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.

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has emerged as a promising tool for various clinical applications, including early diagnosis, therapeutic target identification, treatment response monitoring, prognosis evaluation, and minimal residual disease detection. Consequently, ctDNA assays have been incorporated into clinical practice. In this review, we offer an indepth exploration of the clinical implementation of ctDNA assays. Notably, we examined existing evidence related to pre-analytical procedures, analytical components in current technologies, and result interpretation and reporting processes. The primary objective of this guidelines is to provide recommendations for the clinical utilization of ctDNA assays.

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.

Background: A dual regimen with dolutegravir plus cobicistat-boosted darunavir (DTG+DRV/c) is a promising alternative for patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) with resistance or intolerance to nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, especially those with a history of treatment failure. Materials and Methods: We included all treatment-experienced patients with HIV who switched to the DTG+DRV/c regimen at a tertiary university hospital. We assessed the regimen's effectiveness, safety, and tolerability through serial laboratory data and clinical findings. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with plasma HIV-RNA levels <50 copies/mL at week 144 post-switch. The secondary endpoints were safety and tolerability assessments. Results: Our retrospective analysis involved 40 patients. The leading reasons for switching to DTG+DRV/c were treatment failure in 17 patients (42.5%), simplification after multiple previous regimens in 15 (37.5%), and adverse drug reactions in 8 (20.0%). Among the 17 patients in the treatment failure group, we observed enhanced viral suppression and improved CD4+ T-cell counts after initiating the dual regimen. In the non-treatment failure group (23 patients), viral suppression and CD4+ T-cell levels were consistently maintained. No significant alterations in renal function, liver function, glucose levels, or lipid profiles were observed post-switch. High tolerability was observed, with 34/40 patients (85.0%) responding well to the regimen. However, six patients discontinued treatment before reaching the 144-week mark. Conclusion Our findings confirm that DTG+DRV/c is an effective and well-tolerated switch therapy regimen for treatment-experienced patients with HIV, with sustained benefits observed for up to 144 weeks of follow-up. This regimen showed adaptability across different patient groups and demonstrated virological and immunological improvements, particularly in patients with a history of treatment failure.

Background: BRCA testing is necessary for establishing a management strategy for ovarian cancer. Several BRCA testing strategies, including germline and somatic testing, are implemented in clinical practice in Korea. We aimed to comparatively evaluate their cost-effectiveness from patients’ perspective. Methods: We developed a decision model comprising five BRCA testing strategies implemented in Korea: (1) germline testing first, followed by somatic tumor testing for patients without a germline variant; (2) somatic testing first, followed by germline testing for patients with a variant detected by somatic testing; (3) both germline and somatic testing; (4) germline testing alone; and (5) somatic testing alone, with no testing as the comparator. One-way sensitivity analysis was conducted to test the uncertainty of key parameters. Results: Assuming a willingness-to-pay of $20,000 per progression-free life-year gain (PF-LYG), all five strategies were considered cost-effective. Strategy 4 was the most cost-effective option, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $2,547.7 per PF-LYG, followed by strategy 1, with an ICER of $3,978.4 per PF-LYG. Even when the parameter values were varied within the possible range, the ICERs of all strategies did not exceed the willingness-to-pay threshold. Conclusions Considering the importance of knowing a patient’s BRCA gene status, germline testing first, followed by somatic testing, may be a reasonable option.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine knowledge, attitudes, performance, and barriers to pain management of nurses working in oncology settings. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted on 222 nurses in five tertiary hospitals in Korea.The period of data collection was 1 September to 30 November 2018. Participants were surveyed using the Nurse Knowledge and Attitudes Survey Regarding Pain (NKASRP), a pain management performance, and barriers questionnaire. The data were analyzed through independent t-test and One-way ANOVA, and the post-hoc test was conducted with the Scheffé test using the SPSS 23 program. Results: According to the study, oncology nurses’ knowledge and attitudes to pain received a score of 26.4±3.77 (out of 41 points) and the performance received a score of 3.24±0.35 (out of 4 points). Among the barriers to pain management, time constraints were the most frequent medical staff-related factor, and reluctance to take opioids was the most frequent patient-related factor. In terms of factors related to the health care system, strict regulation of opioids was the most significant. There was a significant positive correlation between knowledge and attitude of pain management and performance of pain management. Conclusion Based on the findings of this study, it is recommended that structured education programs to be developed and implemented to enhance knowledge, attitudes, and performance on pain.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine knowledge, attitudes, performance, and barriers to pain management of nurses working in oncology settings. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted on 222 nurses in five tertiary hospitals in Korea.The period of data collection was 1 September to 30 November 2018. Participants were surveyed using the Nurse Knowledge and Attitudes Survey Regarding Pain (NKASRP), a pain management performance, and barriers questionnaire. The data were analyzed through independent t-test and One-way ANOVA, and the post-hoc test was conducted with the Scheffé test using the SPSS 23 program. Results: According to the study, oncology nurses’ knowledge and attitudes to pain received a score of 26.4±3.77 (out of 41 points) and the performance received a score of 3.24±0.35 (out of 4 points). Among the barriers to pain management, time constraints were the most frequent medical staff-related factor, and reluctance to take opioids was the most frequent patient-related factor. In terms of factors related to the health care system, strict regulation of opioids was the most significant. There was a significant positive correlation between knowledge and attitude of pain management and performance of pain management. Conclusion Based on the findings of this study, it is recommended that structured education programs to be developed and implemented to enhance knowledge, attitudes, and performance on pain.

Cohort Studies ; Coinfection ; Hepatitis B virus ; HIV Infections ; HIV ; Humans ; Immunization, Secondary ; Korea ; Parturition ; Prevalence ; Vaccination

From December 2006 to December 2016, 1093 human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) individuals < 70 years enrolled in Korea human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS) cohort were analyzed to investigate the prevalence of HIV/HBV co-infection rate and hepatitis B virus surface antibody (HBsAb) positive rate based on birth year. The HBV co-infection prevalence rate was the highest (8.8%) in patients born between 1960 and 1964 and the lowest (0%) among those born between 1995 and 1999. A decreasing linear trend of HBV co-infection rate was observed according to the 5-year interval changes. HBsAb-positive rate was only 58.1% in our study. The national HBV vaccination programs have effectively lowered the HBV co-infection rate in HIV population. However, it is identified that the HIV population has low HBsAb positive rate. Further evidences supporting efficacy of booster immunization for HBsAb negative HIV patients are required and efforts should be made to increase HBsAb positive rates among HIV patients to prevent horizontal transmission.