Background: We evaluated severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific humoral and cellular responses for up to 6 months after the 3rd dose of ancestral coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination in people living with HIV (PLWH) and healthy controls (HCs) who were not infected with COVID-19. Methods: Anti-spike receptor-binding domain IgG (anti-RBD IgG) concentrations using chemiluminescence immunoassay and neutralizing antibodies using focus reduction neutralization test (FRNT) were assessed at 1 week after each dose of vaccination, and 3 and 6 months after the 3rd dose in 62 PLWH and 25 HCs. T-cell responses using intracellular cytokine stain were evaluated at 1 week before, and 1 week and 6 months after the 3rd dose. Results: At 1 week after the 3rd dose, adequate anti-RBD IgG (> 300 binding antibody unit /mL) was elicited in all PLWH except for one patient with 36 CD4 T-cell count/mm3 . The geometric mean titers of 50% FRNT against wild type (WT) and omicron BA.5 strains of SARS-CoV-2 in PLWH with CD4 T-cell count ≥ 500 cells/mm3(high CD4 recovery, HCDR) were comparable to HC, but they were significantly decreased in PLWH with CD4 T-cell count < 500/mm3 (low CD4 recovery, LCDR). After adjusting for age, gender, viral suppression, and number of preexisting comorbidities, CD4 T-cell counts < 500/mm3 significantly predicted a poor magnitude of neutralizing antibodies against WT, omicron BA.5, and XBB 1.5 strains among PLWH. Multivariable linear regression adjusting for age and gender revealed that LCDR was associated with reduced neutralizing activity (P = 0.017) and interferon-γ-producing T-cell responses (P = 0.049 for CD T-cell; P = 0.014 for CD8 T-cell) against WT, and strongly associated with more decreased cross-neutralization against omicron BA.5 strains (P < 0.001). Conclusion HCDR demonstrated robust humoral and cell-mediated immune responses after a booster dose of ancestral SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, whereas LCDR showed diminished immune responses against WT virus and more impaired cross-neutralization against omicron BA.5 strain.

Background: We evaluated severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific humoral and cellular responses for up to 6 months after the 3rd dose of ancestral coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination in people living with HIV (PLWH) and healthy controls (HCs) who were not infected with COVID-19. Methods: Anti-spike receptor-binding domain IgG (anti-RBD IgG) concentrations using chemiluminescence immunoassay and neutralizing antibodies using focus reduction neutralization test (FRNT) were assessed at 1 week after each dose of vaccination, and 3 and 6 months after the 3rd dose in 62 PLWH and 25 HCs. T-cell responses using intracellular cytokine stain were evaluated at 1 week before, and 1 week and 6 months after the 3rd dose. Results: At 1 week after the 3rd dose, adequate anti-RBD IgG (> 300 binding antibody unit /mL) was elicited in all PLWH except for one patient with 36 CD4 T-cell count/mm3 . The geometric mean titers of 50% FRNT against wild type (WT) and omicron BA.5 strains of SARS-CoV-2 in PLWH with CD4 T-cell count ≥ 500 cells/mm3(high CD4 recovery, HCDR) were comparable to HC, but they were significantly decreased in PLWH with CD4 T-cell count < 500/mm3 (low CD4 recovery, LCDR). After adjusting for age, gender, viral suppression, and number of preexisting comorbidities, CD4 T-cell counts < 500/mm3 significantly predicted a poor magnitude of neutralizing antibodies against WT, omicron BA.5, and XBB 1.5 strains among PLWH. Multivariable linear regression adjusting for age and gender revealed that LCDR was associated with reduced neutralizing activity (P = 0.017) and interferon-γ-producing T-cell responses (P = 0.049 for CD T-cell; P = 0.014 for CD8 T-cell) against WT, and strongly associated with more decreased cross-neutralization against omicron BA.5 strains (P < 0.001). Conclusion HCDR demonstrated robust humoral and cell-mediated immune responses after a booster dose of ancestral SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, whereas LCDR showed diminished immune responses against WT virus and more impaired cross-neutralization against omicron BA.5 strain.

