Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a newly emerged infectious disease that needs further clinical investigation. Characterizing the temporal pattern of combined infections in patients with COVID-19 may help clinicians understand the clinical nature of this disease and provide valuable diagnostic and therapeutic guidelines. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed COVID-19 patients isolated in four study hospitals in Korea for one year period from May 2021 to April 2022 when the delta and omicron variants were dominant. The temporal characteristics of combined infections based on specific diagnostic tests were analyzed. Results: A total of 16,967 COVID-19 patients were screened, 2,432 (14.3%) of whom underwent diagnostic microbiologic tests according to the clinical decision-making, 195 of whom had positive test results, and 0.55% (94/16,967) of whom were ultimately considered to have clinically meaningful combined infections. The median duration for the diagnosis of combined infections was 15 (interquartile range [IQR], 5–25) days after admission. The proportion of community-acquired coinfections (≤ 2 days after admission) was 11.7% (11/94), which included bacteremia (10/94, 10.63%) and tuberculosis (1/94, 1.06%). Combined infections after 2 days of admission were diagnosed at median 16 (IQR, 9–26) days, and included bacteremia (72.3%), fungemia (19.3%), cytomegalovirus (CMV) diseases (8.4%), Pneumocystis jerovecii pneumonia (PJP, 8.4%) and invasive pulmonary aspergillosis (IPA, 4.8%). Conclusion Among COVID-19 patients with risk factors for severe complications, 0.55% had laboratory-confirmed combined infections, which included community and nosocomial pathogens in addition to unusual pathogens such as CMV disease, PJP and IPA.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a newly emerged infectious disease that needs further clinical investigation. Characterizing the temporal pattern of combined infections in patients with COVID-19 may help clinicians understand the clinical nature of this disease and provide valuable diagnostic and therapeutic guidelines. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed COVID-19 patients isolated in four study hospitals in Korea for one year period from May 2021 to April 2022 when the delta and omicron variants were dominant. The temporal characteristics of combined infections based on specific diagnostic tests were analyzed. Results: A total of 16,967 COVID-19 patients were screened, 2,432 (14.3%) of whom underwent diagnostic microbiologic tests according to the clinical decision-making, 195 of whom had positive test results, and 0.55% (94/16,967) of whom were ultimately considered to have clinically meaningful combined infections. The median duration for the diagnosis of combined infections was 15 (interquartile range [IQR], 5–25) days after admission. The proportion of community-acquired coinfections (≤ 2 days after admission) was 11.7% (11/94), which included bacteremia (10/94, 10.63%) and tuberculosis (1/94, 1.06%). Combined infections after 2 days of admission were diagnosed at median 16 (IQR, 9–26) days, and included bacteremia (72.3%), fungemia (19.3%), cytomegalovirus (CMV) diseases (8.4%), Pneumocystis jerovecii pneumonia (PJP, 8.4%) and invasive pulmonary aspergillosis (IPA, 4.8%). Conclusion Among COVID-19 patients with risk factors for severe complications, 0.55% had laboratory-confirmed combined infections, which included community and nosocomial pathogens in addition to unusual pathogens such as CMV disease, PJP and IPA.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a newly emerged infectious disease that needs further clinical investigation. Characterizing the temporal pattern of combined infections in patients with COVID-19 may help clinicians understand the clinical nature of this disease and provide valuable diagnostic and therapeutic guidelines. