The impact of Streptococcus pneumoniae coinfection on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) prognosis remains uncertain. We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who underwent a pneumococcal urinary antigen (PUA) test to assess its clinical utility. Results showed that PUA-positive patients required more oxygen support, high-flow nasal cannula, and dexamethasone compared to PUA-negative patients.Furthermore, the significantly higher incidence of a National Early Warning Score ≥5 in the PUA-positive group (P<0.001) suggests that a positive PUA test is associated with a severe disease course. However, no significant difference in mortality was observed between the two groups, and antibiotics were used in almost all patients (96.2%). While the PUA test may help guide antibiotic use in COVID-19 patients, its interpretation should be approached with caution.

The impact of Streptococcus pneumoniae coinfection on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) prognosis remains uncertain. We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who underwent a pneumococcal urinary antigen (PUA) test to assess its clinical utility. Results showed that PUA-positive patients required more oxygen support, high-flow nasal cannula, and dexamethasone compared to PUA-negative patients.Furthermore, the significantly higher incidence of a National Early Warning Score ≥5 in the PUA-positive group (P<0.001) suggests that a positive PUA test is associated with a severe disease course. However, no significant difference in mortality was observed between the two groups, and antibiotics were used in almost all patients (96.2%). While the PUA test may help guide antibiotic use in COVID-19 patients, its interpretation should be approached with caution.

The impact of Streptococcus pneumoniae coinfection on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) prognosis remains uncertain. We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who underwent a pneumococcal urinary antigen (PUA) test to assess its clinical utility. Results showed that PUA-positive patients required more oxygen support, high-flow nasal cannula, and dexamethasone compared to PUA-negative patients.Furthermore, the significantly higher incidence of a National Early Warning Score ≥5 in the PUA-positive group (P<0.001) suggests that a positive PUA test is associated with a severe disease course. However, no significant difference in mortality was observed between the two groups, and antibiotics were used in almost all patients (96.2%). While the PUA test may help guide antibiotic use in COVID-19 patients, its interpretation should be approached with caution.

Purpose: GC1118 is a novel antibody targeting epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) with enhanced blocking activity against both low- and high-affinity EGFR ligands. A phase 1b/2a study was conducted to determine a recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of GC1118 in combination with 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) (phase 1b) and to assess the safety and efficacy of GC1118 plus FOLFIRI as a second-line therapy for recurrent/metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) (phase 2a). Materials and Methods: Phase 1b was designed as a standard 3+3 dose-escalation study with a starting dose of GC1118 (3 mg/kg/week) in combination with biweekly FOLFIRI (irinotecan 180 mg/m2; leucovorin 400 mg/m2; 5-fluorouracil 400 mg/m2 bolus and 2,400 mg/m2 infusion over 46 hours) in patients with solid tumors refractory to standard treatments. The subsequent phase 2a part was conducted with objective response rate (ORR) as a primary endpoint. Patients with KRAS/NRAS/BRAF wild-type, EGFR-positive, recurrent/metastatic CRC resistant to the first-line treatment were enrolled in the phase 2a study. Results: RP2D of GC1118 was determined to be 3 mg/kg/wk in the phase 1b study (n=7). Common adverse drug reactions (ADRs) observed in the phase 2a study (n=24) were acneiform rash (95.8%), dry skin (66.7%), paronychia (58.3%), and stomatitis (50.0%). The most common ADR of ≥ grade 3 was neutropenia (33.3%). ORR was 42.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 23.5 to 62.0), and median progression-free survival was 6.7 months (95% CI, 4.0-8.0). Conclusion GC1118 administered weekly at 3 mg/kg in combination with FOLFIRI appears as an effective and safe treatment option in recurrent/metastatic CRC.