Background: We evaluated severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific humoral and cellular responses for up to 6 months after the 3rd dose of ancestral coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination in people living with HIV (PLWH) and healthy controls (HCs) who were not infected with COVID-19. Methods: Anti-spike receptor-binding domain IgG (anti-RBD IgG) concentrations using chemiluminescence immunoassay and neutralizing antibodies using focus reduction neutralization test (FRNT) were assessed at 1 week after each dose of vaccination, and 3 and 6 months after the 3rd dose in 62 PLWH and 25 HCs. T-cell responses using intracellular cytokine stain were evaluated at 1 week before, and 1 week and 6 months after the 3rd dose. Results: At 1 week after the 3rd dose, adequate anti-RBD IgG (> 300 binding antibody unit /mL) was elicited in all PLWH except for one patient with 36 CD4 T-cell count/mm3 . The geometric mean titers of 50% FRNT against wild type (WT) and omicron BA.5 strains of SARS-CoV-2 in PLWH with CD4 T-cell count ≥ 500 cells/mm3(high CD4 recovery, HCDR) were comparable to HC, but they were significantly decreased in PLWH with CD4 T-cell count < 500/mm3 (low CD4 recovery, LCDR). After adjusting for age, gender, viral suppression, and number of preexisting comorbidities, CD4 T-cell counts < 500/mm3 significantly predicted a poor magnitude of neutralizing antibodies against WT, omicron BA.5, and XBB 1.5 strains among PLWH. Multivariable linear regression adjusting for age and gender revealed that LCDR was associated with reduced neutralizing activity (P = 0.017) and interferon-γ-producing T-cell responses (P = 0.049 for CD T-cell; P = 0.014 for CD8 T-cell) against WT, and strongly associated with more decreased cross-neutralization against omicron BA.5 strains (P < 0.001). Conclusion HCDR demonstrated robust humoral and cell-mediated immune responses after a booster dose of ancestral SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, whereas LCDR showed diminished immune responses against WT virus and more impaired cross-neutralization against omicron BA.5 strain.

Background: We evaluated severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific humoral and cellular responses for up to 6 months after the 3rd dose of ancestral coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination in people living with HIV (PLWH) and healthy controls (HCs) who were not infected with COVID-19. Methods: Anti-spike receptor-binding domain IgG (anti-RBD IgG) concentrations using chemiluminescence immunoassay and neutralizing antibodies using focus reduction neutralization test (FRNT) were assessed at 1 week after each dose of vaccination, and 3 and 6 months after the 3rd dose in 62 PLWH and 25 HCs. T-cell responses using intracellular cytokine stain were evaluated at 1 week before, and 1 week and 6 months after the 3rd dose. Results: At 1 week after the 3rd dose, adequate anti-RBD IgG (> 300 binding antibody unit /mL) was elicited in all PLWH except for one patient with 36 CD4 T-cell count/mm3 . The geometric mean titers of 50% FRNT against wild type (WT) and omicron BA.5 strains of SARS-CoV-2 in PLWH with CD4 T-cell count ≥ 500 cells/mm3(high CD4 recovery, HCDR) were comparable to HC, but they were significantly decreased in PLWH with CD4 T-cell count < 500/mm3 (low CD4 recovery, LCDR). After adjusting for age, gender, viral suppression, and number of preexisting comorbidities, CD4 T-cell counts < 500/mm3 significantly predicted a poor magnitude of neutralizing antibodies against WT, omicron BA.5, and XBB 1.5 strains among PLWH. Multivariable linear regression adjusting for age and gender revealed that LCDR was associated with reduced neutralizing activity (P = 0.017) and interferon-γ-producing T-cell responses (P = 0.049 for CD T-cell; P = 0.014 for CD8 T-cell) against WT, and strongly associated with more decreased cross-neutralization against omicron BA.5 strains (P < 0.001). Conclusion HCDR demonstrated robust humoral and cell-mediated immune responses after a booster dose of ancestral SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, whereas LCDR showed diminished immune responses against WT virus and more impaired cross-neutralization against omicron BA.5 strain.

Background: Long-term oxygen therapy (LTOT) improves the survival of patients with hypoxemia due to chronic respiratory diseases. The clinical outcomes of LTOT are strongly associated with patient adherence. To improve the adherence of patients, physicians have focused on the efficacy of LTOT. However, poor adherence may stem from patients’ perceptions of LTOT. Herein we evaluated patients’ perceptions of LTOT affecting adherence. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey study using descriptive, open, and closed-ended questionnaire. Patients using oxygen therapy (OT) or requiring it but avoiding OT responded to the questionnaires at three university hospitals. Results: Seventy-nine patients responded to the questionnaires. The number of patients using home and portable OT was 69 (93%) and 37 (46.3%), respectively. Patients with good adherence were 22 (30.1%). Among patients with good adherence, 90.9% used oxygen according to physicians’ prescriptions whereas only 37.3% of those with poor adherence followed physicians’ prescriptions (p<0.01). The reasons for avoiding using home OT were fear of permanent use (50%), unwanted attention (40%), and lack of symptoms (40%). They avoided portable OT because of unwanted attention (39%), heaviness (31.7%), and lack of symptoms (21.6%). Conclusion Patients on LTOT had the perception of the misunderstanding the effects of OT and of psychosocial barriers to initiate or use LTOT. Considering these findings, health professionals need to provide effective education on the purpose of LTOT to improve patient adherence to OT and provide sufficient support for the management of psychosocial barriers in patients using LTOT.

