) 22232(2.67) 46515(5.59) 33533(4.03)Inpatients No.( ) n = 114840 61523 (53.57) (22623.4, 13) 29,609(25.78) 20805(18.12) 23019(20.04) 9462(8.24) 7647(6.66) 5482(4.77) 5775(5.03) 13041(11.36) 108831(94.77) 63507(55.33) n = 44887(39.09) 30670(51.36) 5929(9.93) 5804(9.72) 2342(3.92) 5322(8.91) 3489(5.84) 3438(5.76) 2721(4.56)OR (95 CI) 1.165 (1.151?.179)ICU No. ( ) n = 1370 838(61.17) (51.6628.5, 62)OR (95 CI

) 22232(2.67) 46515(5.59) 33533(4.03)Inpatients No.( ) n = 114840 61523 (53.57) (22623.4, 13) 29,609(25.78) 20805(18.12) 23019(20.04) 9462(8.24) 7647(6.66) 5482(4.77) 5775(5.03) 13041(11.36) 108831(94.77) 63507(55.33) n = 44887(39.09) 30670(51.36) 5929(9.93) 5804(9.72) 2342(3.92) 5322(8.91) 3489(5.84) 3438(5.76) 2721(4.56)OR (95 CI) 1.165 (1.151?.179)ICU No. ( ) n = 1370 838(61.17) (51.6628.5, 62)OR (95 CI) 1.996 (1.786?.231)2.519 (2.453?.587) 1.359 (1.322?.336) 0.931 (0.907?.957) 1.152 (1.117?.188) reference 1.030 (0.994?.067) 1.648 (1.590?.708) 3.575 (3.463?.692) 0.585 (0.569?.602) 0.977 (0.965?.989) 1.28 (1.263?.297) 1.169 (1.152?.186) 1.286 (1.247?.327) 1.256 (1.216?.297) 1.801 (1.720?.885) 1.037 (1.006?.068) 2.298 (2.208?.391) 1.344 (1.295?.395) 1.436 (1.378?.496)105(7.66) 133(9.71) 82(5.99) 45(3.28) 43(3.14) 90(6.57) 139(10.15) 733(53.50) 1221(89.12) 843(61.67) n = 895(65.33) 444(28.59) 283(18.22) 290(18.67) 82(5.28) 118(7.60) 164(10.56) 104(6.70) 68(4.38)1.283 (0.896?.838) 1.443 (1.020?.040) 0.641 (0.442?.930) 0.985 (0.649?.497) reference 3.016 (2.096?.339) 6.580 (4.660?.290) 30.988 (22.594?2.501) 0.46 (0.387?.548) 1.311 (1.175?.463) 2.065 (1.829?.332) 1.493 (1.326?.682) 1.531 (1.325?.768) 1.401 (1.214?.617) 2.049 (1.619?.584) 0.740 (0.609?.899) 2.526 (2.123?.006) 1.909 (1.549?.352) 1.502 (1.171?.927)NOTE. Odds ratios (ORs) were adjusted with eight categories of underlying disease. Results for multivariate logistic regression without considering the various underlying diseases. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.Setmelanotide site 0047634.t{were significantly more likely to die (OR, 20.747; 95 CI, 9.2874?6.348). Meanwhile, the risks of the younger group were much lower (0? yr; OR 0.317; 95 CI, 0.099?.010; 5? yr, OR. 0.106; 95 CI, 0.027?.411).who died. All ORs were adjusted with other variables such as gender, age, region, and underlying condition.DiscussionDuring the study period from September ecember 2009, 5.69 of the Korean population was prescribed antiviral drugs and 2.3/1,000 people were admitted as confirmed or suspected cases of infection. The proportion of females was higher among severe infection cases. A dominant prevalence of female cases was also reported in Canada [14]. However, a gender-specific infection could not be concluded clearly, because other variables associated with females, such as pregnancy, [15,16] were not included in the present analyses. Kim et al. (2010) [17] studied the trend of the spread of this novel influenza strain by comparing three monitoring tools used in Korea during the pandemic. The patterns of spread from the three methods were buy Carbonyl cyanide 4-(trifluoromethoxy)phenylhydrazone generally similar but details, such as peak time, were different. We found that illness severity was greater among patients who were 60 yr, who were in a low-income group, and who had comorbidities. This finding persisted in the results for analysis of the confirmed group only. Most previous studies have reported the characteristics of novel influenza A (H1N1) lab-confirmed cases. However, as novel influenza A (H1N1) became a pandemic, routine testing for the infection was not recommended, and prompt treatment was given instead to mitigate damage from the infection. Therefore, an analysis of only confirmed cases would certainly lead to selection bias in the results. Because the entire population that was given antiviral drugs, including those that were treated during the peakBehavioral VariablesRegistered patients 20 yr old in the biannual PHEP data numbered 397,390 among the tota.) 22232(2.67) 46515(5.59) 33533(4.03)Inpatients No.