This study was conducted to investigate potential differences in vaccine efficacy between patients undergoing palliative chemotherapy and receiving adjuvant chemotherapy. Additionally, the study proved the influence of vaccination timing on vaccine efficacy during active chemotherapy. Anti-receptor-binding domain (RBD) IgG binding antibody assays and surrogate neutralizing antibody assays were performed after BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 vaccination in 45 solid cancer patients (23 adjuvant and 22 palliative chemotherapy) and in 24 healthy controls before vaccination (baseline), at every two to four weeks after the first (post-dose 1) and the second vaccination (post-dose 2). The levels of anti-RBD IgG and neutralizing antibodies increased significantly from baseline through post-dose 1 to post-dose 2 in all three groups. At the post-dose 1, the anti-RBD IgG and neutralizing antibody levels were significantly lower in cancer patients than in healthy controls. However, by post-dose 2, the seropositivity of anti-RBD IgG and neutralizing antibodies uniformly reached 100% across all groups, with no significant disparity in antibody levels among the three groups. Moreover, the antibody titers were not significantly different between patients with a vaccine and chemotherapy interval of more than 14 days or those with less than 14 days. This study demonstrated that after second doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, humoral immune responses in patients receiving chemotherapy were comparable to those of healthy controls, regardless of whether the purpose of the anti-cancer treatment was palliative or adjuvant. Furthermore, the timing of vaccination did not affect the level of humoral immunity after the second vaccination.

Purpose: This study aimed to identify challenges and potential improvements in Korea's medical education accreditation process according to the Accreditation Standards of the Korean Institute of Medical Education and Evaluation 2019 (ASK2019). Meta-evaluation was conducted to survey the experiences and perceptions of stakeholders, including self-assessment committee members, site visit committee members, administrative staff, and medical school professors. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted using surveys sent to 40 medical schools. The 332 participants included self-assessment committee members, site visit team members, administrative staff, and medical school professors. The t-test, one-way analysis of variance and the chi-square test were used to analyze and compare opinions on medical education accreditation between the categories of participants. Results: Site visit committee members placed greater importance on the necessity of accreditation than faculty members. A shared positive view on accreditation’s role in improving educational quality was seen among self-evaluation committee members and professors. Administrative staff highly regarded the Korean Institute of Medical Education and Evaluation’s reliability and objectivity, unlike the self-evaluation committee members. Site visit committee members positively perceived the clarity of accreditation standards, differing from self-assessment committee members. Administrative staff were most optimistic about implementing standards. However, the accreditation process encountered challenges, especially in duplicating content and preparing self-evaluation reports. Finally, perceptions regarding the accuracy of final site visit reports varied significantly between the self-evaluation committee members and the site visit committee members. Conclusion This study revealed diverse views on medical education accreditation, highlighting the need for improved communication, expectation alignment, and stakeholder collaboration to refine the accreditation process and quality.

Background: A healthcare system’s collapse due to a pandemic, such as the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), can expose healthcare workers (HCWs) to various mental health problems. This study aimed to investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the depression and anxiety of HCWs. Methods: A nationwide questionnaire-based survey was conducted on HCWs who worked in healthcare facilities and public health centers in Korea in December 2020. Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) were used to measure depression and anxiety. To investigate factors associated with depression and anxiety, stepwise multiple logistic regression analysis was performed. Results: A total of 1,425 participating HCWs were included. The mean depression score (PHQ-9) of HCWs before and after COVID-19 increased from 2.37 to 5.39, and the mean anxiety score (GAD-7) increased from 1.41 to 3.41. The proportion of HCWs with moderate to severe depression (PHQ-9 ≥ 10) increased from 3.8% before COVID-19 to 19.5% after COVID-19, whereas that of HCWs with moderate to severe anxiety (GAD-7 ≥ 10) increased from 2.0% to 10.1%. In our study, insomnia, chronic fatigue symptoms and physical symptoms after COVID-19, anxiety score (GAD-7) after COVID-19, living alone, and exhaustion were positively correlated with depression. Furthermore, post-traumatic stress symptoms, stress score (Global Assessment of Recent Stress), depression score (PHQ-9) after COVID-19, and exhaustion were positively correlated with anxiety. Conclusion In Korea, during the COVID-19 pandemic, HCWs commonly suffered from mental health problems, including depression and anxiety. Regularly checking the physical and mental health problems of HCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic is crucial, and social support and strategy are needed to reduce the heavy workload and psychological distress of HCWs.

