Impact of T-Cell Engagers on COVID-19–Related Mortality in B-Cell Lymphoma Patients Receiving B-Cell Depleting Therapy / Journal of the Korean Cancer Association, 대한암학회지

Purpose@#B-cell depleting therapies, including T-cell engager (TCE), are increasingly used for patients with hematologic malignancies, including during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. We aimed to evaluate the relationship between TCE therapy and COVID-19–related outcomes among patients with COVID-19 and B-cell lymphomas receiving B-cell depleting therapy. @*Materials and Methods@#This retrospective cohort study included patients with B-cell lymphoma, who were admitted to Seoul Natio-nal University Hospital with COVID-19 between September 2021 and February 2023, and received B-cell depleting therapy before COVID-19 diagnosis. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with severe to critical COVID-19 and COVID-19–related mortality. @*Results@#Of 54 patients with B-cell lymphomas and COVID-19 who received B-cell depleting therapy, 14 were treated with TCE (TCE group) and 40 with rituximab (RTX group). COVID-19–related mortality was higher in the TCE group than in the RTX group (57.1% vs. 12.5%, p=0.002). In multivariable analyses, TCE therapy (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 7.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.29 to 38.76; p=0.024) and older age (aOR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.13; p=0.035) were associated with severe to critical COVID-19. TCE therapy (aOR, 8.98; 95% CI, 1.48 to 54.40; p=0.017), older age (aOR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.26; p=0.022), and prior bendamustine therapy (aOR, 7.78; 95% CI, 1.17 to 51.65; p=0.034) were independent risk factors for COVID-19–related mortality. @*Conclusion@#B-cell lymphoma patients treated with TCE had significantly worse outcomes from COVID-19 than those treated with RTX. TCE therapy should be used with caution in B-cell lymphoma patients during the COVID-19 epidemic.

Prevalence and Associated Factors of Depression and Anxiety Among Healthcare Workers During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic:A Nationwide Study in Korea

Background@#A healthcare system’s collapse due to a pandemic, such as the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), can expose healthcare workers (HCWs) to various mental health problems. This study aimed to investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the depression and anxiety of HCWs. @*Methods@#A nationwide questionnaire-based survey was conducted on HCWs who worked in healthcare facilities and public health centers in Korea in December 2020. Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) were used to measure depression and anxiety. To investigate factors associated with depression and anxiety, stepwise multiple logistic regression analysis was performed. @*Results@#A total of 1,425 participating HCWs were included. The mean depression score (PHQ-9) of HCWs before and after COVID-19 increased from 2.37 to 5.39, and the mean anxiety score (GAD-7) increased from 1.41 to 3.41. The proportion of HCWs with moderate to severe depression (PHQ-9 ≥ 10) increased from 3.8% before COVID-19 to 19.5% after COVID-19, whereas that of HCWs with moderate to severe anxiety (GAD-7 ≥ 10) increased from 2.0% to 10.1%. In our study, insomnia, chronic fatigue symptoms and physical symptoms after COVID-19, anxiety score (GAD-7) after COVID-19, living alone, and exhaustion were positively correlated with depression. Furthermore, post-traumatic stress symptoms, stress score (Global Assessment of Recent Stress), depression score (PHQ-9) after COVID-19, and exhaustion were positively correlated with anxiety. @*Conclusion@#In Korea, during the COVID-19 pandemic, HCWs commonly suffered from mental health problems, including depression and anxiety. Regularly checking the physical and mental health problems of HCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic is crucial, and social support and strategy are needed to reduce the heavy workload and psychological distress of HCWs.

Effect of Wearing Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for COVID-19Treatment on Blood Culture Contamination: Implication for Optimal PPE Strategies

The personal protective equipment (PPE) used to minimize exposure to hazards can hinder healthcare workers from performing sophisticated procedures. We retrospectively reviewed 77,535 blood cultures (202,012 pairs) performed in 28,502 patients from January 2020 to April 2022. The contamination rate of all blood cultures was significantly elevated in the coronavirus disease 2019 ward at 4.68%, compared to intensive care units at 2.56%, emergency rooms at 1.13%, hematology wards at 1.08%, and general wards at 1.07% (All of P < 0.001). This finding implies that wearing PPE might interfere with adherence to the aseptic technique. Therefore, a new PPE policy is needed that considers the balance between protecting healthcare workers and medical practices.