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed COVID-19 patients isolated in four study hospitals in Korea for one year period from May 2021 to April 2022 when the delta and omicron variants were dominant. The temporal characteristics of combined infections based on specific diagnostic tests were analyzed. Results: A total of 16,967 COVID-19 patients were screened, 2,432 (14.3%) of whom underwent diagnostic microbiologic tests according to the clinical decision-making, 195 of whom had positive test results, and 0.55% (94/16,967) of whom were ultimately considered to have clinically meaningful combined infections. The median duration for the diagnosis of combined infections was 15 (interquartile range [IQR], 5–25) days after admission. The proportion of community-acquired coinfections (≤ 2 days after admission) was 11.7% (11/94), which included bacteremia (10/94, 10.63%) and tuberculosis (1/94, 1.06%). Combined infections after 2 days of admission were diagnosed at median 16 (IQR, 9–26) days, and included bacteremia (72.3%), fungemia (19.3%), cytomegalovirus (CMV) diseases (8.4%), Pneumocystis jerovecii pneumonia (PJP, 8.4%) and invasive pulmonary aspergillosis (IPA, 4.8%). Conclusion Among COVID-19 patients with risk factors for severe complications, 0.55% had laboratory-confirmed combined infections, which included community and nosocomial pathogens in addition to unusual pathogens such as CMV disease, PJP and IPA.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a newly emerged infectious disease that needs further clinical investigation. Characterizing the temporal pattern of combined infections in patients with COVID-19 may help clinicians understand the clinical nature of this disease and provide valuable diagnostic and therapeutic guidelines. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed COVID-19 patients isolated in four study hospitals in Korea for one year period from May 2021 to April 2022 when the delta and omicron variants were dominant. The temporal characteristics of combined infections based on specific diagnostic tests were analyzed. Results: A total of 16,967 COVID-19 patients were screened, 2,432 (14.3%) of whom underwent diagnostic microbiologic tests according to the clinical decision-making, 195 of whom had positive test results, and 0.55% (94/16,967) of whom were ultimately considered to have clinically meaningful combined infections. The median duration for the diagnosis of combined infections was 15 (interquartile range [IQR], 5–25) days after admission. The proportion of community-acquired coinfections (≤ 2 days after admission) was 11.7% (11/94), which included bacteremia (10/94, 10.63%) and tuberculosis (1/94, 1.06%). Combined infections after 2 days of admission were diagnosed at median 16 (IQR, 9–26) days, and included bacteremia (72.3%), fungemia (19.3%), cytomegalovirus (CMV) diseases (8.4%), Pneumocystis jerovecii pneumonia (PJP, 8.4%) and invasive pulmonary aspergillosis (IPA, 4.8%). Conclusion Among COVID-19 patients with risk factors for severe complications, 0.55% had laboratory-confirmed combined infections, which included community and nosocomial pathogens in addition to unusual pathogens such as CMV disease, PJP and IPA.

This case report details a 23-year-old female with Down syndrome who suffered from acute respiratory failure due to severe obstructive sleep apnea syndrome and accompanying pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). The patient presented with obesity, adenotonsillar hypertrophy, and craniofacial anomalies commonly seen in Down syndrome, predisposing her to sleep-disordered breathing. Upon intensive care unit admission, she exhibited cardiomegaly, bilateral pulmonary edema, and right ventricular dysfunction. Polysomnography revealed severe sleep apnea with an apnea-hypopnea index of 108.7/hr. Treatment modalities included noninvasive positive pressure ventilation, diuretics, antibiotics, and positive airway pressure (PAP) devices to manage hypercapnia, pulmonary edema, and sleep apnea. PAH, a recognized complication of untreated sleep apnea, contributed to right ventricular dysfunction. A multidisciplinary approach was vital, with long-term management centered on continuous PAP therapy and comprehensive obesity management. This case underscores the intricate interplay between Down syndrome, sleep apnea, and PAH, highlighting the significance of early recognition and coordinated intervention in individuals with Down syndrome to enhance overall outcomes and quality of life.

