Background: The Clauss assay is widely used to quantify blood fibrinogen levels in clinical laboratories. However, by relying on thrombin as the main reagent, the Clauss assay is susceptible to interference from thrombin inhibitors, such as heparin or direct thrombin inhibitors. Here, we developed an innovative fibrinogen assay utilizing both recombinant batroxobin (rBat) and carboxymethyl chitosan (CMCS). Methods: Various biopolymers were tested to identify a suitable candidate that could enhance rBat-induced fibrin clot formation. Chromogenic substrate hydrolysis and sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis analysis showed that CMCS potentiated rBat activity. Consequently, we formulated a novel fibrinogen assay reagent, ANYFIB.C, comprising rBat and CMCS. We compared ANYFIB.C fibrinogen with an established reagent (HemosIL fibrinogen-C) with 96 clinical samples using an ACL-TOP 700 coagulation analyzer. We also evaluated the interfering effects of thrombin inhibitors on fibrinogen measurements. Results: CMCS significantly enhanced the enzymatic activity of rBat and dose-dependently reduced plasma clotting times. ANYFIB.C fibrinogen levels were comparable with those of HemosIL fibrinogen-C, with the 95% confidence intervals of the Passing–Bablok regres-sion intercept and slope being −7.4797 to 6.0185 and 0.9581 to 1.0116, respectively. Nosignificant interference was observed with heparin concentrations up to 10 U/mL or dabigatran concentrations up to 600 µg/L in the ANYFIB.C fibrinogen assays. In contrast, the HemosIL fibrinogen-C reagent demonstrated inhibitory interference at dabigatran concentrations as low as 150 µg/L. Conclusions Our results suggest that ANYFIB.C (a mixture of CMCS and rBat) can be used to measure blood fibrinogen levels effectively and protect from thrombin inhibitor interference.

Objective: Understanding the specific fears associated with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), particularly within different cultural contexts, is crucial for developing effective mental health interventions. This study aims to develop and validate the COVID-19 Infection Fear Scale (CIFS) in a collectivist cultural context such as Korea. Methods: A total of 1,002 adults aged 19 to 70 participated in an online survey in May 2020. The CIFS was developed through a multidisciplinary approach, categorizing public fears into two domains: fear of infection and fear of negative outcomes post-infection. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were conducted to validate the factor structure. Reliability and construct validity were assessed through correlations with anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7), depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9), suicidal ideation, and coping strategies. Results: The CIFS demonstrated high internal consistency. EFA and CFA supported a two-factor model. The Rasch analysis confirmed good item fit, with infit and outfit indices within the acceptable range. Differential item functioning analysis indicated minor sex and age biases, addressed without removing items. Construct validity was supported by significant correlations with anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, and coping strategies. Fear of negative consequences post-infection showed a stronger correlation with psychological distress than fear of infection. Conclusion The CIFS is a reliable and valid tool for measuring fear related to COVID-19 infection and its consequences, particularly within a collectivist cultural context. This scale can aid in identifying individuals at higher risk of psychological distress and inform targeted interventions.

Objective: Understanding the specific fears associated with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), particularly within different cultural contexts, is crucial for developing effective mental health interventions. This study aims to develop and validate the COVID-19 Infection Fear Scale (CIFS) in a collectivist cultural context such as Korea. Methods: A total of 1,002 adults aged 19 to 70 participated in an online survey in May 2020. The CIFS was developed through a multidisciplinary approach, categorizing public fears into two domains: fear of infection and fear of negative outcomes post-infection. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were conducted to validate the factor structure. Reliability and construct validity were assessed through correlations with anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7), depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9), suicidal ideation, and coping strategies. Results: The CIFS demonstrated high internal consistency. EFA and CFA supported a two-factor model. The Rasch analysis confirmed good item fit, with infit and outfit indices within the acceptable range. Differential item functioning analysis indicated minor sex and age biases, addressed without removing items. Construct validity was supported by significant correlations with anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, and coping strategies. Fear of negative consequences post-infection showed a stronger correlation with psychological distress than fear of infection. Conclusion The CIFS is a reliable and valid tool for measuring fear related to COVID-19 infection and its consequences, particularly within a collectivist cultural context. This scale can aid in identifying individuals at higher risk of psychological distress and inform targeted interventions.

