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.

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.

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.

Background: There is a need to update the cardiovascular (CV) Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score to reflect the current practice in sepsis. We previously proposed the modified CV SOFA score from data on blood pressure, norepinephrine equivalent dose, and lactate as gathered from emergency departments. In this study, we externally validated the modified CV SOFA score in multicenter intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Methods: A multicenter retrospective observational study was conducted on ICU patients at six hospitals in Korea. We included adult patients with sepsis who were admitted to ICUs. We compared the prognostic performance of the modified CV/total SOFA score and the original CV/total SOFA score in predicting 28-day mortality. Discrimination and calibration were evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and the calibration curve, respectively. Results: We analyzed 1,015 ICU patients with sepsis. In overall patients, the 28-day mortality rate was 31.2%. The predictive validity of the modified CV SOFA (AUROC, 0.712; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.677–0.746; P < 0.001) was significantly higher than that of the original CV SOFA (AUROC, 0.644; 95% CI, 0.611–0.677). The predictive validity of modified total SOFA score for 28-day mortality was significantly higher than that of the original total SOFA (AUROC, 0.747 vs. 0.730; 95% CI, 0.715–0.779; P = 0.002). The calibration curve of the original CV SOFA for 28-day mortality showed poor calibration. In contrast, the calibration curve of the modified CV SOFA for 28-day mortality showed good calibration. Conclusion In patients with sepsis in the ICU, the modified SOFA score performed better than the original SOFA score in predicting 28-day mortality.

Background: This study aimed to describe the maternal, obstetrical, and neonatal outcomes in pregnant women with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and identify the predictors associated with the severity of COVID-19. Methods: This multicenter observational study included consecutive pregnant women admitted because of COVID-19 confirmed using reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test at 15 hospitals in the Republic of Korea between January 2020 and December 2021. Results: A total of 257 women with COVID-19 and 62 newborns were included in this study. Most of the patients developed this disease during the third trimester. Nine patients (7.4%) developed pregnancy-related complications. All pregnant women received inpatient treatment, of whom 9 (3.5%) required intensive care, but none of them died. The gestational age at COVID-19 diagnosis (odds ratio [OR], 1.096, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04–1.15) and parity (OR, 1.703, 95% CI, 1.13–2.57) were identified as significant risk factors of severe diseases. Among women who delivered, 78.5% underwent cesarean section. Preterm birth (38.5%), premature rupture of membranes (7.7%), and miscarriage (4.6%) occurred, but there was no stillbirth or neonatal death. The RT-PCR test of newborns’ amniotic fluid and umbilical cord blood samples was negative for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Conclusion At the time of COVID-19 diagnosis, gestational age and parity of pregnant women were the risk factors of disease severity. Vertical transmission of COVID-19 was not observed, and maternal severity did not significantly affect the neonatal prognosis.

Objectives: . Head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCs) are frequently diagnosed at the locoregional advanced stage (stage IVa), but controversy remains regarding whether stage IVa HSNCs should be treated with upfront surgery or definitive chemoradiation therapy (CRT). The purpose of this study was to compare overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with stage IVa HNSC treated primarily by surgery with curative intent with/without (neo)adjuvant treatment (surgery group) versus those treated primarily with CRT (CRT group). Methods: . We reviewed data of 1,033 patients with stage IVa HNSC treated with curative intent at 17 cancer centers between 2010 and 2016. Results: . Among 1,033 patients, 765 (74.1%) received upfront surgery and 268 (25.9%) received CRT. The 5-year OS and DFS rates were 64.4% and 62.0% in the surgery group and 49.5% and 45.4% in the CRT group, respectively. In multivariate analyses, OS and DFS were better in the surgery group than in the CRT group (odds ratio [OR] for death, 0.762; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.592–0.981; OR for recurrence, 0.628; 95% CI, 0.492–0.802). In subgroup analyses, the OS and DFS of patients with oropharyngeal cancer were better in the surgery group (OR for death, 0.548; 95% CI, 0.341–0.879; OR for recurrence, 0.598; 95% CI, 0.377–0.948). In the surgery group, patients with laryngeal cancer showed better OS (OR for death, 0.432; 95% CI, 0.211–0.882), while those with hypopharyngeal cancer DFS was improved (OR for recurrence, 0.506; 95% CI, 0.328–0.780). Conclusion . A survival benefit from surgery may be achieved even in patients with stage IVa HNSC, particularly those with oropharyngeal and laryngeal cancer. Surgery led to a reduction in the recurrence rate in patients with hypopharyngeal cancer.