Background: Solid-organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) receiving immunosuppressive therapy are expected to have worse clinical outcomes from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, published studies have shown mixed results, depending on adjustment for important confounders such as age, variants, and vaccination status. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively collected the data on 7,327 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 from two tertiary hospitals with government-designated COVID-19 regional centers. We compared clinical outcomes between SOTRs and non-SOTRs by a propensity score-matched analysis (1:2) based on age, gender, and the date of COVID-19 diagnosis. We also performed a multivariate logistic regression analysis to adjust other important confounders such as vaccination status and the Charlson comorbidity index. Results: After matching, SOTRs (n=83) had a significantly higher risk of high-flow nasal cannula use, mechanical ventilation, acute kidney injury, and a composite of COVID-19 severity outcomes than non-SOTRs (n=160) (all P <0.05). The National Early Warning Score was significantly higher in SOTRs than in non-SOTRs from day 1 to 7 of hospitalization ( P for interaction=0.008 by generalized estimating equation). In multivariate logistic regression analysis, SOTRs (odds ratio [OR], 2.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12–4.11) and male gender (OR, 2.62; 95% CI, 1.26– 5.45) were associated with worse outcomes, and receiving two to three doses of COVID-19 vaccine (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.24–0.79) was associated with better outcomes. Conclusion Hospitalized SOTRs with COVID-19 had a worse prognosis than non-SOTRs. COVID-19 vaccination should be implemented appropriately to prevent severe COVID-19 progression in this population.

Background: Solid-organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) receiving immunosuppressive therapy are expected to have worse clinical outcomes from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, published studies have shown mixed results, depending on adjustment for important confounders such as age, variants, and vaccination status. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively collected the data on 7,327 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 from two tertiary hospitals with government-designated COVID-19 regional centers. We compared clinical outcomes between SOTRs and non-SOTRs by a propensity score-matched analysis (1:2) based on age, gender, and the date of COVID-19 diagnosis. We also performed a multivariate logistic regression analysis to adjust other important confounders such as vaccination status and the Charlson comorbidity index. Results: After matching, SOTRs (n=83) had a significantly higher risk of high-flow nasal cannula use, mechanical ventilation, acute kidney injury, and a composite of COVID-19 severity outcomes than non-SOTRs (n=160) (all P <0.05). The National Early Warning Score was significantly higher in SOTRs than in non-SOTRs from day 1 to 7 of hospitalization ( P for interaction=0.008 by generalized estimating equation). In multivariate logistic regression analysis, SOTRs (odds ratio [OR], 2.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12–4.11) and male gender (OR, 2.62; 95% CI, 1.26– 5.45) were associated with worse outcomes, and receiving two to three doses of COVID-19 vaccine (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.24–0.79) was associated with better outcomes. Conclusion Hospitalized SOTRs with COVID-19 had a worse prognosis than non-SOTRs. COVID-19 vaccination should be implemented appropriately to prevent severe COVID-19 progression in this population.

Purpose: The partner and localizer of breast cancer 2 (PALB2) mutation is a predisposition to breast cancer development. However, limited clinical data are available for the Korean population. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the characteristics and oncological outcomes of patients with PALB2-mutated and non-mutated PALB2 in Korea. Methods: A total of 1,463 breast cancer (BRCA) 1/2 mutation-negative breast cancer underwent comprehensive multigene sequencing between 2016 and 2019 at Severance Hospital, Seoul, Korea. Clinicopathological data and oncological results of PALB2 mutated patients were prospectively collected and compared with those of the non-mutated group. Results: PALB2 mutations were identified in 1.2% (17/1,463) of the patients. The median age at diagnosis was 46 (30–73) years, and the median tumor size was 1.8 (0.05–3.5) cm. All patients with PALB2 mutations had histologic grades II–III, and a triple-negative subtype was found in 23.5% (4/17); however, there were no significant differences in clinicopathological data between the groups. During the median follow-up time of 38.5 months, locoregional recurrence occurred in 4.2% (44/1,043), distant recurrence was reported in 3.0% (31/1,043), and contralateral breast cancer was diagnosed in 0.8% (9/1,043) of patients, with no significant difference observed between the groups. All-cause mortality was observed in 1.8% (19/1,028) of the non-mutated group and none in the PALB2 mutation group. However, survival analyses demonstrated no significant differences in all-cause mortality (p = 0.524) and recurrence-free survival (p = 0.319). Conclusion Clinicopathological features and oncological outcomes of PALB2 mutated breast cancer were not significantly different from those of non-mutated breast cancer in the Korean population.