Objective: We aimed to identify the expectations and preferences for medication and medical decision-making in patients with major psychiatric disorders. Methods: A survey was conducted among patients with major psychiatric disorders who visited psychiatric outpatient clinics at 15 hospitals between 2016 and 2018 in Korea. The survey consisted of 12 questions about demographic variables and opinions on their expectations for medication, important medical decision-makers, and preferred drug type. The most preferred value in each category in the total population was identified, and differences in the preference ratio of each item among the disease groups were compared. Results: A total of 707 participants were surveyed. In the total population, patients reported high efficacy (44.01%±21.44%) as the main wish for medication, themselves (37.39%±22.57%) and a doctor (35.27%±22.88%) as the main decision makers, and tablet/capsule (36.16%±30.69%) as the preferred type of drug. In the depressive disorders group, the preference ratio of high efficacy was significantly lower, and the preference ratio of a small amount was significantly higher than that of the psychotic disorder and bipolar disorder groups. The preference ratio of a doctor as an important decision maker in the bipolar disorder group was higher compared to the other groups. Conclusion This study revealed the preference for medications and showed differences among patients with psychiatric disorders. Providing personalized medicine that considers a patient’s preference for the drug may contribute to the improvement of drug compliance and outcomes.

Objectives: There has been increased use of medications in treating depressive disorders.Nowadays, patient value is an important part of prescribing medications. This study examines depressive patients’ perspectives on the side effects of medications. Methods: We administered questionnaires nationwide to 364 patients with depressive disorders. Intent or willingness to endure 21 side effects from the Antidepressant Side-Effect Checklist (ASEC) were examined and compared in patients who are less than mildly ill and who are more than moderately ill. Results: In the population, decreased appetite, yawning, increased body temperature, dry mouth, sweating, and constipation are regarded as generally endurable side effects. In contrast, dizziness, light-headedness, nausea or vomiting, headaches, disorientation, problems with urination, and difficulty sleeping are hard to endure. There were differences between patients who are less than mildly ill and those who are more than moderately ill regarding the willingness to endure drowsiness, decreased appetite, sexual dysfunction, palpitations, and weight gain. Conclusion This nationwide study revealed a general willingness in depressed patients to endure side effects. Sensitive and premeditative discussions of patient value with regard to medications might contribute to finding successful treatments.

Background: There has been no comparison of the determinants of admission route between acute ischemic stroke (AIS) and acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We examined whether factors associated with direct versus transferred-in admission to regional cardiocerebrovascular centers (RCVCs) differed between AIS and AMI. Methods: Using a nationwide RCVC registry, we identified consecutive patients presenting with AMI and AIS between July 2016 and December 2018. We explored factors associated with direct admission to RCVCs in patients with AIS and AMI and examined whether those associations differed between AIS and AMI, including interaction terms between each factor and disease type in multivariable models. To explore the influence of emergency medical service (EMS) paramedics on hospital selection, stratified analyses according to use of EMS were also performed. Results: Among the 17,897 and 8,927 AIS and AMI patients, 66.6% and 48.2% were directly admitted to RCVCs, respectively. Multivariable analysis showed that previous coronary heart disease, prehospital awareness, higher education level, and EMS use increased the odds of direct admission to RCVCs, but the odds ratio (OR) was different between AIS and AMI (for the first 3 factors, AMI > AIS; for EMS use, AMI < AIS). EMS use was the single most important factor for both AIS and AMI (OR, 4.72 vs. 3.90). Hypertension and hyperlipidemia increased, while living alone decreased the odds of direct admission only in AMI;additionally, age (65–74 years), previous stroke, and presentation during non-working hours increased the odds only in AIS. EMS use weakened the associations between direct admission and most factors in both AIS and AMI. Conclusions Various patient factors were differentially associated with direct admission to RCVCs between AIS and AMI. Public education for symptom awareness and use of EMS is essential in optimizing the transportation and hospitalization of patients with AMI and AIS.

Background: Remdesivir is widely used for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but controversies regarding its efficacy still remain. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted to evaluate the effect of remdesivir on clinical and virologic outcomes of severe COVID-19 patients from June to July 2020. Primary clinical endpoints included clinical recovery, additional mechanical ventilator (MV) support, and duration of oxygen or MV support. Viral load reduction by hospital day (HD) 15 was evaluated by calculating changes in cycle threshold (Ct) values. Results: A total of 86 severe COVID-19 patients were evaluated including 48 remdesivirtreated patients. Baseline characteristics were not significantly different between the two groups. Remdesivir was administered an average of 7.42 days from symptom onset. The proportions of clinical recovery of the remdesivir and supportive care group at HD 14 (56.3% and 39.5%) and HD 28 (87.5% and 78.9%) were not statistically different. The proportion of patients requiring MV support by HD 28 was significantly lower in the remdesivir group than in the supportive care group (22.9% vs. 44.7%, P = 0.032), and MV duration was significantly shorter in the remdesivir group (average, 1.97 vs. 5.37 days; P = 0.017). Analysis of upper respiratory tract specimens demonstrated that increases of Ct value from HD 1–5 to 11–15 were significantly greater in the remdesivir group than the supportive care group (average, 10.19 vs. 5.36; P = 0.007), and the slope of the Ct value increase was also significantly steeper in the remdesivir group (average, 5.10 vs. 2.68; P = 0.007). Conclusion The remdesivir group showed clinical and virologic benefit in terms of MV requirement and viral load reduction, supporting remdesivir treatment for severe COVID-19.

