Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is often accompanied by secondary infections, such as invasive aspergillosis. In this study, risk factors for developing COVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA) and their clinical outcomes were evaluated. Methods This multicenter retrospective cohort study included critically ill COVID-19 patients from July 2020 through March 2021. Critically ill patients were defined as patients requiring high-flow respiratory support or mechanical ventilation. CAPA was defined based on the 2020 European Confederation of Medical Mycology and the International Society for Human and Animal Mycology consensus criteria. Factors associated with CAPA were analyzed, and their clinical outcomes were adjusted by a propensity score-matched model. Results Among 187 eligible patients, 17 (9.1%) developed CAPA, which is equal to 33.10 per 10,000 patient-days. Sixteen patients received voriconazole-based antifungal treatment. In addition, 82.4% and 53.5% of patients with CAPA and without CAPA, respectively, received early high-dose corticosteroids ( P = 0.022). In multivariable analysis, initial 10-day cumulative steroid dose > 60 mg of dexamethasone or dexamethasone equivalent dose) (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 3.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03–13.79) and chronic pulmonary disease (adjusted OR, 4.20; 95% CI, 1.26–14.02) were independently associated with CAPA. Tendencies of higher 90-day overall mortality (54.3% vs. 35.2%, P = 0.346) and lower respiratory support-free rate were observed in patients with CAPA (76.3% vs. 54.9%, P = 0.089). Conclusion Our study showed that the dose of corticosteroid use might be a risk factor for CAPA development and the possibility of CAPA contributing to adverse outcomes in critically ill COVID-19 patients.

No abstract

Background During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the incidence of rhinovirus (RV) is inversely related to the intensity of non-pharmacological interventions (NPIs), such as universal mask wearing and physical distancing. Methods Using RV surveillance data, changes in the effect of NPIs were investigated in South Korea during the pandemic. The time to the first visible effect of NPIs after the onset of NPIs (T1), time to the maximum effect (T2), and duration of the maximum effect (T3) were measured for each surge. For each week, the RVdiff [(RV incidence during the pandemic) − (RV incidence within 5 years before the pandemic)] was calculated, and number of weeks for RVdiff to be below zero after NPIs (time to RVdiff ≤ 0) and number of weeks RVdiff remains below zero after NPIs (duration of RVdiff ≤ 0) were measured for each surge. Results During the study period, four surges of COVID-19 were reported. As the pandemic progressed, T1 and T2 increased, but T3 decreased. Additionally, the “time to RVdiff of ≤ 0” increased and “duration of RVdiff of ≤ 0” decreased. These changes became more pronounced during the third surge (mid-November 2020), before the introduction of the COVID-19 vaccine, and from the emergence of the delta variant. Conclusion The effect of NPIs appears slower, the duration of the effect becomes shorter, and the intensity also decreases less than a year after the onset of the pandemic owing to people’s exhaustion in implementing NPIs. These findings suggest that the COVID-19 response strategy must be completely overhauled.

Background Before the omicron era, health care workers were usually vaccinated with either the primary 2-dose ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca) series plus a booster dose of BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) (CCB group) or the primary 2-dose BNT162b2 series plus a booster dose of BNT162b2 (BBB group) in Korea. Methods The two groups were compared using quantification of the surrogate virus neutralization test for wild type severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SVNT-WT), the omicron variant (SVNT-O), spike-specific IgG, and interferon-gamma (IFN-γ), as well as the omicron breakthrough infection cases. Results There were 113 participants enrolled in the CCB group and 51 enrolled in the BBB group. Before and after booster vaccination, the median SVNT-WT and SVNT-O values were lower in the CCB (SVNT-WT [before-after]: 72.02–97.61%, SVNT-O: 15.18–42.29%) group than in the BBB group (SVNT-WT: 89.19–98.11%, SVNT-O: 23.58–68.56%; all P < 0.001). Although the median IgG concentrations were different between the CCB and BBB groups after the primary series (2.677 vs. 4.700 AU/mL, respectively, P < 0.001), they were not different between the two groups after the booster vaccination (7.246 vs. 7.979 AU/mL, respectively, P = 0.108). In addition, the median IFN-γ concentration was higher in the BBB group than in the CCB group (550.5 and 387.5 mIU/mL, respectively, P = 0.014). There was also a difference in the cumulative incidence curves over time (CCB group 50.0% vs. BBB group 41.8%; P = 0.045), indicating that breakthrough infection occurred faster in the CCB group. Conclusion The cellular and humoral immune responses were low in the CCB group so that the breakthrough infection occurred faster in the CCB group than in the BBB group.

No abstract