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.

The usefulness of the living kidney donor profile index (LKDPI) has not been widely demonstrated; therefore, it requires verification before clinical application. We analyzed the LKDPI using data from the Korean Organ Transplantation Registry (KOTRY) to confirm whether the LKDPI can be used to predict the survival of allografts in living donor kidney transplantation (LDKT) patients in Korea. Methods: The study population was obtained from the KOTRY database. A total of 2,598 kidney recipients registered in the KOTRY database were enrolled between May 2014 and December 2020. Donor and recipient information was observed, and the LKDPI was measured. Results: Median LKDPI score was 15.5 with a follow-up duration of 33.7 ± 16.1 months. According to LKDPI scores (group 1, <0; group 2, 0–20; group 3, 20–40; and group 4, >40), LKDPI group 4 had significantly higher death-censored graft loss than LKDPI group 1 (hazard ratio [HR], 1.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06– 3.40; p = 0.03). When divided based on the cutoff value (LKDPI, 36.6), the high LKDPI group had higher graft loss than the low LKDPI group (HR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.37–3.34; p < 0.001). When follow-up was repeated after transplantation, it was confirmed that the higher the LKDPI value was, the lower the average estimated glomerular filtration rate (p < 0.001). Conclusion: This study confirmed that LKDPI can serve as an independent predictor for assessing the risk of allograft failure and transplant outcomes in Korean LDKT patients.

Background and Objectives: The medications preferred by patients for allergic rhinitis and their usage remain unclear. This study investigated treatment-seeking behaviors in patients with allergic rhinitis, including medical treatments, environmental controls, and surgical treatments. Methods: In this study, a cross-sectional survey was conducted by internal medicine, pediatric, or otorhinolaryngology physicians at university hospitals from January 2022 to April 2022. A questionnaire was administered to patients with confirmed allergic rhinitis to collect information regarding medical treatments (prescription and over-the-counter medication use patterns, comorbid asthma, and allergen-specific immunotherapy), environmental controls (usage of air purifiers and pet avoidance), and experiences with surgical treatments. Results: We included 51 patients with allergic rhinitis with a mean age of 31.6±16.0 years. Among them, 47 (92.2%) and 6 (11.8%) patients had pollen allergies and asthma, respectively. Furthermore, 41 (80.4%) patients took prescribed medicines, while 39 (76.5%) patients only used the medication when experiencing symptoms. Thirty patients (58.8%) reported concurrent use of intranasal sprays and oral medications. Thirty-three patients (64.7%) reported awareness of immunotherapy, and there were no preferential differences between subcutaneous (52%) and sublingual immunotherapy (48%). Of the 36 patients (70.6%) who reported using an air purifier, 38.9% considered it helpful in preventing allergic rhinitis symptoms. Fourteen patients (27.5%) currently or previously had a companion animal, with half experiencing worsening of symptoms. Twelve patients had received surgical treatment and reported high satisfaction levels (41.6%, very satisfied; 41.6%, satisfied). Conclusion Patients with allergic rhinitis showed similar preferences for oral and spray medications. They also showed satisfaction with surgical treatments and an interest in the environmental management of allergic rhinitis.

Background and Objectives: The medications preferred by patients for allergic rhinitis and their usage remain unclear. This study investigated treatment-seeking behaviors in patients with allergic rhinitis, including medical treatments, environmental controls, and surgical treatments. Methods: In this study, a cross-sectional survey was conducted by internal medicine, pediatric, or otorhinolaryngology physicians at university hospitals from January 2022 to April 2022. A questionnaire was administered to patients with confirmed allergic rhinitis to collect information regarding medical treatments (prescription and over-the-counter medication use patterns, comorbid asthma, and allergen-specific immunotherapy), environmental controls (usage of air purifiers and pet avoidance), and experiences with surgical treatments. Results: We included 51 patients with allergic rhinitis with a mean age of 31.6±16.0 years. Among them, 47 (92.2%) and 6 (11.8%) patients had pollen allergies and asthma, respectively. Furthermore, 41 (80.4%) patients took prescribed medicines, while 39 (76.5%) patients only used the medication when experiencing symptoms. Thirty patients (58.8%) reported concurrent use of intranasal sprays and oral medications. Thirty-three patients (64.7%) reported awareness of immunotherapy, and there were no preferential differences between subcutaneous (52%) and sublingual immunotherapy (48%). Of the 36 patients (70.6%) who reported using an air purifier, 38.9% considered it helpful in preventing allergic rhinitis symptoms. Fourteen patients (27.5%) currently or previously had a companion animal, with half experiencing worsening of symptoms. Twelve patients had received surgical treatment and reported high satisfaction levels (41.6%, very satisfied; 41.6%, satisfied). Conclusion Patients with allergic rhinitis showed similar preferences for oral and spray medications. They also showed satisfaction with surgical treatments and an interest in the environmental management of allergic rhinitis.