Background/Aims: Besifovir dipivoxil maleate (BSV), an acyclic nucleotide phosphonate, shows potent antiviral activity against hepatitis B virus. Our previous 48-week trial revealed that BSV has comparable antiviral efficacy to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) and better safety profiles in terms of improved renal and bone safety. This extension study evaluated the prolonged efficacy and safety of BSV in treatment-naive chronic hepatitis B patients. Methods: Patients continued to participate in an open-label BSV study after an initial 48-week double-blind comparison of BSV and TDF treatment. The antiviral efficacy and drug safety was evaluated up to 192 weeks in two groups: patients continuing BSV treatment (BSV-BSV) and patients switching from TDF to BSV after 48 weeks (TDF-BSV). Results: Among 197 patients receiving randomized treatments, 170 (86%) entered the open-label phase and 152 (77%) entered the 192-week extension study. Virological response rates over 192 weeks were 92.50% and 93.06% in the BSV-BSV and TDF-BSV groups, respectively (P=0.90). Hepatitis B envelop antigen seroconversion and alanine aminotransferase normalization rates were similar between the groups (P=0.75 and P=0.36, respectively). There were no drug-resistant mutations to BSV. Bone mineral density and renal function were well preserved in the BSV-BSV group, whereas these initially worsened then recovered after switching therapy in the TDF-BSV group. Conclusions BSV maintained potent antiviral efficacy after 192 weeks and showed no evidence of drug resistance. BSV was safe, well tolerated, and effective in patients who switched from TDF to BSV. Trial Registration Number: NCT01937806 (date: 10 Sep 2013).

Background: Remdesivir is widely used for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but controversies regarding its efficacy still remain. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted to evaluate the effect of remdesivir on clinical and virologic outcomes of severe COVID-19 patients from June to July 2020. Primary clinical endpoints included clinical recovery, additional mechanical ventilator (MV) support, and duration of oxygen or MV support. Viral load reduction by hospital day (HD) 15 was evaluated by calculating changes in cycle threshold (Ct) values. Results: A total of 86 severe COVID-19 patients were evaluated including 48 remdesivirtreated patients. Baseline characteristics were not significantly different between the two groups. Remdesivir was administered an average of 7.42 days from symptom onset. The proportions of clinical recovery of the remdesivir and supportive care group at HD 14 (56.3% and 39.5%) and HD 28 (87.5% and 78.9%) were not statistically different. The proportion of patients requiring MV support by HD 28 was significantly lower in the remdesivir group than in the supportive care group (22.9% vs. 44.7%, P = 0.032), and MV duration was significantly shorter in the remdesivir group (average, 1.97 vs. 5.37 days; P = 0.017). Analysis of upper respiratory tract specimens demonstrated that increases of Ct value from HD 1–5 to 11–15 were significantly greater in the remdesivir group than the supportive care group (average, 10.19 vs. 5.36; P = 0.007), and the slope of the Ct value increase was also significantly steeper in the remdesivir group (average, 5.10 vs. 2.68; P = 0.007). Conclusion The remdesivir group showed clinical and virologic benefit in terms of MV requirement and viral load reduction, supporting remdesivir treatment for severe COVID-19.

Background/Aims: Besifovir dipivoxil maleate (BSV), an acyclic nucleotide phosphonate, shows potent antiviral activity against hepatitis B virus. Our previous 48-week trial revealed that BSV has comparable antiviral efficacy to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) and better safety profiles in terms of improved renal and bone safety. This extension study evaluated the prolonged efficacy and safety of BSV in treatment-naive chronic hepatitis B patients. Methods: Patients continued to participate in an open-label BSV study after an initial 48-week double-blind comparison of BSV and TDF treatment. The antiviral efficacy and drug safety was evaluated up to 192 weeks in two groups: patients continuing BSV treatment (BSV-BSV) and patients switching from TDF to BSV after 48 weeks (TDF-BSV). Results: Among 197 patients receiving randomized treatments, 170 (86%) entered the open-label phase and 152 (77%) entered the 192-week extension study. Virological response rates over 192 weeks were 92.50% and 93.06% in the BSV-BSV and TDF-BSV groups, respectively (P=0.90). Hepatitis B envelop antigen seroconversion and alanine aminotransferase normalization rates were similar between the groups (P=0.75 and P=0.36, respectively). There were no drug-resistant mutations to BSV. Bone mineral density and renal function were well preserved in the BSV-BSV group, whereas these initially worsened then recovered after switching therapy in the TDF-BSV group. Conclusions BSV maintained potent antiviral efficacy after 192 weeks and showed no evidence of drug resistance. BSV was safe, well tolerated, and effective in patients who switched from TDF to BSV. Trial Registration Number: NCT01937806 (date: 10 Sep 2013).