Adverse Drug Events Associated With Remdesivir in Real-World Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19, Including Vulnerable Populations: A Retrospective Multicenter Study

Background@#Remdesivir is a US Food and Drug Administration-approved drug for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Clinical trials were conducted under strictly controlled situations for a selected population, and their reported adverse events may not fully represent conditions in real-world patients. We aimed to estimate the incidence of adverse drug events (ADEs) associated with remdesivir in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, including vulnerable subpopulations, such as those with impaired renal or hepatic function and pregnant women. @*Methods@#This retrospective observational study included hospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19 treated with remdesivir between January and December 2021 at ten hospitals. ADEs and severe ADEs (Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events grade ≥ 3) were operationally defined and analyzed through laboratory investigations. The incidence of ADEs was compared with that of each matched control in subpopulations with renal or hepatic impairment and pregnant women. @*Results@#Among 2,140 patients, 1,416 (66.2%) and 295 (13.8%) experienced at least one ADE and severe ADE, respectively. The most frequent ADE was 'hepatic injury' (42.9%), followed by anemia (27.6%). The most common severe ADEs were 'hypokalemia' (5.3%), 'hepatic injury' (2.9%), and 'anemia' (3.6%). There was no significant difference in the incidence of ADEs in patients relative to their respective matched-control groups, including those with renal impairment (80.0% vs. control 71.8%, P = 0.063), hepatic impairment (70.4% vs. control 75.0%, P = 0.623) and pregnant women (78.6% vs. control 63.7%, P = 0.067). However, severe ADE incidence was significantly higher in patients with renal impairment (40.8% vs. 16.0%, P < 0.001). The most common severe ADEs in those were 'anemia' (15.3%), 'hypokalemia' (10.5%), and 'thrombocytopenia' (8.9%). There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of severe ADEs in patients with hepatic impairment or in pregnancy (P = 0.230; P = 0.085). @*Conclusion@#A significant proportion of patients with COVID-19 treated with remdesivir experienced ADEs and severe ADEs. Given the high incidence of severe ADEs, caution is required in patients with renal impairment. Further studies are needed to investigate ADEs in pregnant women and patients with hepatic impairment.

Significant Reduction in External Ventricular Drain-Related Infections After Introducing a Novel Bundle Protocol: A Before and After Trial

Background@#External ventricular drain (EVD)-related infection (ERI) is a serious complication in neurosurgical patients. The estimated ERI rates range from 5 to 20 cases per 1,000 EVD catheter days. The pathophysiology of ERI is similar to central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) stemming from skin-derived bacterial colonization. The use of bundle management can reduce CLABSI rates. Due to the pathogenic similarities between infections related to the two devices, we developed and evaluated the effectiveness of an ERI-bundle protocol based on CLABSI bundles. @*Methods@#From November 2016 to November 2021, we conducted a study to evaluate the effectiveness of an ERI-bundle protocol. This study adopted a before-and-after trial, comparing the ERI rates for the 2 years before and 3 years after the introduction of the newly developed ERI-bundle protocol. We also analyzed the contributing factors to ERI using logistic regression analysis. @*Results@#A total of 183 patients with 2,381 days of catheter use were analyzed. The ERI rate decreased significantly after the ERI-bundle protocol from 16.7% (14 of 84; 14.35 per 1,000 catheter days) to 4.0% (4 of 99; 3.21 per 1,000 catheter days) (P = 0.004). @*Conclusion@#Introduction of the ERI-bundle protocol was very effective in reducing ERI.

Workload of Healthcare Workers During the COVID-19 Outbreak in Korea: A Nationwide Survey

Background@#As the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is ongoing, heavy workload of healthcare workers (HCWs) is a concern. This study investigated the workload of HCWs responding to the COVID-19 outbreak in South Korea. @*Methods@#A nationwide cross-sectional survey was conducted from September 16 to October 15, 2020, involving 16 healthcare facilities (4 public medical centers, 12 tertiary-care hospitals) that provide treatment for COVID-19 patients. @*Results@#Public medical centers provided the majority (69.4%) of total hospital beds for COVID-19 patients (n = 611), on the other hand, tertiary care hospitals provided the majority (78.9%) of critical care beds (n = 57). The number of beds per doctor (median [IQR]) in public medical centers was higher than in tertiary care hospitals (20.2 [13.0, 29.4] versus 3.0 [1.3, 6.6], P = 0.006). Infectious Diseases physicians are mostly (80%) involved among attending physicians. The number of nurses per patient (median [interquartile range, IQR]) in tertiarycare hospitals was higher than in public medical centers (4.6 [3.4–5] vs. 1.1 [0.8–2.1], P =0.089). The median number of nurses per patient for COVID-19 patients was higher than the highest national standard in South Korea (3.8 vs. 2 for critical care). All participating healthcare facilities were also operating screening centers, for which a median of 2 doctors, 5 nurses, and 2 administrating staff were necessary. @*Conclusion@#As the severity of COVID-19 patients increases, the number of HCWs required increases. Because the workload of HCWs responding to the COVID-19 outbreak is much greater than other situations, a workforce management plan regarding this perspective is required to prevent burnout of HCWs.

Changes in Anxiety Level and Personal Protective Equipment Use Among Healthcare Workers Exposed to COVID-19

Background@#The relationship between changes in anxiety levels and personal protective equipment (PPE) use is yet to be evaluated. The present study assessed this relationship among healthcare workers (HCWs) involved in the care of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). @*Methods@#An online survey was conducted in a municipal hospital with 195 nationally designated negative pressure isolation units in Korea. Anxiety level was measured using the self-rating anxiety scale (SAS), and changes in anxiety levels were assessed based on the time when COVID-19 vaccine was introduced in March 2021 in Korea. Monthly PPE usage between June 2020 and May 2021 was investigated. @*Results@#The mean SAS score (33.25 ± 5.97) was within normal range and was lower than those reported in previous studies conducted before COVID-19 vaccination became available.Among the 93 HCWs who participated, 64 (68.8%) answered that their fear of contracting COVID-19 decreased after vaccination. The number of coveralls used per patient decreased from 33.6 to 0. However, a demand for more PPE than necessary was observed in situations where HCWs were exposed to body fluids and secretions (n = 38, 40.9%). Excessive demand for PPE was not related to age, working experience, or SAS score. @*Conclusion@#Anxiety in HCWs exposed to COVID-19 was lower than it was during the early period of the pandemic, and the period before vaccination was introduced. The number of coveralls used per patient also decreased although an excessive demand for PPE was observed.

Kinetics of Neutralizing Antibody Responses Against SARS-CoV-2 Delta Variant in Patients Infected at the Beginning of the Pandemic

We investigated the kinetics of the neutralizing antibody responses to the severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 delta variant over the course of 1 year in 16 patients infected at the beginning of the pandemic. In patients with severe disease, neutralizing responses to the delta variant were detectable, albeit at lower levels than responses to the wild type. Neutralizing responses to the delta variant were undetectable, however, in asymptomatic persons. This finding implies that the vaccination strategy for persons with past natural infection should depend on the severity of the previous infection.

How We Have Treated Severe to Critically Ill Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Korea

Since 2019, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has spread worldwide, and the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic currently continues.In response to this unprecedented pandemic, several researchers and medical staff have struggled to find appropriate treatments for COVID-19. Patients with mild symptoms can recuperate with symptomatic care, however establishing treatment for severe to critically ill patients who can have a high mortality has been essential. Accordingly, the guidelines for COVID-19 treatment have evolved through numerous trials and errors and have been relatively well established to date. In the Republic of Korea, several evidence-based guidelines for COVID-19 treatment were released and revised, reflecting various research and regional medical conditions. To date, approximately 3 years after the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, we are reflecting on the changes in the guidelines thus far and have summarized the treatment experience of severe to critically ill patients with COVID-19. The Korean guidelines for COVID-19 treatment have been updated continuously as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) guidelines have changed. Dexamethasone is currently used as the backbone for the treatment of severe to critically ill patients with COVID-19, and remdesivir, baricitinib, and tocilizumab can be added depending on a patient’s situation. In addition, venous thromboembolism prophylaxis is one of the important adjunctive therapies for patients with severe COVID-19. In the clinical field, treatment of severely ill patients with COVID-19 based on guidelines is widely practiced by medical staff and established currently.

Clinical Impact of Empirical Antibiotic Therapy in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 Requiring Oxygen Therapy

Despite the low prevalence of secondary bacterial infection in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients, most of them were administered antibiotic therapy empirically.However, the prognostic impact of empirical antibiotic therapy has not been evaluated.We conducted retrospective propensity score-matched case-control study of 233 COVID-19 patients with moderate to severe illnesses who required oxygen therapy and evaluated whether empirical antibiotic therapy could improve clinical outcomes. Empirical antibiotic therapy did not improve clinical outcomes including length of stay, days with oxygen requirement, the proportion of patients with increased oxygen demand, the proportion of patients who required mechanical ventilation, and overall mortality. This finding implies that routine administration of antibiotics for the treatment of COVID-19 is not essential and should be restricted.

Dynamics of viral load and anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in patients with positive RT-PCR results after recovery from COVID-19

Recently, the number of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who have tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARSCoV-2), via the reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test, after recovery has increased; this has caused a dilemma regarding the medical measures and policies. We evaluated the dynamics of viral load and anti-SARSCoV-2 antibodies in four patients with positive RT-PCR results after recovery. In all patients, the highest levels of immunoglobulin G (IgG) and IgM antibodies were reached after about a month of the onset of the initial symptoms. Then, the IgG titers plateaued, and the IgM titers decreased, regardless of RT-PCR results.The IgG and IgM levels did not increase after the post-negative positive RT-PCR results in any of the patients. Our results reinforced that the post-negative positive RT-PCR results may be due to the detection of RNA particles rather than reinfection in individuals who have recovered from COVID-19.

Clinical Application of the Standard Q COVID-19 Ag Test for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Infection

We evaluated the Standard Q COVID-19 Ag test for the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) compared to the reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test.We applied both tests to patients who were about to be hospitalized, had visited an emergency room, or had been admitted due to COVID-19 confirmed by RT-PCR. Two nasopharyngeal swabs were obtained; one was tested by RT-PCR and the other by the Standard Q COVID-19 Ag test. A total of 118 pairs of tests from 98 patients were performed between January 5 and 11, 2021. The overall sensitivity and specificity for detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) for the Standard Q COVID-19 Ag test compared to RT-PCR were 17.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.8–32.0%) and 100% (95% CI, 95.3–100.0%). Analysis of the results using RT-PCR cycle thresholds of ≤ 30 or ≤ 25 increased the sensitivity to 26.9% (95% CI, 13.7–46.1%), and 41.1% (95% CI, 21.6–64.0%), respectively.

Antibody Responses One Year after Mild SARS-CoV-2 Infection

Understanding the long-term kinetics of antibodies in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is essential in interpreting serosurvey data. We investigated the antibody response one year after infection in 52 mildly symptomatic patients with severe acute respiratory syndromecoronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, using three commercial immunoassays and a surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT) kit. Anti-N pan-immunoglobulin (Ig), anti-S IgG, and anti-S1 IgG were detected in 43 (82.7%), 44 (84.6%), and 30 (57.7%), respectively. In 49 (94.2%), the antibody could be detected by either anti-N pan-Ig or anti-S IgG assay. In the sVNT, 30 (57.7%) had positive neutralizing activity. Despite waning immunity, SARS-CoV-2 antibodies can be detected up to one year after infection, even in mild COVID-19 patients.