( ) n = 114840 61523 (53.57) (22623.4, 13) 29,609(25.78) 20805(18.12) 23019(20.04) 9462(8.24) 7647(6.66) 5482(4.77) 5775(5.03) 13041(11.36) 108831(94.77) 63507(55.33) n = 44887(39.09) 30670(51.36) 5929(9.93) 5804(9.72) 2342(3.92) 5322(8.91) 3489(5.84) 3438(5.76) 2721(4.56)OR (95 CI) 1.165 (1.151?.179)ICU No. ( ) n = 1370 838(61.17) (51.6628.5, 62)OR (95 CI) 1.996 (1.786?.231)2.519 (2.453?.587) 1.359 (1.322?.336) 0.931 (0.907?.957) 1.152 (1.117?.188) reference 1.030 (0.994?.067) 1.648 (1.590?.708) 3.575 (3.463?.692) 0.585 (0.569?.602) 0.977 (0.965?.989) 1.28 (1.263?.297) 1.169 (1.152?.186) 1.286 (1.247?.327) 1.256 (1.216?.297) 1.801 (1.720?.885) 1.037 (1.006?.068) 2.298 (2.208?.391) 1.344 (1.295?.395) 1.436 (1.378?.496)105(7.66) 133(9.71) 82(5.99) 45(3.28) 43(3.14) 90(6.57) 139(10.15) 733(53.50) 1221(89.12) 843(61.67) n = 895(65.33) 444(28.59) 283(18.22) 290(18.67) 82(5.28) 118(7.60) 164(10.56) 104(6.70) 68(4.38)1.283 (0.896?.838) 1.443 (1.020?.040) 0.641 (0.442?.930) 0.985 (0.649?.497) reference 3.016 (2.096?.339) 6.580 (4.660?.290) 30.988 (22.594?2.501) 0.46 (0.387?.548) 1.311 (1.175?.463) 2.065 (1.829?.332) 1.493 (1.326?.682) 1.531 (1.325?.768) 1.401 (1.214?.617) 2.049 (1.619?.584) 0.740 (0.609?.899) 2.526 (2.123?.006) 1.909 (1.549?.352) 1.502 (1.171?.927)NOTE. Odds ratios (ORs) were adjusted with eight categories of underlying disease. Results for multivariate logistic regression without considering the various underlying diseases. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0047634.t{were significantly more likely to die (OR, 20.747; 95 CI, 9.2874?6.348). Meanwhile, the risks of the younger group were much lower (0? yr; OR 0.317; 95 CI, 0.099?.010; 5? yr, OR. 0.106; 95 CI, 0.027?.411).who died. All ORs were adjusted with other variables such as gender, age, region, and underlying condition.DiscussionDuring the study period from September ecember 2009, 5.69 of the Korean population was prescribed antiviral drugs and 2.3/1,000 people were admitted as confirmed or suspected cases of infection. The proportion of females was higher among severe infection cases. A dominant prevalence of female cases was also reported in Canada [14]. However, a gender-specific infection could not be concluded clearly, because other variables associated with females, such as pregnancy, [15,16] were not included in the present analyses. Kim et al. (2010) [17] studied the trend of the spread of this novel influenza strain by comparing three monitoring tools used in Korea during the pandemic. The patterns of spread from the three methods were generally similar but details, such as peak time, were different. We found that illness severity was greater among patients who were 60 yr, who were in a low-income group, and who had comorbidities. This finding persisted in the results for analysis of the confirmed group only. Most previous studies have reported the characteristics of novel influenza A (H1N1) lab-confirmed cases. However, as novel influenza A (H1N1) became a pandemic, routine testing for the infection was not recommended, and prompt treatment was given instead to mitigate damage from the infection. Therefore, an analysis of only confirmed cases would certainly lead to selection bias in the results. Because the entire population that was given antiviral drugs, including those that were treated during the peakBehavioral VariablesRegistered patients 20 yr old in the biannual PHEP data numbered 397,390 among the tota.