Considering the high morbidity and mortality of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in patients with malignancy, they are regarded as a priority for COVID-19 vaccination. However, general vaccine uptake rates among cancer patients are known to be lower than in their healthy counterparts. Thus, we aimed to investigate the attitude and acceptance rates for the COVID-19 vaccine in cancer patients and identify predictive factors for vaccination that could be modified to increase vaccine uptake rates, via a paper-based survey (58 items over six domains). A total of 1001 cancer patients participated in this nationwide, multicenter survey between February and April 2021. We observed that 61.8% of respondents were willing to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. Positive predictive factors found to be independently associated with vaccination were male gender, older age, obesity, previous influenza vaccination history, absence of cancer recurrence, time since cancer diagnosis over 5 years, and higher EuroQol Visual Analogue Scale scores. Along with the well-known factors that are positively correlated with vaccination, here, we report that patients’ disease status and current health status were also associated with their acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccination. Moreover, 91.2% of cancer patients were willing to be vaccinated if their attending physicians recommend it, indicating that almost 30% could change their decision upon physicians’ recommendation. Unlike other factors, which are unmodifiable, physicians’ recommendation is the single modifiable factor that could change patients’ behavior. In conclusion, we firstly report that Korean cancer patients’ acceptance rate of the COVID-19 vaccination was 61.8% and associated with disease status and current health status. Physicians should play a major role in aiding cancer patients’ decision-making concerning COVID-19 vaccines.

This study shows a severely hampered humoral immune response to H1N1 influenza vaccine in patients with NMOSD treated with rituximab, although the vaccination itself is safe in these patients.

pThe purpose of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of vancomycin to those of teicoplanin for the treatment of adult patients with health care-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (HA-MRSA) bacteremia. A multicenter observational study was prospectively conducted in 15 teaching hospitals in Korea between February 2010 and July 2011. Adult patients (>18 years old) with HA-MRSA bacteremia who were initially treated with vancomycin (VAN) (n ‫؍‬ 134) or teicoplanin (TEC) (n ‫؍‬ 56) were enrolled. Clinical and microbiological responses and drug-related adverse events were compared between the two treatment groups using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses. The vancomycin and teicoplanin MICs were determined by Etest. The MRSA-related mortality, duration of fever, and duration of MRSA bacteremia in the treatment groups were not significantly different. There was no significant difference in the occurrence of drug-related adverse events. Among the 190 MRSA isolates, the VAN MICs ranged from 0.5 to 2 g/ml (MIC 50 and MIC 90 , 1.5 g/ml), and the TEC MIC ranged from 0.5 to 8 g/ml (MIC 50 , 3 g/ml; MIC 90 , 6 g/ml). In multivariate analyses, the antibiotic type (vancomycin or teicoplanin) was not associated with treatment outcomes. This study indicates that teicoplanin is an effective and safe alternative to vancomycin for the treatment of HA-MRSA bacteremia.

BackgroundThe purported value of empirical therapy to cover methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) has been debated for decades. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of inappropriate empirical antibiotic therapy on clinical outcomes in patients with healthcare-associated MRSA bacteremia (HA-MRSAB).MethodsA prospective, multicenter, observational study was conducted in 15 teaching hospitals in the Republic of Korea from February 2010 to July 2011. The study subjects included adult patients with HA-MRSAB. Covariate adjustment using the propensity score was performed to control for bias in treatment assignment. The predictors of in-hospital mortality were determined by multivariate logistic regression analyses.ResultsIn total, 345 patients with HA-MRSAB were analyzed. The overall in-hospital mortality rate was 33.0 %. Appropriate empirical antibiotic therapy was given to 154 (44.6 %) patients. The vancomycin minimum inhibitory concentrations of the MRSA isolates ranged from 0.5 to 2 mg/L by E-test. There was no significant difference in mortality between propensity-matched patient pairs receiving inappropriate or appropriate empirical antibiotics (odds ratio [OR] = 1.20; 95 % confidence interval [CI] = 0.71–2.03). Among patients with severe sepsis or septic shock, there was no significant difference in mortality between the treatment groups. In multivariate analyses, severe sepsis or septic shock (OR = 5.45; 95 % CI = 2.14–13.87), Charlson’s comorbidity index (per 1-point increment; OR = 1.52; 95 % CI = 1.27–1.83), and prior receipt of glycopeptides (OR = 3.24; 95 % CI = 1.08–9.67) were independent risk factors for mortality.ConclusionInappropriate empirical antibiotic therapy was not associated with clinical outcome in patients with HA-MRSAB. Prudent use of empirical glycopeptide therapy should be justified even in hospitals with high MRSA prevalence.

No abstract