Work Restrictions for Healthcare Personnel with Potential In-hospital Exposure to SARS-CoV-2: Experience at a Tertiary Hospital

Applying work restrictions for asymptomatic healthcare personnel (HCP) with potential exposure to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is recommended to prevent transmission from potentially contagious HCP to patients and other HCP. However, it can lead to understaffing, which threatens the safety of both patients and HCP. We evaluated 203 COVID-19 exposure events at a single tertiary hospital from January 2020 to June 2021. A total of 2,365 HCP were potentially exposed, and work restrictions were imposed on 320 HCP, leading to the loss of 3,311 working days. However, only one of the work-restricted HCP was confirmed with COVID-19. During the study period, the work restriction measures might be taken excessively compared to their benefit, so establishing more effective standards for work restriction is required.

Different therapeutic associations of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors with coronavirus disease 2019 compared with usual pneumonia

Background/Aims@#Although it is near concluded that renin-angiotensin system inhibitors do not have a harmful effect on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), there is no report about whether angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) offer any protective role. This study aimed to compare the association of ARBs and ACEIs with COVID-19-related mortality. @*Methods@#All patients with COVID-19 in Korea between January 19 and April 16, 2020 were enrolled. The association of ARBs and ACEIs with mortality within 60 days were evaluated. A comparison of hazard ratio (HR) was performed between COVID-19 patients and a retrospective cohort of pneumonia patients hospitalized in 2019 in Korea. @*Results@#Among 10,448 COVID-19 patients, ARBs and ACEIs were prescribed in 1,231 (11.7%) and 57 (0.6%) patients, respectively. After adjusting for age, sex, and history of comorbidities, the ARB group showed neutral association (HR, 1.034; 95% CI, 0.765 to 1.399; p = 0.8270) and the ACEI groups showed no significant associations likely owing to the small population size (HR, 0.736; 95% CI, 0.314 to 1.726; p = 0.4810). When comparing HR between COVID-19 patients and a retrospective cohort of patients hospitalized with pneumonia in 2019, the trend of ACEIs showed similar benefits, whereas the protective effect of ARBs observed in the retrospective cohort was absent in COVID-19 patients. Meta-analyses showed significant positive correlation with survival of ACEIs, whereas a neutral association between ARBs and mortality. @*Conclusions@#Although ARBs or ACEIs were not associated with fatal outcomes, potential beneficial effects of ARBs observed in pneumonia were attenuated in COVID-19.

Clinical Application of the Standard Q COVID-19 Ag Test for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Infection

We evaluated the Standard Q COVID-19 Ag test for the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) compared to the reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test.We applied both tests to patients who were about to be hospitalized, had visited an emergency room, or had been admitted due to COVID-19 confirmed by RT-PCR. Two nasopharyngeal swabs were obtained; one was tested by RT-PCR and the other by the Standard Q COVID-19 Ag test. A total of 118 pairs of tests from 98 patients were performed between January 5 and 11, 2021. The overall sensitivity and specificity for detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) for the Standard Q COVID-19 Ag test compared to RT-PCR were 17.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.8–32.0%) and 100% (95% CI, 95.3–100.0%). Analysis of the results using RT-PCR cycle thresholds of ≤ 30 or ≤ 25 increased the sensitivity to 26.9% (95% CI, 13.7–46.1%), and 41.1% (95% CI, 21.6–64.0%), respectively.

Antibody Responses One Year after Mild SARS-CoV-2 Infection

Understanding the long-term kinetics of antibodies in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is essential in interpreting serosurvey data. We investigated the antibody response one year after infection in 52 mildly symptomatic patients with severe acute respiratory syndromecoronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, using three commercial immunoassays and a surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT) kit. Anti-N pan-immunoglobulin (Ig), anti-S IgG, and anti-S1 IgG were detected in 43 (82.7%), 44 (84.6%), and 30 (57.7%), respectively. In 49 (94.2%), the antibody could be detected by either anti-N pan-Ig or anti-S IgG assay. In the sVNT, 30 (57.7%) had positive neutralizing activity. Despite waning immunity, SARS-CoV-2 antibodies can be detected up to one year after infection, even in mild COVID-19 patients.

