PHWR Public Health Weekly Report

Vol.15 No.2, January 13, 2022 Article TypeIssues on COVID-19 vaccinesNoncommunicable Disease StatisticsOriginal Articles

• Issues on COVID-19 vaccines 2022-01-13

  0 500 211

  Monitoring status of adverse events following immunization on the third dose of the COVID-19 vaccine

  Mijeong Ko, Insob Hwang, Seontae Kim, Hyungjun Kim, Yeon-Kyeng Lee, Yunhyung Kwon

  Public Health Weekly Report 2022; 15(2): 82-90

  

  

  Abstract

  Full Text Cite Share

  The incidence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains prevalent despite vaccine administration because of the worldwide spread of the Delta variant. The requirement for a third dose of the COVID-19 vaccine has emerged due to a reduction in the effectiveness of the vaccines over time. Thus, in the Republic of Korea (ROK), the third dose of the COVID-19 vaccine has been administered sequentially since October 12, 2021, starting from persons at high-risk for severe COVID-19, to better protect the population from the infection, the severity of the disease, and death from COVID-19. In order to identify and respond to the incidence of adverse events (AEs) following COVID-19 vaccinations, a monitoring survey was conducted via mobile texts.
  This report analyzed the suspected AEs reported in the Korea Immunization Management System (KIMS) for COVID-19 from February 26, 2021, to November 20, 2021, and the responses of a survey on the AEs and health status of individuals who received the third dose of the vaccine between November 1, 2021, and November 8, 2021, from days 0 to 7 of receiving the third dose. In the case of the Janssen vaccine, as the primary vaccination series (first and second dose) is considered complete after the first dose, a second dose of the Janssen vaccine was classified as the third dose.
  According to an analysis of the suspected AEs reported in the KIMS during the observation period, 96.4% of the reported cases showed non-serious AEs and 3.6% were serious AEs. Moreover, as the number of doses increased, the number of reports of suspected AEs decreased. According to the results of the mobile text monitoring survey, the incidence of AEs was the lowest among those who received the Pfizer vaccine for all three doses (30.4%) and the highest among those who received one dose of the Janssen vaccine followed by a second dose of the Moderna vaccine (45.7%). Among the local AEs the most common response was pain at the injection site, while the most common systemic AEs were myalgia, fatigue/ tiredness, and headache.
  This report presents a preliminary analysis of the AEs of the third dose of the COVID-19 vaccine in the ROK to identify safety information on the third dose. In the future, AEs will continue to be monitored and relevant information will be shared and reviewed with experts to promote a safe COVID-19 vaccination program.

• Original Articles 2022-01-13

  0 1203 468

  Comparative assessment between automated devices and a non-mercury auscultatory device in the Korea National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey

  Eun Mi Lee, Yu-Mi Kim, Jinho Shin, Ki-Chul Sung, Sang-Hyun Ihm, Dae-Hee Kim, Sang Min Park, In-Jeong Cho, Seong Heon Kim, Gyeong-Ji Woo, Yoonjung Kim, Kyung-Won Oh

  Public Health Weekly Report 2022; 15(2): 96-103

  

  

  Abstract

  Full Text Cite Share

  Mercury sphygmomanometer (MS) was the gold standard for blood pressure (BP) measurement in the Korean National Heath and Nutritional Examination Survey (KNHANES), but it was no longer permitted by law in 2020 due to the Minamata Convention. Non-mercury sphygmomanometers include auscultatory devices (ADs) and automated oscillometer devices (ODs). Thus, to investigate the accurate BP device suitable for future surveys, this report analyzed the results of two comparative studies with OD (Microlife Watch BP Office AFIB) vs AD (Greenlight 300^TM) as reference standards according to the 2018 universal protocol for BP device validation (BP differences 5±8 mmHg) and its impact of hypertension prevalence.
  Four trained observers measured BP with test devices and with Greenlight 300, the KNHANES standardized protocol of BP measurement. Measurements were repeated 3 times for each device after 5 minutes resting with a randomized device sequence. The BP difference was defined as the test device reading minus the reference device reading.
  The Microlife study was conducted with 800 subjects (mean age 51.2±17.5 years, 44.3% male) categorized into two groups [402 OD (microlife)-first vs 398 AD (Greenlight 300)-first]. The overall mean BP difference was -1.1± 6.5/-2.6±4.9 for SBP/ DBP. The overall Lin`s CCC was 0.907/0.844 for SBP/DBP (0.925 vs 0.892 for SBP and 0.842 vs 0.845 for DBP in OD-first vs AD-first respectively). The Lin`s CCC for females was higher than that of males (0.915 vs 0.887 for SBP, 0.844 vs 0.827 for DBP). In multivariate analysis, Microlife BP levels and males were positively correlated, while AD was negatively associated with both SBP and the DBP age difference was negatively associated with SBP difference and positively associated with DBP difference. Agreement for hypertension (BP≥140/and or 90 mmHg) was overall 0.71 (k=0.73 in OD-first group and k=0.69 in AD-first group) compared with Greenlight 300, Microlife underestimated the prevalence of hypertension by overall 5.1% (OD-first group 3.8% vs AD-first group 6.5%, p<0.001).
  In conclusion, Microlife met the universal protocol for both SBP and DBP. However, the prevalence of hypertension was significantly underestimated by Greenlight 300 among the Microlife group. Therefore, these findings suggested that correction formulas should be used to minimize the fluctuations of hypertension prevalence to use automated BP devices for future KNHANES surveys.

• Original Articles 2022-01-13

  0 1250 313

  Trends in mobile biosafety level 3 laboratory development

  Kyungjong Sim, Minwoo Park, Haengseop Shin, Yousin Jun, Sungjae Lee

  Public Health Weekly Report 2022; 15(2): 104-113

  

  

  Abstract

  Full Text Cite Share

  Mobile biomedical facilities are high security, state of the art facilities which enable scientists to safely handle infectious materials. When the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) became a global pandemic various forms of mobile biomedical facilities were developed with specific purposes such as screening stations, and mobile negative pressure isolation rooms. Biosafety addresses the safe handling and containment of hazardous biological materials and infectious microorganisms. There are four levels. This article examined biosafety level 3 (BSL3). Due to mounting demand, mobile biomedical facilities such as BSL3 labs, biomedical facilities used to study infectious agents or toxins that may be transmitted through the air and cause potentially lethal infection, were expected to rise. To ensure the safety of workers as well as the protection of the environment it is critical to establish guidelines and national standards specific to mobile biomedical facilities. Through in-depth analysis of the available data regarding current mobile biosafety facilities including relevant patents and research articles, this article explored recent trends in standards and requirements related to BSL3 labs.
  According to studies conducted domestically, mobile facilities do not meet the operational and facility standards of BSL3 labs based on relevant laws such as Transboundary Movement, etc. of Living Modified Organisms Act, and the Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act.
  Through the search of open sources regarding global BSL3 labs, this article found no available research data that indicated the existence of operational and facility standards for mobile biomedical facilities except for those in Europe. Findings indicated that most mobile biomedical facilities operating domestically or internationally were built based upon reputable biosafety guidelines such as the Laboratory Biosafety Manual (WHO), and Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories (CDC). There were no specific guidelines or procedures which indicated the design, construction, and operation of mobile biomedical facilities. This article recommended that guidelines and standards be established to reduce the risk factors in biosafety.

• Noncommunicable Disease Statistics 2022-01-13

  0 579 294

  Trends in skipping breakfast among Korean people, 2011-2020

  Public Health Weekly Report 2022; 15(2): 114-115

  

  

  Full Text Cite Share