respiratory symptoms, but not for asymptomatic patients. Bilateral peripheral pneumonia is a typical imaging finding in patients with COVID-19. However, there are cases where chest imaging shows atypical findings or appears normal. The extent of COVID-19 pneumonia on chest imaging is related to the severity of the disease. The presence and extent of pneumonia on chest imaging can help monitor patients, select appropriate treatment agents, determine whether the patient should be hospitalized, and predict the prognosis.Discussion and Conclusion: Appropriate use of chest imaging is needed for clinicians to help triage patients with COVID-19 and decide on the treatment plan.

Usually, acute subdural hematomas (ASDHs) result from head trauma and require urgent surgical treatment. However, there have been many reports of rapid spontaneous resolution of ASDHs since 1986. Recently, we experienced a case of a massive ASDH that resolved spontaneously within 1.5 days. A 76-year-old man was admitted to a local hospital after a head injury. According to his clinical records, his initial neurologic status was good (Glasgow Coma Scale score of 14). However, his head computer tomography (CT) scan demonstrated a massive ASDH to the right, with a significant midline shift. Based on his neurological status and general condition, surgery was not considered, and the patient was closely monitored in the intensive care unit. The next day, the patient was transferred to our hospital as requested by his family, after which his neurological state stabilized, and the customary follow-up brain CT was performed. It was about 32 hours after the patient's head injury, and it revealed an unexpected finding, near-total resolution of the ASDH. Herein, we review previously reported similar cases and relevant mechanisms of rapid resolution of the ASDH. We believe that neurosurgeons should comprehensively assess the patient's condition and CT findings and provide appropriate treatment, especially when surgical intervention is unnecessary.

There is still a paucity of studies on real-world outcome of screening clinic for hospital protection from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). As the number of COVID-19 cases was growing rapidly in Daegu, Korea, we started operating an active screening clinic outside the hospital premises. Over two weeks, 2,087 patients were screened using real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, with 42 confirmed cases. Before the screening clinic period, an average of 36 beds (maximum 67 beds) per day were closed due to unrecognized COVID-19 patients entering the hospital. In contrast, after the screening clinic operated well, only one event of closing emergency room (25 beds) occurred due to a confirmed COVID-19 case of asymptomatic patient. We report the operational process of screening clinic for COVID-19 and its effectiveness in maintaining the function of tertiary hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Long-term administration of ethambutol (EMB) for Mycobacterium avium complex lung disease (MAC-LD) sometimes leads to permanent discontinuation of EMB due to various adverse events. This study aimed to investigate treatment outcomes after discontinuation of EMB. METHODS: Among patients diagnosed with MAC-LD between January 2001 and December 2014, 508 patients whose treatment was initiated with standard regimen until May 2018 were enrolled at a tertiary referral center in Korea. Of these 508 patients, 60 (11.8%) discontinued EMB due to various adverse effects. Among these 60 patients, treatment outcomes were analyzed for 44 patients by comparing their outcomes with those of matched subjects who received the standard treatment regimen without EMB discontinuation. RESULTS: The mean age of the 60 patients who discontinued EMB was 64.4 years. Ocular toxicity was the most common cause of discontinuation of EMB (75.0%, 45/60). The mean duration of EMB administration before its discontinuation was 7.0 ± 4.6 months. The treatment failure rate of the 44 patients with EMB discontinuation analyzed for treatment outcome was 29.6%, which was higher than that of the matched patients who received the standard regimen (18.3%), although the difference was not significant (P = 0.095). Of these 44 patients, EMB was substituted with later-generation fluoroquinolone in 23 patients, and the treatment failure rate of these 23 patients was significantly higher than that of the matched patients who received the standard regimen (39.1% vs. 19.3%, P = 0.045). CONCLUSION These findings suggest that treatment outcomes are unsatisfactory in patients with MAC-LD who discontinue EMB owing to adverse events. Notably, there was a statistically significant high failure rate in patients who were prescribed fluoroquinolone to replace EMB.

Background: s: The severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has spread worldwide. Cardiac injury after SARS-CoV-2 infection is a major concern. The present study investigated impact of the biomarkers indicating cardiac injury in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on patients' outcomes. Methods: This study enrolled patients who were confirmed to have COVID-19 and admitted at a tertiary university referral hospital between February 19, 2020 and March 15, 2020. Cardiac injury was defined as an abnormality in one of the following result markers: 1) myocardial damage marker (creatine kinase-MB or troponin-I), 2) heart failure marker (N-terminal-pro B-type natriuretic peptide), and 3) electrical abnormality marker (electrocardiography). The relationship between each cardiac injury marker and mortality was evaluated. Survival analysis of mortality according to the scoring by numbers of cardiac injury markers was also performed. Results: A total of 38 patients with COVID-19 were enrolled. Twenty-two patients (57.9%) had at least one of cardiac injury markers. The patients with cardiac injuries were older (69.6 ± 14.9 vs. 58.6 ± 13.9 years old, P = 0.026), and were more male (59.1% vs. 18.8%, P = 0.013).They showed lower initial oxygen saturation (92.8 vs. 97.1%, P = 0.002) and a trend toward higher mortality (27.3 vs. 6.3%, P = 0.099). The increased number of cardiac injury markers was significantly related to a higher incidence of in-hospital mortality which was also evidenced by Kaplan-Meier survival analysis (P = 0.008). Conclusion The increased number of cardiac injury markers is related to in-hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a global pandemic that had affected more than eight million people worldwide by June 2020. Given the importance of the presence of diabetes mellitus (DM) for host immunity, we retrospectively evaluated the clinical characteristics and outcomes of moderate-to-severe COVID-19 in patients with diabetes.

We retrospectively reviewed patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections who wereadmitted to an intensive care unit in Daegu, South Korea. The outcomes of patients who did (cases) or did not (controls) receivedarunavir-cobicistat (800–150 mg) therapy were compared. Fourteen patients received darunavir-cobicistat treatment, and 96 receivedother antiviral therapy (controls). Overall, the darunavir-cobicistat group comprised patients with milder illness, and thecrude mortality rate of all patients in the darunavir-cobicistat group was lower than that in the controls [odds ratio (OR) 0.20, 95%confidence interval (CI) 0.04–0.89, p=0.035]. After 1:2 propensity-score matching, there were 14 patients in the darunavir-cobicistatgroup, and 28 patients in the controls. In propensity score-matched analysis, the darunavir-cobicistat group had lower mortalitythan the controls (OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01–0.52, p=0.009). In conclusion, darunavir-cobicistat therapy was found to be associatedwith a significant survival benefit in critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection.