Background: It is well known that a large number of patients with diabetes also have dyslipidemia, which significantly increases the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of combination drugs consisting of metformin and atorvastatin, widely used as therapeutic agents for diabetes and dyslipidemia. Methods: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group and phase III multicenter study included adults with glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels >7.0% and <10.0%, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) >100 and <250 mg/dL. One hundred eighty-five eligible subjects were randomized to the combination group (metformin+atorvastatin), metformin group (metformin+atorvastatin placebo), and atorvastatin group (atorvastatin+metformin placebo). The primary efficacy endpoints were the percent changes in HbA1c and LDL-C levels from baseline at the end of the treatment. Results: After 16 weeks of treatment compared to baseline, HbA1c showed a significant difference of 0.94% compared to the atorvastatin group in the combination group (0.35% vs. −0.58%, respectively; P<0.0001), whereas the proportion of patients with increased HbA1c was also 62% and 15%, respectively, showing a significant difference (P<0.001). The combination group also showed a significant decrease in LDL-C levels compared to the metformin group (−55.20% vs. −7.69%, P<0.001) without previously unknown adverse drug events. Conclusion The addition of atorvastatin to metformin improved HbA1c and LDL-C levels to a significant extent compared to metformin or atorvastatin alone in diabetes and dyslipidemia patients. This study also suggested metformin’s preventive effect on the glucose-elevating potential of atorvastatin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and dyslipidemia, insufficiently controlled with exercise and diet. Metformin and atorvastatin combination might be an effective treatment in reducing the CVD risk in patients with both diabetes and dyslipidemia because of its lowering effect on LDL-C and glucose.

Background: We aimed to analyze the effects of an antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP) on the proportion of antimicrobial-resistant pathogens in bacteremia, antimicrobial use, and mortality in pediatric patients. Methods: A retrospective single-center study was performed on pediatric inpatients under 19 years old who received systemic antimicrobial treatment from 2001 to 2019. A pediatric infectious disease attending physician started ASP in January 2008. The study period was divided into the pre-intervention (2001–2008) and the post-intervention (2009–2019) periods. The amount of antimicrobial use was defined as days of therapy per 1,000 patientdays, and the differences were compared using delta slope (= changes in slopes) between the two study periods by an interrupted time-series analysis. The proportion of resistant pathogens and the 30-day overall mortality rate were analyzed by the χ2 . Results: The proportion of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae bacteremia increased from 17% (39 of 235) in the pre-intervention period to 35% (189 of 533) in the post-intervention period (P < 0.001). The total amount of antimicrobial use significantly decreased after the introduction of ASP (delta slope value = −16.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], −30.6 to −2.3; P = 0.049). The 30-day overall mortality rate in patients with bacteremia did not increase, being 10% (55 of 564) in the pre-intervention and 10% (94 of 941) in the post-intervention period (P = 0.881). Conclusion The introduction of ASP for pediatric patients reduced the delta slope of the total antimicrobial use without increasing the mortality rate despite an increased incidence of ESBL-producing gram-negative bacteremia.

Objective: This study was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lurasidone (160 mg/day) compared to quetiapine XR (QXR; 600 mg/day) in the treatment of acutely psychotic patients with schizophrenia. Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to 6 weeks of double-blind treatment with lurasidone 160 mg/day (n=105) or QXR 600 mg/day (n=105). Primary efficacy measure was the change from baseline to week 6 in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score and Clinical Global Impressions severity (CGI-S) score. Adverse events, body measurements, and laboratory parameters were assessed. Results: Lurasidone demonstrated non-inferiority to QXR on the PANSS total score. Adjusted mean±standard error change at week 6 on the PANSS total score was -26.42±2.02 and -27.33±2.01 in the lurasidone and QXR group, respectively. The mean difference score was -0.91 (95% confidence interval -6.35–4.53). The lurasidone group showed a greater reduction in PANSS total and negative subscale on week 1 and a greater reduction in end-point CGI-S score compared to the QXR group. Body weight, body mass index, and waist circumference in the lurasidone group were reduced, with significantly lower mean change compared to QXR. Endpoint changes in glucose, cholesterol, triglycerides, and low-density lipoprotein levels were also significantly lower. The most common adverse drug reactions with lurasidone were akathisia and nausea. Conclusion Lurasidone 160 mg/day was found to be non-inferior to QXR 600 mg/day in the treatment of schizophrenia with comparable efficacy and tolerability. Adverse effects of lurasidone were generally tolerable, and beneficial effects on metabolic parameters can be expected.