Objective: Understanding the specific fears associated with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), particularly within different cultural contexts, is crucial for developing effective mental health interventions. This study aims to develop and validate the COVID-19 Infection Fear Scale (CIFS) in a collectivist cultural context such as Korea. Methods: A total of 1,002 adults aged 19 to 70 participated in an online survey in May 2020. The CIFS was developed through a multidisciplinary approach, categorizing public fears into two domains: fear of infection and fear of negative outcomes post-infection. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were conducted to validate the factor structure. Reliability and construct validity were assessed through correlations with anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7), depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9), suicidal ideation, and coping strategies. Results: The CIFS demonstrated high internal consistency. EFA and CFA supported a two-factor model. The Rasch analysis confirmed good item fit, with infit and outfit indices within the acceptable range. Differential item functioning analysis indicated minor sex and age biases, addressed without removing items. Construct validity was supported by significant correlations with anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, and coping strategies. Fear of negative consequences post-infection showed a stronger correlation with psychological distress than fear of infection. Conclusion The CIFS is a reliable and valid tool for measuring fear related to COVID-19 infection and its consequences, particularly within a collectivist cultural context. This scale can aid in identifying individuals at higher risk of psychological distress and inform targeted interventions.

Objective: Understanding the specific fears associated with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), particularly within different cultural contexts, is crucial for developing effective mental health interventions. This study aims to develop and validate the COVID-19 Infection Fear Scale (CIFS) in a collectivist cultural context such as Korea. Methods: A total of 1,002 adults aged 19 to 70 participated in an online survey in May 2020. The CIFS was developed through a multidisciplinary approach, categorizing public fears into two domains: fear of infection and fear of negative outcomes post-infection. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were conducted to validate the factor structure. Reliability and construct validity were assessed through correlations with anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7), depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9), suicidal ideation, and coping strategies. Results: The CIFS demonstrated high internal consistency. EFA and CFA supported a two-factor model. The Rasch analysis confirmed good item fit, with infit and outfit indices within the acceptable range. Differential item functioning analysis indicated minor sex and age biases, addressed without removing items. Construct validity was supported by significant correlations with anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, and coping strategies. Fear of negative consequences post-infection showed a stronger correlation with psychological distress than fear of infection. Conclusion The CIFS is a reliable and valid tool for measuring fear related to COVID-19 infection and its consequences, particularly within a collectivist cultural context. This scale can aid in identifying individuals at higher risk of psychological distress and inform targeted interventions.

Objective: Understanding the specific fears associated with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), particularly within different cultural contexts, is crucial for developing effective mental health interventions. This study aims to develop and validate the COVID-19 Infection Fear Scale (CIFS) in a collectivist cultural context such as Korea. Methods: A total of 1,002 adults aged 19 to 70 participated in an online survey in May 2020. The CIFS was developed through a multidisciplinary approach, categorizing public fears into two domains: fear of infection and fear of negative outcomes post-infection. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were conducted to validate the factor structure. Reliability and construct validity were assessed through correlations with anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7), depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9), suicidal ideation, and coping strategies. Results: The CIFS demonstrated high internal consistency. EFA and CFA supported a two-factor model. The Rasch analysis confirmed good item fit, with infit and outfit indices within the acceptable range. Differential item functioning analysis indicated minor sex and age biases, addressed without removing items. Construct validity was supported by significant correlations with anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, and coping strategies. Fear of negative consequences post-infection showed a stronger correlation with psychological distress than fear of infection. Conclusion The CIFS is a reliable and valid tool for measuring fear related to COVID-19 infection and its consequences, particularly within a collectivist cultural context. This scale can aid in identifying individuals at higher risk of psychological distress and inform targeted interventions.