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. This disease, which is quickly spreading worldwide, has high potential for infection and causes rapid progression of lung lesions, resulting in a high mortality rate. This study aimed to investigate the effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection on renal function in patients with COVID-19. Methods: From February 21 to April 24, 2020, 66 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 at Chungnam National University Hospital were analyzed; all patients underwent routine urinalysis and were tested for serum creatinine, urine protein to creatinine ratio (PCR), and urine albumin to creatinine ratio (ACR). Results: Acute kidney injury (AKI) occurred in 3 (4.5%) of the 66 patients, and 1 patient with AKI stage 3 underwent hemodialysis. Upon follow-up, all 3 patients recovered normal renal function. Compared with patients with mild COVID-19, AKI (n = 3) occurred in patients with severe COVID-19, of whom both urine PCR and ACR were markedly increased. Conclusion The incidence of AKI was not high in COVID-19 patients. The lower mortality rate in SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with previous Middle East respiratory syndrome and SARS-CoV infections is thought to be associated with a low incidence of dysfunction in organs other than the lungs.

BACKGROUND: Several factors contribute to differences in Streptococcus pneumoniae serotype distribution. We investigated the serotype distribution and antimicrobial resistance of S. pneumoniae isolated between 2014 and 2016 in Korea. METHODS: We collected a total of 1,855 S. pneumoniae isolates from 44 hospitals between May 2014 and May 2016, and analyzed the serotypes by sequential multiplex PCR. We investigated the distribution of each serotype by patient age, source of the clinical specimen, and antimicrobial resistance pattern. RESULTS: The most common serotypes were 11A (10.1%), followed by 19A (8.8%), 3 (8.5%), 34 (8.1%), 23A (7.3%), and 35B (6.2%). The major invasive serotypes were 3 (12.6%), 19A (7.8%), 34 (7.8%), 10A (6.8%), and 11A (6.8%). Serotypes 10A, 15B, 19A, and 12F were more common in patients ≤5 years old, while serotype 3 was more common in patients ≥65 years old compared with the other age groups. The coverage rates of pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV)7, PCV10, PCV13, and pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine 23 were 11.8%, 12.12%, 33.3%, and 53.6%, respectively. Of the 1,855 isolates, 857 (46.2%) were multi-drug resistant (MDR), with serotypes 11A and 19A predominant among the MDR strains. The resistance rates against penicillin, cefotaxime, and levofloxacin were 22.8%, 12.5%, and 9.4%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: There were significant changes in the major S. pneumoniae serotypes in the community. Non-PCV13 serotypes increased in patients ≤5 years old following the introduction of national immunization programs with the 10- and 13-polyvalent vaccines.
Cefotaxime ; Humans ; Immunization Programs ; Korea ; Levofloxacin ; Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction ; Penicillins ; Pneumococcal Vaccines ; Pneumonia ; Serogroup ; Streptococcus pneumoniae ; Streptococcus ; Vaccines

BACKGROUND: Fundamental echocardiography has some drawbacks in patients with difficult-to-image echocardiograms. The aim of this study is to evaluate impact of contrast echocardiography (CE) on ventricular function assessment and clinical diagnosis in routine clinical echocardiography. METHODS: Two hundred sixty patients were prospectively enrolled over 3 years in 12 medical centers in Korea. General image quality, the number of distinguishable segments, ability to assess regional wall motion, left ventricular (LV) apex and right ventricle (RV) visualization, LV ejection fraction, changes in diagnostic or treatment plan were documented after echocardiography with and without ultrasound contrast agent. RESULTS: Poor or uninterpretable general image was 31% before contrast use, and decreased to 2% (p<0.05) after contrast use. The average number of visualized LV segments was 9.53 before contrast use, and increased to 14.46 (p<0.001) after contrast use. The percentage of poor or not seen LV regional wall motion was decreased from 28.4% to 3.5% (p<0.001). The percentage of poor or not seen LV apex and RV was decreased from 49.4% to 2.4% (p<0.001), from 30.5% to 10.5% (p<0.001), respectively. Changes in diagnostic procedure and treatment plan after CE were 30% and 29.6%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Compared to fundamental echocardiography, CE impacted LV function assessment and clinical decision making in Korean patients who undergo routine echocardiography.
Asian Continental Ancestry Group ; Clinical Decision-Making ; Diagnosis* ; Echocardiography* ; Heart Ventricles ; Humans ; Korea ; Prospective Studies ; Ultrasonography ; Ventricular Function*