Purpose: B-cell depleting therapies, including T-cell engager (TCE), are increasingly used for patients with hematologic malignancies, including during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. We aimed to evaluate the relationship between TCE therapy and COVID-19–related outcomes among patients with COVID-19 and B-cell lymphomas receiving B-cell depleting therapy. Materials and Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients with B-cell lymphoma, who were admitted to Seoul Natio-nal University Hospital with COVID-19 between September 2021 and February 2023, and received B-cell depleting therapy before COVID-19 diagnosis. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with severe to critical COVID-19 and COVID-19–related mortality. Results: Of 54 patients with B-cell lymphomas and COVID-19 who received B-cell depleting therapy, 14 were treated with TCE (TCE group) and 40 with rituximab (RTX group). COVID-19–related mortality was higher in the TCE group than in the RTX group (57.1% vs. 12.5%, p=0.002). In multivariable analyses, TCE therapy (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 7.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.29 to 38.76; p=0.024) and older age (aOR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.13; p=0.035) were associated with severe to critical COVID-19. TCE therapy (aOR, 8.98; 95% CI, 1.48 to 54.40; p=0.017), older age (aOR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.26; p=0.022), and prior bendamustine therapy (aOR, 7.78; 95% CI, 1.17 to 51.65; p=0.034) were independent risk factors for COVID-19–related mortality. Conclusion B-cell lymphoma patients treated with TCE had significantly worse outcomes from COVID-19 than those treated with RTX. TCE therapy should be used with caution in B-cell lymphoma patients during the COVID-19 epidemic.

Background: The epidemiology of influenza is commonly used to understand and establish relevant health policies for emerging respiratory infections, including coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, Korea has no confirmed nationwide data on influenza incidence, severity, and mortality rate. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study to obtain epidemic data on influenza at the national level using National Health Insurance claims data during 2010 to 2020. Influenza cases were defined as 90-day timeframe episodes based on all inpatient and outpatient claims data with disease code J09, J10, and J11. Influenza incidence, severity, and mortality rate were calculated, and logistic regressions were performed to assess the associations of demographic characteristics and comorbidity with influenza-related hospitalization, severe illness, and death. Results: There were 0.3–5.9% influenza cases in the population from 2010 to 2020, with 9.7–18.9%, 0.2–0.9%, and 0.03–0.08% hospitalized, used in the intensive care unit, and dead, respectively. Age-standardized incidence and mortality rates were 424.3–6847.4 and 0.2–1.9 per 100,000 population, respectively. While more than half of the influenza cases occurred in populations aged younger than 20 years, deaths in older than 60 years accounted for more than two-thirds of all deaths. Conclusion This study provided the simplest but most important statistics regarding Korean influenza epidemics as a reference. These can be used to understand and manage other new acute respiratory diseases, including COVID-19, and establish influenza-related policies.

The personal protective equipment (PPE) used to minimize exposure to hazards can hinder healthcare workers from performing sophisticated procedures. We retrospectively reviewed 77,535 blood cultures (202,012 pairs) performed in 28,502 patients from January 2020 to April 2022. The contamination rate of all blood cultures was significantly elevated in the coronavirus disease 2019 ward at 4.68%, compared to intensive care units at 2.56%, emergency rooms at 1.13%, hematology wards at 1.08%, and general wards at 1.07% (All of P < 0.001). This finding implies that wearing PPE might interfere with adherence to the aseptic technique. Therefore, a new PPE policy is needed that considers the balance between protecting healthcare workers and medical practices.

Background: Although the evidence of treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) changed rapidly, little is known about the patterns of potential pharmacological treatment during the early period of the COVID-19 pandemic in Korea and the risk factors for ineffective prescription. Methods: Using claims data from the Korean National Health Insurance System, this retrospective cohort study included admission episodes for COVID-19 from February to December 2020. Ineffective antiviral prescriptions for COVID-19 were defined as lopinavir/ ritonavir (LPN/r) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) prescribed after July 2020, according to the revised National Institute of Health COVID-19 treatment guidelines. Factors associated with ineffective prescriptions, including patient and hospital factors, were identified by multivariate logistic regression analysis. Results: Of the 15,723 COVID-19 admission episodes from February to June 2020, 4,183 (26.6%) included prescriptions of LPN/r, and 3,312 (21.1%) included prescriptions of HCQ.Of the 48,843 admission episodes from July to December 2020, after the guidelines were revised, 2,258 (4.6%) and 182 (0.4%) included prescriptions of ineffective LPN/r and HCQ, respectively. Patient factors independently associated with ineffective antiviral prescription were older age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] per 10-year increase, 1.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.14–1.20) and severe condition with an oxygen requirement (aOR, 2.49; 95% CI, 2.24–2.77). The prescription of ineffective antiviral drugs was highly prevalent in primary and nursing hospitals (aOR, 40.58; 95% CI, 31.97–51.50), public sector hospitals (aOR, 15.61; 95% CI, 12.76–19.09), and regions in which these drugs were highly prescribed before July 2020 (aOR, 10.65; 95% CI, 8.26–13.74). Conclusion Ineffective antiviral agents were prescribed to a substantial number of patients during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in Korea. Treatment with these ineffective drugs tended to be prolonged in severely ill patients and in primary and public hospitals.