Cardio-oncology is a critical field due to the escalating significance of cardiovascular toxicity as a side effect of anti‑ cancer treatments. Cancer therapy-related cardiac dysfunction (CTRCD) is a prevalent condition associated with car‑ diovascular toxicity, necessitating effective strategies for prediction, monitoring, management, and tracking. This comprehensive review examines the definition and risk stratification of CTRCD, explores monitoring approaches during anticancer therapy, and highlights specific cardiovascular toxicities linked to various cancer treatments. These include anthracyclines, HER2-targeted agents, vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors, immune checkpoint inhibitors, chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapies, and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes therapies. Incorporating the Korean data, this review offers insights into the regional nuances in managing CTRCD. Using systematic follow-up incorporating cardiovascular imaging and biomarkers, a better understanding and management of CTRCD can be achieved, optimizing the cardiovascular health of both cancer patients and survivors.

Background: and Purpose The influence of imaging features of brain frailty on outcomes were investigated in acute ischemic stroke patients with minor symptoms and large-vessel occlusion (LVO). Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of a prospective, multicenter, nationwide registry of consecutive patients with acute (within 24 h) minor (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score=0–5) ischemic stroke with anterior circulation LVO (acute minor LVO). Brain frailty was stratified according to the presence of an advanced white-matter hyperintensity (WMH) (Fazekas grade 2 or 3), silent/old brain infarct, or cerebral microbleeds. The primary outcome was a composite of stroke, myocardial infarction, and all-cause mortality within 1 year. Results: In total, 1,067 patients (age=67.2±13.1 years [mean±SD], 61.3% males) were analyzed. The proportions of patients according to the numbers of brain frailty burdens were as follows: no burden in 49.2%, one burden in 30.0%, two burdens in 17.3%, and three burdens in 3.5%. In the Cox proportional-hazards analysis, the presence of more brain frailty burdens was associated with a higher risk of 1-year primary outcomes, but after adjusting for clinically relevant variables there were no significant associations between burdens of brain frailty and 1-year vascular outcomes. For individual components of brain frailty, an advanced WMH was independently associated with an increased risk of 1-year primary outcomes (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]=1.33, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.03–1.71) and stroke (aHR=1.32, 95% CI=1.00–1.75). Conclusions The baseline imaging markers of brain frailty were common in acute minor ischemic stroke patients with LVO. An advanced WMH was the only frailty marker associated with an increased risk of vascular events. Further research is needed into the association between brain frailty and prognosis in patients with acute minor LVO.

Background: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, patients with myasthenia gravis (MG) were more susceptible to poor outcomes owing to respiratory muscle weakness and immunotherapy. Several studies conducted in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic reported higher mortality in patients with MG compared to the general population. This study aimed to investigate the clinical course and prognosis of COVID-19 in patients with MG and to compare these parameters between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients in South Korea. Methods: This multicenter, retrospective study, which was conducted at 14 tertiary hospitals in South Korea, reviewed the medical records and identified MG patients who contracted COVID-19 between February 2022 and April 2022. The demographic and clinical characteristics associated with MG and vaccination status were collected. The clinical outcomes of COVID-19 infection and MG were investigated and compared between the vaccinated and unvaccinated patients. Results: Ninety-two patients with MG contracted COVID-19 during the study. Nine (9.8%) patients required hospitalization, 4 (4.3%) of whom were admitted to the intensive care unit. Seventy-five of 92 patients were vaccinated before contracting COVID-19 infection, and 17 were not. During the COVID-19 infection, 6 of 17 (35.3%) unvaccinated patients were hospitalized, whereas 3 of 75 (4.0%) vaccinated patients were hospitalized (P < 0.001). The frequencies of ICU admission and mechanical ventilation were significantly lower in the vaccinated patients than in the unvaccinated patients (P = 0.019 and P = 0.032, respectively). The rate of MG deterioration was significantly lower in the vaccinated patients than in the unvaccinated patients (P = 0.041). Logistic regression after weighting revealed that the risk of hospitalization and MG deterioration after COVID-19 infection was significantly lower in the vaccinated patients than in the unvaccinated patients. Conclusion This study suggests that the clinical course and prognosis of patients with MG who contracted COVID-19 during the dominance of the omicron variant of COVID-19 may be milder than those at the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic when vaccination was unavailable. Vaccination may reduce the morbidity of COVID-19 in patients with MG and effectively prevent MG deterioration induced by COVID-19 infection.