Search

This study presents a framework for determining the prioritization of vaccine introduction in the National Immunization Program (NIP) of the Republic of Korea, with a focus on case examples assessed in 2021 and 2023. We describe the predefined criteria for evaluating the prioritization of vaccines in the NIP and the established process in the Republic of Korea. These criteria included disease characteristics, vaccine characteristics, rationality and efficiency of resource allocation, and the acceptance of immunization. The process of prioritizing NIP introduction involved several sequential steps: a demand survey, evidence collection, preliminary evaluation, priority evaluation, and decision making. In 2021 and 2023, 14 and 25 committee members participated in evaluating the prioritization of vaccines in the NIP, respectively. Overall, 13 and 19 NIP vaccine candidates were included in the 2021 and 2023 evaluations, respectively. Through the Delphi survey and consensus processes, the priority order was determined: vaccination against Rotavirus infection was the top priority in 2021, while Influenza 4v (for chronic disease patients) took precedence in 2023. This study demonstrates an evidence-based decision-making process within the healthcare field. The outlined approach may provide valuable guidance for policymakers in other countries seeking to prioritize the inclusion of new vaccines in their NIP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This document is a correction notice for an article titled "Clinical efficacy and safety of interferon (Type I and Type III) therapy in patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials." The correction states that there were errors in the Funding section of the original article and provides the correct funding statement. The research was supported by the National Evidence-based Collaborating Agency in the Republic of Korea, and there was no additional internal or external funding received. The funding source had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis, decision to publish, or manuscript preparation. The correction notice provides the correct reference for the original article and includes information about the open access license. [Extracted from the article]

Background: Human papillomavirus (HPV) infection is a major global disease burden and the main cause of cervical cancer. Certain HPV genotypes, with are the most common etiologic pathogens and cause a significant disease burden, are being targeted for vaccine development. However, few studies have focused on the comparative effectiveness of the bivalent HPV (2v-HPV), quadrivalent HPV (4v-HPV), and nonavalent HPV (9v-HPV) vaccines against HPV strain-specific infection. This study investigated the comparative effects of these vaccines against genotype-specific infection., Materials and Methods: We conducted a pairwise and network meta-analysis of published randomized clinical trials of HPV vaccines according to sex and HPV infection status for nine HPV genotypes (HPV 6/11/16/18/31/33/45/52/58)., Results: Overall, 10 randomized controlled trials (12 articles) were included in this study. In the network meta-analysis, no statistically significant differences were observed in the prevention of carcinogenic HPV strains (16/18/31/33/45/52/58) between the 2v-HPV and 4v-HPV vaccines in female HPV infection-naïve populations. However, the 9v-HPV vaccine showed a significantly superior effect compared with 2v-HPV and 4v-HPV vaccines in preventing HPV 31/33/45/52/58 infections. Although 2v-HPV and 4v-HPV vaccines provided some cross-protection against HPV 31/33/45/52/58 infections, the effect was significant only on HPV 31 infection. For HPV 16 and 18, neither statistically significant nor small differences were found in the prevention of HPV infection among the 2v-HPV, 4v-HPV, and 9v-HPV vaccines., Conclusion: Our study complements previous understanding of how the effect of HPV vaccines differs according to the HPV genotype. This is important because HPV genotype prevalence varies among countries. We advocate for continued efforts in vaccinating against HPV, while public health agencies should consider the difference in the vaccine effect and HPV genotype prevalence when implementing HPV vaccination in public vaccination programs., Competing Interests: No conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 by The Korean Society of Infectious Diseases, Korean Society for Antimicrobial Therapy, and The Korean Society for AIDS.)

Purpose: Improving survival and health-related quality of life (HRQOL), along with symptom relief, is important for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC). This study measured HRQOL and analyzed its influence on sociodemographic and clinical factors in patients with MBC., Methods: We interviewed 298 patients with MBC to investigate their sociodemographic characteristics and HRQOL by using EuroQol-5D-5L (EQ-5D) between September and October 2014. We also reviewed medical records to examine the clinical condition of the patients, including disease progression, adverse events, treatments, chronic disease, and metastatic areas. The distribution of the EQ-5D index was compared between different clinical conditions by using the Kruskal-Wallis test. We also conducted multiple regression analyses to identify the factors affecting HRQOL in patients with MBC., Results: The mean EQ-5D index was 0.79 for all patients surveyed. The mean EQ-5D index score was significantly lower in patients in the progressed state than in those in the progression-free survival state (0.73 vs. 0.80, p = 0.0002). The HRQOL of patients treated with chemotherapy alone was significantly lower than that of patients treated with hormonal or targeted therapy (0.76 vs. 0.82 or 0.85; p = 0.0020). Regression analysis revealed that the clinical factors associated with lower HRQOL were progressed state, chemotherapy, and adverse events, such as hair loss or stomatitis. Finally, young age, high income, and employment were the sociodemographic factors that were positively associated with better HRQOL., Conclusion: This study provides new information on the health utility of MBC patients on the basis of various patient characteristics and offers insights that can assist medical professionals in treating patients with MBC and help policymakers implement cancer strategies. Further research is needed to reflect the changing environment of cancer treatment and enrich available evidence., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (© 2023 Korean Breast Cancer Society.)

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., Competing Interests: No conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 by The Korean Society of Infectious Diseases, Korean Society for Antimicrobial Therapy, and The Korean Society for AIDS.)

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., Competing Interests: No conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 by The Korean Society of Infectious Diseases, Korean Society for Antimicrobial Therapy, and The Korean Society for AIDS.)