Objectives: . This study aimed to assess predictors of the response to varying durations of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use and lifestyle modification treatment for laryngopharyngeal reflux disease (LPRD). Methods: . Between October 2014 and June 2016, a prospective, multicenter, open-label, single-cohort, intention-to-treat, observational study was conducted at eight referral hospitals across the Republic of Korea to examine predictors of early and late response to treatment in adult patients (age ≥19 years) with LPRD. Participants underwent standard treatment (PPI [Esomezol] and lifestyle modification) for 3 months. Response to treatment was defined as greater than 50% improvement in reflux symptom index score. The primary outcome was potential predictors of treatment response at 1 and 3 months. The secondary outcome was potential predictors distinguishing early from late responders. Results: . In total, 394 patients were enrolled. Improved sleep habits was a positive predictor (odds ratio [OR], 1.785; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06–3.007; P=0.029), while initial alcohol consumption (OR, 0.587; 95% CI, 0.355–0.969; P=0.037) and past medication history (OR, 0.438; 95% CI, 0.215–0.891; P=0.005) were negative predictors of response after 1 month of treatment. High pre-reflux finding score was a positive predictor (OR, 1.187; 95% CI, 1.049– 1.344; P=0.007), while male sex (OR, 0.516; 95% CI, 0.269–0.987; P=0.046), higher depression score (OR, 0.867; 95% CI, 0.784–0.958; P=0.005), and past thyroid hormone medication history (OR, 0.161; 95% CI, 0.033–0.788; P=0.024) were negative predictors of response after 3 months of treatment. Past medication history (OR, 0.438; 95% CI, 0.215–0.891; P=0.023) was the only negative predictor for early responders compared to late responders. Conclusion . Adult patients with LPRD and a history of prior medication use may require longer treatment durations to achieve a therapeutic response. Future research should explore the incorporation of diverse treatment approaches to improve treatment outcomes for patients exhibiting negative prognostic indicators.

Background: Several cases of pediatric acute hepatitis of unknown etiology related to adenoviral infections have been reported in Europe since January 2022. The aim of this study was to compare the incidence, severity, possible etiology, and prognosis of the disease with those in the past in Korea. Methods: The surveillance group collected data between May and November 2022 using a surveillance system. Acute hepatitis of unknown etiology was defined in patients aged < 16 years with a serum transaminase level > 500 IU/L, not due to hepatitis A-E or other underlying causes. For comparison, data from 18 university hospitals were retrospectively collected as a control group between January 2021 and April 2022. Results: We enrolled 270 patients (mean age, 5 years). The most common symptom was fever. However, the incidence was similar between 2021 and 2022. Liver function test results, number of patients with acute liver failure (ALF), liver transplantation (LT), death, and adenovirus detection rates did not differ between the two groups. None of the adenoviruspositive patients in either group experienced ALF, LT, or death. In the surveillance group, adenovirus-associated virus-2 was detected in four patients, one of whom underwent LT. Patients with an unknown etiology showed significantly higher bilirubin levels, a lower platelet count, and a higher LT rate than patients with a possible etiology. Conclusion The incidence of pediatric acute hepatitis of unknown etiology and adenovirus detection rate have not increased in Korea.

Background and Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the association between cardiovascular events and 2 different levels of elevated on-treatment diastolic blood pressures (DBP) in the presence of achieved systolic blood pressure targets (SBP). Methods: A nation-wide population-based cohort study comprised 237,592 patients with hypertension treated. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Elevated DBP was defined according to the Seventh Report of Joint National Committee (JNC7; SBP <140 mmHg, DBP ≥90 mmHg) or to the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) definitions (SBP <130 mmHg, DBP ≥80 mmHg). Results: During a median follow-up of 9 years, elevated on-treatment DBP by the JNC7 definition was associated with an increased risk of the occurrence of primary endpoint compared with achieved both SBP and DBP (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05–1.24) but not in those by the 2017 ACC/AHA definition. Elevated ontreatment DBP by the JNC7 definition was associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular mortality (aHR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.18–1.70) and stroke (aHR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.08–1.30). Elevated on-treatment DBP by the 2017 ACC/AHA definition was only associated with stroke (aHR, 1.10;95% CI, 1.04–1.16). Similar results were seen in the propensity-score-matched cohort. Conclusion Elevated on-treatment DBP by the JNC7 definition was associated a high risk of major cardiovascular events, while elevated DBP by the 2017 ACC/AHA definition was only associated with a higher risk of stroke. The result of study can provide evidence of DBP targets in subjects who achieved SBP targets.