Background: Information on the effectiveness of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir against the omicron is limited. The clinical response and viral kinetics to therapy in the real world need to be evaluated. Methods: Mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients with risk factors for severe illness were prospectively enrolled as a treatment group with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir therapy versus a control group with supportive care. Serial viral load and culture from the upper respiratory tract were evaluated for seven days, and clinical responses and adverse reactions were evaluated for 28 days. Results: A total of 51 patients were analyzed including 40 in the treatment group and 11 in the control group. Faster symptom resolution during hospitalization (P= 0.048) was observed in the treatment group. Only minor adverse reactions were reported in 27.5% of patients. The viral load on Day 7 was lower in the treatment group (P = 0.002). The viral culture showed a positivity of 67.6% (25/37) vs. 100% (6/6) on Day 1, 0% (0/37) vs. 16.7 (1/6) on Day 5, and 0% (0/16) vs. 50.0% (2/4) on Day 7 in the treatment and control groups, respectively. Conclusions Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir against the omicron was safe and resulted in negative viral culture conversion after Day 5 of treatment with better symptomatic resolution.

Purpose: We investigated the consistent efficacy and safety of eflapegrastim, a novel long-acting granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF), in Koreans and Asians compared with the pooled population of two global phase 3 trials. Materials and Methods: Two phase 3 trials (ADVANCE and RECOVER) evaluated the efficacy and safety of fixed-dose eflapegrastim (13.2 mg/0.6 mL [3.6 mg G-CSF equivalent]) compared to pegfilgrastim (6 mg based on G-CSF) in breast cancer patients who received neoadjuvant or adjuvant docetaxel/cyclophosphamide. The primary objective was to demonstrate non-inferiority of eflapegrastim compared to pegfilgrastim in mean duration of severe neutropenia (DSN) in cycle 1, in Korean and Asian subpopulations. Results: Among a total of 643 patients randomized to eflapegrastim (n=314) or pegfilgrastim (n=329), 54 Asians (29 to eflapegrastim and 25 to pegfilgrastim) including 28 Koreans (14 to both eflapegrastim and pegfilgrastim) were enrolled. The primary endpoint, DSN in cycle 1 in the eflapegrastim arm was non-inferior to the pegfilgrastim arm in Koreans and Asians. The DSN difference between the eflapegrastim and pegfilgrastim arms was consistent across populations: –0.120 days (95% confidence interval [CI], –0.227 to –0.016), –0.288 (95% CI, –0.714 to 0.143), and –0.267 (95% CI, –0.697 to 0.110) for pooled population, Koreans and Asians, respectively. There were few treatment-related adverse events that caused discontinuation of eflapegrastim (1.9%) or pegfilgrastim (1.5%) in total and no notable trends or differences across patient populations. Conclusion This study may suggest that eflapegrastim showed non-inferior efficacy and similar safety compared to pegfilgrastim in Koreans and Asians, consistently with those of pooled population.

Background: Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir is highly effective in preventing severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in high-risk patients with mild-to-moderate severity. However, real-world performance data are limited, and the drug is not so acceptable to the COVID-19 patients at high risk who need it in Korea. Methods: To evaluate the effectiveness of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, we conducted a propensity score-matched retrospective cohort study on patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 at high risk for a severe disease who were hospitalized at four hospitals in South Korea from February 2022 to April 2022. A total of 236 patients in the treatment group (administered nirmatrelvir-ritonavir) and 236 in the matched control group (supportive care only) were analyzed for the primary outcome, i.e., the time to oxygen support-free survival. The secondary outcome was a composite result of disease progression. The reason for not prescribing nirmatrelvir-ritonavir to the indicated patients was also investigated. Results: The treatment group showed significantly longer oxygen support-free survival than the matched control group (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01–0.31; P < 0.001). Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that age (aHR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.00–1.07), National Early Warning Score-2 at admission (aHR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.08–1.71), nirmatrelvir-ritonavir treatment, female sex (aHR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.15–0.88), and time from symptom onset to admission (aHR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.48–0.95) were significantly associated with oxygen therapy. However, none of the factors were related to the composite outcome. In the unmatched control group, 19.9% of 376 patients had documented explanations for nirmatrelvir-ritonavir non-prescription, and 44.0% of these were due to contraindication criteria. In the treatment group, 10.9% of patients discontinued the medication primarily because of adverse events (71.4%), with gastrointestinal symptoms being the most common (50.0%). Conclusion Nirmatrelvir-ritonavir treatment significantly reduced oxygen therapy requirements in high-risk patients with COVID-19 during the omicron variant surge in South Korea. Physicians are encouraged to consider the active use of nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and to be watchful for gastrointestinal symptoms during medication.

