Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination may non-specifically alter the host immune system. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of COVID-19 vaccination on hepatitis B surface Ag (HBsAg) titer and host immunity in chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients. Consecutive 2,797 CHB patients who had serial HBsAg measurements during antiviral treatment were included in this study. Changes in the HBsAg levels after COVID-19 vaccination were analyzed. The dynamics of NK cells following COVID-19 vaccination were also examined using serial blood samples collected prospectively from 25 healthy volunteers. Vaccinated CHB patients (n=2,329) had significantly lower HBsAg levels 1–30 days post-vaccination compared to baseline (median, −21.4 IU/ml from baseline), but the levels reverted to baseline by 91–180 days (median, −3.8 IU/ml). The velocity of the HBsAg decline was transiently accelerated within 30 days after vaccination (median velocity: −0.06, −0.39, and −0.04 log 10 IU/ml/year in pre-vaccination period, days 1–30, and days 31–90, respectively). In contrast, unvaccinated patients (n=468) had no change in HBsAg levels. Flow cytometric analysis showed that the frequency of NK cells expressing NKG2A, an NK inhibitory receptor, significantly decreased within 7 days after the first dose of COVID-19 vaccine (median, −13.1% from baseline; p<0.001). The decrease in the frequency of NKG2A + NK cells was observed in the CD56dimCD16+ NK cell population regardless of type of COVID-19 vaccine. COVID-19 vaccination leads to a rapid, transient decline in HBsAg titer and a decrease in the frequency of NKG2A + NK cells.

Neutralizing antibodies targeted at the receptor-binding domain of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike protein have been developed and now under evaluation in clinical trials. The US Food and Drug Administration currently issued emergency use authorizations for neutralizing monoclonal antibodies in non-hospitalized patients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who are at high risk for progressing to severe disease and/or hospitalization. In terms of this situation, there is an urgent need to investigate the clinical aspects and to develop strategies to deploy them effectively in clinical practice. Here we provide guidance for the use of anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies for the treatment of COVID-19 based on the latest evidence.

Despite the global effort to mitigate the spread, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a pandemic that took more than 2 million lives. There are numerous ongoing clinical studies aiming to find treatment options and many are being published daily. Some effective treatment options, albeit of variable efficacy, have been discovered. Therefore, it is necessary to develop an evidence-based methodology, to continuously check for new evidence, and to update recommendations accordingly. Here we provide guidelines on pharmaceutical treatment for COVID-19 based on the latest evidence.

Coronavirus disease 2019 vaccinations for healthcare workers (HCWs) have begun in South Korea. To investigate adverse events (AEs) of the first dose of each vaccine, any symptom was collected daily for seven days after vaccination in a tertiary hospital. We found that 1,301 of 1,403 ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 recipients and 38 of 80 BNT162b2 recipients reported AEs respectively (90.9% vs. 52.5%): injection-site pain (77.7% vs. 51.2%), myalgia (60.5% vs.11.2%), fatigue (50.7% vs. 7.5%), headache (47.4% vs. 7.5%), and fever (36.1% vs. 5%; P < 0.001 for all). Young HCWs reported more AEs with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 than with BNT162b2.No incidences of anaphylaxis were observed. Only one serious AE required hospitalization for serious vomiting, and completely recovered. In conclusion, reported AEs were more common in recipients with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 than in those with BNT162b2. However, most of the reported AEs were mild to moderate in severity. Sufficient explanation and preparation for expected AEs required to promote widespread vaccination.

Neutralizing antibodies targeted at the receptor-binding domain of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike protein have been developed and now under evaluation in clinical trials. The US Food and Drug Administration currently issued emergency use authorizations for neutralizing monoclonal antibodies in non-hospitalized patients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who are at high risk for progressing to severe disease and/or hospitalization. In terms of this situation, there is an urgent need to investigate the clinical aspects and to develop strategies to deploy them effectively in clinical practice. Here we provide guidance for the use of anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies for the treatment of COVID-19 based on the latest evidence.

Despite the global effort to mitigate the spread, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a pandemic that took more than 2 million lives. There are numerous ongoing clinical studies aiming to find treatment options and many are being published daily. Some effective treatment options, albeit of variable efficacy, have been discovered. Therefore, it is necessary to develop an evidence-based methodology, to continuously check for new evidence, and to update recommendations accordingly. Here we provide guidelines on pharmaceutical treatment for COVID-19 based on the latest evidence.