Background: There has been no comparison of the determinants of admission route between acute ischemic stroke (AIS) and acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We examined whether factors associated with direct versus transferred-in admission to regional cardiocerebrovascular centers (RCVCs) differed between AIS and AMI. Methods: Using a nationwide RCVC registry, we identified consecutive patients presenting with AMI and AIS between July 2016 and December 2018. We explored factors associated with direct admission to RCVCs in patients with AIS and AMI and examined whether those associations differed between AIS and AMI, including interaction terms between each factor and disease type in multivariable models. To explore the influence of emergency medical service (EMS) paramedics on hospital selection, stratified analyses according to use of EMS were also performed. Results: Among the 17,897 and 8,927 AIS and AMI patients, 66.6% and 48.2% were directly admitted to RCVCs, respectively. Multivariable analysis showed that previous coronary heart disease, prehospital awareness, higher education level, and EMS use increased the odds of direct admission to RCVCs, but the odds ratio (OR) was different between AIS and AMI (for the first 3 factors, AMI > AIS; for EMS use, AMI < AIS). EMS use was the single most important factor for both AIS and AMI (OR, 4.72 vs. 3.90). Hypertension and hyperlipidemia increased, while living alone decreased the odds of direct admission only in AMI;additionally, age (65–74 years), previous stroke, and presentation during non-working hours increased the odds only in AIS. EMS use weakened the associations between direct admission and most factors in both AIS and AMI. Conclusions Various patient factors were differentially associated with direct admission to RCVCs between AIS and AMI. Public education for symptom awareness and use of EMS is essential in optimizing the transportation and hospitalization of patients with AMI and AIS.

Hospital-based surveillance for adverse events was conducted on healthcare workers after they received the first dose of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine. Among the two new platform vaccines (messenger RNA- and adenoviral vector-based vaccines), the rates of systemic adverse events were significantly higher among adenovirus-vectored vaccine recipients. Fatigue (87.6% vs. 53.8%), myalgia (80.8% vs. 50.0%), headache (72.0% vs.28.8%), and fever (≥ 38.0°C, 38.7% vs. 0%) were the most common adverse events among adenovirus-vectored vaccine recipients, but most symptoms resolved within 2 days. Both types of COVID-19 vaccines were generally safe, and serious adverse events rarely occurred.

Background: Remdesivir is widely used for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but controversies regarding its efficacy still remain. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted to evaluate the effect of remdesivir on clinical and virologic outcomes of severe COVID-19 patients from June to July 2020. Primary clinical endpoints included clinical recovery, additional mechanical ventilator (MV) support, and duration of oxygen or MV support. Viral load reduction by hospital day (HD) 15 was evaluated by calculating changes in cycle threshold (Ct) values. Results: A total of 86 severe COVID-19 patients were evaluated including 48 remdesivirtreated patients. Baseline characteristics were not significantly different between the two groups. Remdesivir was administered an average of 7.42 days from symptom onset. The proportions of clinical recovery of the remdesivir and supportive care group at HD 14 (56.3% and 39.5%) and HD 28 (87.5% and 78.9%) were not statistically different. The proportion of patients requiring MV support by HD 28 was significantly lower in the remdesivir group than in the supportive care group (22.9% vs. 44.7%, P = 0.032), and MV duration was significantly shorter in the remdesivir group (average, 1.97 vs. 5.37 days; P = 0.017). Analysis of upper respiratory tract specimens demonstrated that increases of Ct value from HD 1–5 to 11–15 were significantly greater in the remdesivir group than the supportive care group (average, 10.19 vs. 5.36; P = 0.007), and the slope of the Ct value increase was also significantly steeper in the remdesivir group (average, 5.10 vs. 2.68; P = 0.007). Conclusion The remdesivir group showed clinical and virologic benefit in terms of MV requirement and viral load reduction, supporting remdesivir treatment for severe COVID-19.