Objective: We compared appendiceal visualization on 2-mSv CT vs. conventional-dose CT (median 7 mSv) in adolescents and young adults and analyzed the undesirable clinical and diagnostic outcomes that followed appendiceal nonvisualization. Materials and Methods: A total of 3074 patients aged 15–44 years (mean ± standard deviation, 28 ± 9 years; 1672 female) from 20 hospitals were randomized to the 2-mSv CT or conventional-dose CT group (1535 vs. 1539) from December 2013 through August 2016. A total of 161 radiologists from 20 institutions prospectively rated appendiceal visualization (grade 0, not identified; grade 1, unsure or partly visualized; and grade 2, clearly and entirely visualized) and the presence of appendicitis in these patients. The final diagnosis was based on CT imaging and surgical, pathologic, and clinical findings. We analyzed undesirable clinical or diagnostic outcomes, such as negative appendectomy, perforated appendicitis, more extensive than simple appendectomy, delay in patient management, or incorrect CT diagnosis, which followed appendiceal nonvisualization (defined as grade 0 or 1) and compared the outcomes between the two groups. Results: In the 2-mSv CT and conventional-dose CT groups, appendiceal visualization was rated as grade 0 in 41 (2.7%) and 18 (1.2%) patients, respectively; grade 1 in 181 (11.8%) and 81 (5.3%) patients, respectively; and grade 2 in 1304 (85.0%) and 1421 (92.3%) patients, respectively (p < 0.001). Overall, undesirable outcomes were rare in both groups. Compared to the conventional-dose CT group, the 2-mSv CT group had slightly higher rates of perforated appendicitis (1.1% [17] vs. 0.5% [7], p = 0.06) and false-negative diagnoses (0.4% [6] vs. 0.0% [0], p = 0.01) following appendiceal nonvisualization. Otherwise, these two groups were comparable. Conclusion The use of 2-mSv CT instead of conventional-dose CT impairs appendiceal visualization in more patients. However, appendiceal nonvisualization on 2-mSv CT rarely leads to undesirable clinical or diagnostic outcomes.

Objective: CT plays a central role in determining the resectability of pancreatic cancer, which directs the use of neoadjuvant therapy. This study aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of CT in predicting circumferential resection margin (CRM) involvement in patients with resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic head cancer. Materials and Methods: Seventy-seven patients who were scheduled for upfront surgery for resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic head cancer were prospectively enrolled, and 75 patients (38 male and 37 female; mean age ± standard deviation, 68 ± 11 years) were finally analyzed. The CRM status was evaluated separately for the superior mesenteric artery (SMA) and posterior and superior mesenteric vein/portal vein (SMV/PV) margins. Three independent radiologists reviewed the preoperative CT images and evaluated the resection margin status. The reference standard for CRM status was pathologic examination of pancreaticoduodenectomy specimens in an axial plane perpendicular to the axis of the second portion of the duodenum. The diagnostic accuracy of CT was assessed for overall CRM involvement, defined as involvement of the SMA or posterior margins (per-patient analysis), and involvement of each of the three resection margins (per-margin analysis). The data were pooled using a crossed random effects model. Results: Forty patients had pathologically confirmed overall CRM involvement in pancreatic cancer, while CRM involvement was not seen in 35 patients. For overall CRM involvement, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 15% (95% confidence interval: 7%–49%) and 99% (96%–100%), respectively. For each of the resection margins, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 14% (9%–54%) and 99% (38%–100%) for the SMA margin, 12% (8%–46%) and 99% (97%–100%) for the posterior margin; and 37% (29%–53%) and 96% (31%–100%) for the SMV/PV margin, respectively. Conclusion CT showed very high specificity but low sensitivity in predicting pathological CRM involvement in pancreatic cancer.