Despite the low prevalence of secondary bacterial infection in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients, most of them were administered antibiotic therapy empirically.However, the prognostic impact of empirical antibiotic therapy has not been evaluated.We conducted retrospective propensity score-matched case-control study of 233 COVID-19 patients with moderate to severe illnesses who required oxygen therapy and evaluated whether empirical antibiotic therapy could improve clinical outcomes. Empirical antibiotic therapy did not improve clinical outcomes including length of stay, days with oxygen requirement, the proportion of patients with increased oxygen demand, the proportion of patients who required mechanical ventilation, and overall mortality. This finding implies that routine administration of antibiotics for the treatment of COVID-19 is not essential and should be restricted.

Background: The relationship between changes in anxiety levels and personal protective equipment (PPE) use is yet to be evaluated. The present study assessed this relationship among healthcare workers (HCWs) involved in the care of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods: An online survey was conducted in a municipal hospital with 195 nationally designated negative pressure isolation units in Korea. Anxiety level was measured using the self-rating anxiety scale (SAS), and changes in anxiety levels were assessed based on the time when COVID-19 vaccine was introduced in March 2021 in Korea. Monthly PPE usage between June 2020 and May 2021 was investigated. Results: The mean SAS score (33.25 ± 5.97) was within normal range and was lower than those reported in previous studies conducted before COVID-19 vaccination became available.Among the 93 HCWs who participated, 64 (68.8%) answered that their fear of contracting COVID-19 decreased after vaccination. The number of coveralls used per patient decreased from 33.6 to 0. However, a demand for more PPE than necessary was observed in situations where HCWs were exposed to body fluids and secretions (n = 38, 40.9%). Excessive demand for PPE was not related to age, working experience, or SAS score. Conclusion Anxiety in HCWs exposed to COVID-19 was lower than it was during the early period of the pandemic, and the period before vaccination was introduced. The number of coveralls used per patient also decreased although an excessive demand for PPE was observed.

We investigated the kinetics of the neutralizing antibody responses to the severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 delta variant over the course of 1 year in 16 patients infected at the beginning of the pandemic. In patients with severe disease, neutralizing responses to the delta variant were detectable, albeit at lower levels than responses to the wild type. Neutralizing responses to the delta variant were undetectable, however, in asymptomatic persons. This finding implies that the vaccination strategy for persons with past natural infection should depend on the severity of the previous infection.

Concerns about the effectiveness of current vaccines against the rapidly spreading severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 omicron (B.1.1.529) variant are increasing. This study aimed to assess neutralizing antibody activity against the wild-type (BetaCoV/Korea/ KCDC03/2020), delta, and omicron variants after full primary and booster vaccinations with BNT162b2. A plaque reduction neutralization test was employed to determine 50% neutralizing dilution (ND 50 ) titers in serum samples. ND 50 titers against the omicron variant (median [interquartile range], 5.3 [< 5.0–12.7]) after full primary vaccination were lower than those against the wild-type (144.8 [44.7–294.0]) and delta (24.3 [14.3–81.1]) variants.Furthermore, 19/30 participants (63.3%) displayed lower ND 50 titers than the detection threshold (< 10.0) against omicron after full primary vaccination. However, the booster vaccine significantly increased ND 50 titers against BetaCoV/Korea/KCDC03/2020, delta, and omicron, although titers against omicron remained lower than those against the other variants (P < 0.001). Our study suggests that booster vaccination with BNT162b2 significantly increases humoral immunity against the omicron variant.

Since 2019, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has spread worldwide, and the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic currently continues.In response to this unprecedented pandemic, several researchers and medical staff have struggled to find appropriate treatments for COVID-19. Patients with mild symptoms can recuperate with symptomatic care, however establishing treatment for severe to critically ill patients who can have a high mortality has been essential. Accordingly, the guidelines for COVID-19 treatment have evolved through numerous trials and errors and have been relatively well established to date. In the Republic of Korea, several evidence-based guidelines for COVID-19 treatment were released and revised, reflecting various research and regional medical conditions. To date, approximately 3 years after the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, we are reflecting on the changes in the guidelines thus far and have summarized the treatment experience of severe to critically ill patients with COVID-19. The Korean guidelines for COVID-19 treatment have been updated continuously as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) guidelines have changed. Dexamethasone is currently used as the backbone for the treatment of severe to critically ill patients with COVID-19, and remdesivir, baricitinib, and tocilizumab can be added depending on a patient’s situation. In addition, venous thromboembolism prophylaxis is one of the important adjunctive therapies for patients with severe COVID-19. In the clinical field, treatment of severely ill patients with COVID-19 based on guidelines is widely practiced by medical staff and established currently.