Objectives: ：Cancer diagnosis causes significant distress while it may also bring positive change: post-traumatic growth. This study was conducted to analyze factors that affect post-traumatic growth. Methods: ：Medical records of 52 cancer patients who received psychiatric treatment at a university hospital in Seoul were reviewed and the correlation between post-traumatic growth and following factors were analyzed: Resilience, Anxious thoughts and tendencies, Mindful attention awareness, Acceptance attitude Results: ：Using Multiple Generalized Linear model, a positive correlation was found between post-traumatic growth and resilience (B=1.45, p<0.0001), mindful attention awareness (B=0.58, p=0.0030) and acceptance attitude (B=1.29, p=0.0003), while anxious thoughts and tendencies (B=-0.84, p<0.0001) had negative association. Conclusions ：Factors that have a positive impact on post-traumatic growth were resilience, mindful attention awareness, acceptance attitude and a factor with a negative impact was anxious thoughts and tendencies; Factors that impact post-traumatic growth need to be taken into account, when approaching the treatment of cancer patients.

Kikuchi-Fujimoto disease (KFD), also known as histiocytic necrotizing lymphadenitis, is common in young Asian women under the age of 30, and is usually characterized by fever, myalgia, fatigue, and cervical lymphadenopathy. Because patients with KFD often present with necrotic lesions that are also features of lymph node metastasis, ipsilateral or bilateral lymph node enlargement in head and neck cancer patients can be disguised as lymph node metastasis. We present an unusual case of KFD mimicking bilateral metastatic papillary carcinoma of the thyroid. This study emphasizes that KFD should be considered when diagnosing lymph nodes with necrotic lesions but without malignant cells in young women.

Purpose: Demand for genetic counseling on cancer predisposition syndrome is increasing. We evaluated the psychological effect on counselees after genetic counseling at a clinic in a single center. Materials and Methods: We surveyed a total of 72 enrolled participants who visited a genetic counseling clinic at the Samsung Medical Center (SMC). The initial survey was conducted before the first genetic counseling session, and the second survey was conducted after the second genetic counseling session. A total of 43 participants completed both the initial and second surveys. Results: The initial survey of 72 participants indicated higher feelings of guilt in the group with religion, higher depression and anxiety in the group with a diagnosis of self, and higher anxiety in the group on self-referral to the genetic counseling clinic.In the completed survey of 43 participants, overall decreased depression was observed after the second genetic counseling session (P=0.013). Risk perception and anxiety decreased in the group diagnosed with benign variant/variant of uncertain significance (BV/VUS, 25/3) and increased in the group diagnosed with pathogenic variant (PV, 15). Risk perception and anxiety differed between the BV/VUS and PV groups (P<0.001 and P=0.03, respectively). Conclusion The genetic counseling clinic at the SMC was effective in ameliorating the depression score. Assessment of survey results revealed different depression scores, feelings of guilt and anxiety, and different effects of the genetic counseling clinic, depending on the subgroups. Understanding the needs and psychological characteristics of different groups is necessary for improving genetic counseling services.

Purpose: Demand for genetic counseling on cancer predisposition syndrome is increasing. We evaluated the psychological effect on counselees after genetic counseling at a clinic in a single center. Materials and Methods: We surveyed a total of 72 enrolled participants who visited a genetic counseling clinic at the Samsung Medical Center (SMC). The initial survey was conducted before the first genetic counseling session, and the second survey was conducted after the second genetic counseling session. A total of 43 participants completed both the initial and second surveys. Results: The initial survey of 72 participants indicated higher feelings of guilt in the group with religion, higher depression and anxiety in the group with a diagnosis of self, and higher anxiety in the group on self-referral to the genetic counseling clinic.In the completed survey of 43 participants, overall decreased depression was observed after the second genetic counseling session (P=0.013). Risk perception and anxiety decreased in the group diagnosed with benign variant/variant of uncertain significance (BV/VUS, 25/3) and increased in the group diagnosed with pathogenic variant (PV, 15). Risk perception and anxiety differed between the BV/VUS and PV groups (P<0.001 and P=0.03, respectively). Conclusion The genetic counseling clinic at the SMC was effective in ameliorating the depression score. Assessment of survey results revealed different depression scores, feelings of guilt and anxiety, and different effects of the genetic counseling clinic, depending on the subgroups. Understanding the needs and psychological characteristics of different groups is necessary for improving genetic counseling services.

Purpose: To explore the scope and method of applying standardized nursing terminologies to nursing diagnosis and problems used in nursing practice. Methods: A descriptive study was done with a retrospective analysis of the nursing records of 141,420 patients that were hospitalized in 4 tertiary hospitals. The nursing diagnosis and problems collected from the records were standardized, and the standardized nursing diagnosis and problems cross mapped with NANDA-I, confirmed in a nursing focus group. Results: 65 (67.7%) of the 96 standardized nursing diagnosis and problems were equal with NANDA-I and included in the 10 domains of NANDA-I. Among 86 nursing diagnosis and problems excluded from the cross mapping with NANDA-I, the 63 terms (73.3%) related to surgery/procedure were the most common. Conclusion It is meaningful that multi-tertiary hospital nursing diagnosis and problems were standardized and cross mapping with standard nursing terminologies was performed. As for the method of applying standardized nursing terminologies in nursing practice, it is appropriate to use several standardized nursing terminologies complementarily.