Coronavirus disease 2019 vaccinations for healthcare workers (HCWs) have begun in South Korea. To investigate adverse events (AEs) of the first dose of each vaccine, any symptom was collected daily for seven days after vaccination in a tertiary hospital. We found that 1,301 of 1,403 ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 recipients and 38 of 80 BNT162b2 recipients reported AEs respectively (90.9% vs. 52.5%): injection-site pain (77.7% vs. 51.2%), myalgia (60.5% vs.11.2%), fatigue (50.7% vs. 7.5%), headache (47.4% vs. 7.5%), and fever (36.1% vs. 5%; P < 0.001 for all). Young HCWs reported more AEs with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 than with BNT162b2.No incidences of anaphylaxis were observed. Only one serious AE required hospitalization for serious vomiting, and completely recovered. In conclusion, reported AEs were more common in recipients with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 than in those with BNT162b2. However, most of the reported AEs were mild to moderate in severity. Sufficient explanation and preparation for expected AEs required to promote widespread vaccination.

PURPOSE: While there is an urgent need for diagnosis and therapeutic intervention in patients with primary immunodeficiency diseases (PIDs), current genetic tests have drawbacks. We retrospectively reviewed the usefulness of flow cytometry (FCM) as a quick tool for immunophenotyping and functional assays in patients suspected to have PIDs at a single tertiary care institute.METHODS: Between January 2001 and June 2018, patients suspected of having PIDs were subjected to FCM tests, including lymphocyte subset analysis, detection of surface- or intracellular-target proteins, and functional analysis of immune cells, at Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, Korea. The genetic diagnosis was performed using Sanger or diagnostic exome sequencing.RESULTS: Of 60 patients diagnosed with definite or probable PID according to the European Society of Immune Deficiencies criteria, 24 patients were provided with useful information about immunological dysfunction after initial FCM testing. In 10 patients, the PID diagnosis was based on abnormal findings in FCM testing without genetic tests. The FCM findings provided strong evidence for the diagnosis of severe combined immunodeficiency (n = 6), X-linked chronic granulomatous diseases (CGD) (n = 6), leukocyte adhesion deficiency type 1 (n = 3), X-linked agammaglobulinemia (n = 11), autoimmune lymphoproliferative syndrome-FASLG (n = 1), and familial hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis type 2 (n = 1), and probable evidence for autosomal recessive-CGD (n = 2), autosomal dominant-hyper-immunoglobulin E (IgE)-syndrome (n = 1), and STAT1 gain-of-function mutation (n = 1). In PIDs derived from PIK3CD (n = 2), LRBA (n = 2), and CTLA4 mutations (n = 3), the FCM test provided useful evidence of immune abnormalities and a tool for treatment monitoring.CONCLUSIONS: The initial application of FCM, particularly with known protein targets on immune cells, would facilitate the timely diagnosis of PIDs and thus would support clinical decisions and improve the clinical outcome.
Agammaglobulinemia ; Diagnosis ; Exome ; Flow Cytometry ; Genetic Testing ; Granulomatous Disease, Chronic ; Humans ; Immunophenotyping ; Korea ; Leukocytes ; Lymphocyte Subsets ; Lymphohistiocytosis, Hemophagocytic ; Phenotype ; Retrospective Studies ; Seoul ; Severe Combined Immunodeficiency ; Tertiary Healthcare

Since the first case was reported in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China on December 12, 2019, Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread widely to other countries since January 2020. As of April 16, 2020, 10635 confirmed cases have been reported, with 230 deaths in Korea. COVID-19 patients may be asymptomatic or show various clinical manifestations, including acute symptoms such as fever, fatigue, sore throat; pneumonia presenting as acute respiratory distress syndrome; and multiple organ failure. As COVID-19 has such varied clinical manifestations and case fatality rates, no standard antiviral therapy regimen has been established other than supportive therapy. In the present guideline, we aim to introduce potentially helpful antiviral and other drug therapies based on in vivo and in vitro research and clinical experiences from many countries.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has penetrated our daily lives, leading us to a new normal era. The unexpected impact of COVID-19 has posed a unique challenge for the health care system, bringing innovation around the world. Considering the current pandemic pattern, comprehensive preparedness strategies of healthcare resources need to be implemented to prepare for a large resurgence of COVID-19 within a short time. With the unprecedented spread of the new pandemic and the impending influenza season, scientific evidence-based schemes need to be developed through cooperation, coordination, and solidarity. Based on the early experience with the current pandemic, this narrative interpretive review of qualitative studies suggests a 6-domain plan to establish a better health care system that is prepared to deal with the current and future public health crises. The 6 domains are medical institutions, medical workforce, medical equipment, COVID-19 surveillance, data and information application, and governance structure.