Copolyamide fillers, such as Aquafilling, have been used off-label for breast augmentation in many countries, including Korea. However, safety concerns have arisen due to reported complications, including induration, masses, mastalgia, firmness, asymmetry, migration, infection, and dimpling. We report the case of a 33-year-old woman who presented with distant migration of copolyamide breast filler to the left lower abdomen and inguinal area following mammography for breast cancer screening. This case highlights the potential risks associated with the migration of copolyamide breast fillers, particularly in the context of cancer screening procedures, and emphasizes the importance of awareness and vigilance among clinicians and patients.

Purpose: Recently, we developed allele-discriminating priming system (ADPS) technology. This method increases the sensitivity of conventional quantitative polymerase chain reaction up to 100 folds, with limit of detection, 0.01%, with reinforced specificity. This prospective study aimed to develop and validate the accuracy of ADPS epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) Mutation Test Kit using clinical specimens. Materials and Methods: In total 189 formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor tissues resected from patients with non–small cell lung cancer were used to perform a comparative evaluation of the ADPS EGFR Mutation Test Kit versus the cobas EGFR Mutation Test v2, which is the current gold standard. When the two methods had inconsistent results, next-generation sequencing–based CancerSCAN was utilized as a referee. Results: The overall agreement of the two methods was 97.4% (93.9%-99.1%); the positive percent agreement, 95.0% (88.7%-98.4%); and the negative percent agreement, 100.0% (95.9%-100.0%). EGFR mutations were detected at a frequency of 50.3% using the ADPS EGFR Mutation Test Kit and 52.9% using the cobas EGFR Mutation Test v2. There were 10 discrepant mutation calls between the two methods. CancerSCAN reproduced eight ADPS results. In two cases, mutant allele fraction was ultra-low at 0.02% and 0.06%, which are significantly below the limit of detection of the cobas assay and CancerSCAN. Based on the EGFR genotyping by ADPS, the treatment options could be switched in five patients. Conclusion The highly sensitive and specific ADPS EGFR Mutation Test Kit would be useful in detecting the patients who have lung cancer with EGFR mutation, and can benefit from the EGFR targeted therapy.

Background and Objectives: The medications preferred by patients for allergic rhinitis and their usage remain unclear. This study investigated treatment-seeking behaviors in patients with allergic rhinitis, including medical treatments, environmental controls, and surgical treatments. Methods: In this study, a cross-sectional survey was conducted by internal medicine, pediatric, or otorhinolaryngology physicians at university hospitals from January 2022 to April 2022. A questionnaire was administered to patients with confirmed allergic rhinitis to collect information regarding medical treatments (prescription and over-the-counter medication use patterns, comorbid asthma, and allergen-specific immunotherapy), environmental controls (usage of air purifiers and pet avoidance), and experiences with surgical treatments. Results: We included 51 patients with allergic rhinitis with a mean age of 31.6±16.0 years. Among them, 47 (92.2%) and 6 (11.8%) patients had pollen allergies and asthma, respectively. Furthermore, 41 (80.4%) patients took prescribed medicines, while 39 (76.5%) patients only used the medication when experiencing symptoms. Thirty patients (58.8%) reported concurrent use of intranasal sprays and oral medications. Thirty-three patients (64.7%) reported awareness of immunotherapy, and there were no preferential differences between subcutaneous (52%) and sublingual immunotherapy (48%). Of the 36 patients (70.6%) who reported using an air purifier, 38.9% considered it helpful in preventing allergic rhinitis symptoms. Fourteen patients (27.5%) currently or previously had a companion animal, with half experiencing worsening of symptoms. Twelve patients had received surgical treatment and reported high satisfaction levels (41.6%, very satisfied; 41.6%, satisfied). Conclusion Patients with allergic rhinitis showed similar preferences for oral and spray medications. They also showed satisfaction with surgical treatments and an interest in the environmental management of allergic rhinitis.