Work Restrictions for Healthcare Personnel with Potential In-hospital Exposure to SARS-CoV-2: Experience at a Tertiary Hospital

Applying work restrictions for asymptomatic healthcare personnel (HCP) with potential exposure to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is recommended to prevent transmission from potentially contagious HCP to patients and other HCP. However, it can lead to understaffing, which threatens the safety of both patients and HCP. We evaluated 203 COVID-19 exposure events at a single tertiary hospital from January 2020 to June 2021. A total of 2,365 HCP were potentially exposed, and work restrictions were imposed on 320 HCP, leading to the loss of 3,311 working days. However, only one of the work-restricted HCP was confirmed with COVID-19. During the study period, the work restriction measures might be taken excessively compared to their benefit, so establishing more effective standards for work restriction is required.

Different therapeutic associations of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors with coronavirus disease 2019 compared with usual pneumonia

Background/Aims@#Although it is near concluded that renin-angiotensin system inhibitors do not have a harmful effect on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), there is no report about whether angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) offer any protective role. This study aimed to compare the association of ARBs and ACEIs with COVID-19-related mortality. @*Methods@#All patients with COVID-19 in Korea between January 19 and April 16, 2020 were enrolled. The association of ARBs and ACEIs with mortality within 60 days were evaluated. A comparison of hazard ratio (HR) was performed between COVID-19 patients and a retrospective cohort of pneumonia patients hospitalized in 2019 in Korea. @*Results@#Among 10,448 COVID-19 patients, ARBs and ACEIs were prescribed in 1,231 (11.7%) and 57 (0.6%) patients, respectively. After adjusting for age, sex, and history of comorbidities, the ARB group showed neutral association (HR, 1.034; 95% CI, 0.765 to 1.399; p = 0.8270) and the ACEI groups showed no significant associations likely owing to the small population size (HR, 0.736; 95% CI, 0.314 to 1.726; p = 0.4810). When comparing HR between COVID-19 patients and a retrospective cohort of patients hospitalized with pneumonia in 2019, the trend of ACEIs showed similar benefits, whereas the protective effect of ARBs observed in the retrospective cohort was absent in COVID-19 patients. Meta-analyses showed significant positive correlation with survival of ACEIs, whereas a neutral association between ARBs and mortality. @*Conclusions@#Although ARBs or ACEIs were not associated with fatal outcomes, potential beneficial effects of ARBs observed in pneumonia were attenuated in COVID-19.

A Direct Rapid Phenotypic Antimicrobial Susceptibility Test Enables Early Selection of Optimal Antibiotics to Treat Bacteremia in COVID-19 Patients / 감염과화학요법

Background@#Co-infection with bacteria and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 may result in greater use of healthcare resources and a poor prognosis. Therefore, early selection and use of optimal antibiotics are essential. The direct rapid antibiotic susceptibility test (dRAST) can detect antibiotic resistance within 6 h of a Gram smear result. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of dRAST for improving early selection of appropriate antibiotics for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients with bacteremia. @*Materials and Methods@#This retrospective study included 96 blood culture-positive COVID-19 patients. Bacterial isolates and antimicrobial resistance profiles of each case were evaluated. Cases were divided into two groups based on whether they underwent conventional antibiotic susceptibility test (AST) or dRAST. The time to optimal targeted treatment for the two groups was investigated and compared. In addition, we examined the proportion of cases for which appropriate antibiotics were selected and broad spectrum antibiotics were administered at 72 h from blood sample collection. @*Results@#The mean time to optimal targeted antibiotic treatment was shorter for the dRAST group [55.7; standard deviation (SD), 28.7 vs. 92.3; SD, 51.1 h; P = 0.041]. The proportion of cases receiving optimal targeted antibiotics 72 h after blood collection for culture was higher [6/10 (60.0%) vs. 10/25 (40.0%)] and the percentage receiving broad spectrum antibiotics at 72 h was lower [6/10 (60.0%) vs. 19/25 (76.0%)] in the dRAST group than in the conventional AST group. In terms of microbiology profile, the contamination rate was high (35.5%) and multidrug-resistant strains were common (63.2%) in COVID-19 patients with bacteremia. @*Conclusion@#Application of dRAST for selection of antibiotics to treat bacteremia in COVID-19 patients may enable earlier and optimal treatment. The high incidence of contamination and resistant organisms in blood cultures from COVID-19 patients suggest that dRAST may speed up appropriate targeted treatment.