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in Korea and the world. Since 2004, this is the 4th gastric cancer guideline published in Korea which is the revised version of previous evidence-based approach in 2018. Current guideline is a collaborative work of the interdisciplinary working group including experts in the field of gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology and guideline development methodology. Total of 33 key questions were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group and 40 statements were developed according to the systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and KoreaMed database. The level of evidence and the grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation proposition. Evidence level, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability was considered as the significant factors for recommendation. The working group reviewed recommendations and discussed for consensus. In the earlier part, general consideration discusses screening, diagnosis and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. Flowchart is depicted with statements which is supported by meta-analysis and references. Since clinical trial and systematic review was not suitable for postoperative oncologic and nutritional follow-up, working group agreed to conduct a nationwide survey investigating the clinical practice of all tertiary or general hospitals in Korea. The purpose of this survey was to provide baseline information on follow up. Herein we present a multidisciplinary-evidence based gastric cancer guideline.

Tixagevimab/cilgavimab is a monoclonal antibody used to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 among immunocompromised hosts and maintained neutralizing activity against early omicron variants. Omicron BN.1 became a dominant circulating strain in Korea early 2023, but its susceptibility to tixagevimab/cilgavimab is unclear. We conducted plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT) against BN.1 in a prospective cohort (14 patients and 30 specimens). BN.1 PRNT was conducted for one- and three-months after tixagevimab/ cilgavimab administration and the average PRNT ND 50 of each point was lower than the positive cut-off value of 20 (12.9 ± 4.5 and 13.2 ± 4.2, respectively, P = 0.825). In the paired analyses, tixagevimab/cilgavimab-administered sera could not actively neutralize BN.1 (PRNT ND 50 11.5 ± 2.9, P = 0.001), compared with the reserved activity against BA.5 (ND 50 310.5 ± 180.4). Unlike virus-like particle assay, tixagevimab/cilgavimab was not active against BN.1 in neutralizing assay, and would not be effective in the present predominance of BA.2.75 sublineages.

Objective: Dysphagia is a common clinical condition characterized by difficulty in swallowing. It is sub-classified into oropharyngeal dysphagia, which refers to problems in the mouth and pharynx, and esophageal dysphagia, which refers to problems in the esophageal body and esophagogastric junction. Dysphagia can have a significant negative impact one’s physical health and quality of life as its severity increases. Therefore, proper assessment and management of dysphagia are critical for improving swallowing function and preventing complications. Thus a guideline was developed to provide evidence-based recommendations for assessment and management in patients with dysphagia. Methods: Nineteen key questions on dysphagia were developed. These questions dealt with various aspects of problems related to dysphagia, including assessment, management, and complications. A literature search for relevant articles was conducted using Pubmed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and one domestic database of KoreaMed, until April 2021. The level of evidence and recommendation grade were established according to the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. Results: Early screening and assessment of videofluoroscopic swallowing were recommended for assessing the presence of dysphagia. Therapeutic methods, such as tongue and pharyngeal muscle strengthening exercises and neuromuscular electrical stimulation with swallowing therapy, were effective in improving swallowing function and quality of life in patients with dysphagia. Nutritional intervention and an oral care program were also recommended. Conclusion This guideline presents recommendations for the assessment and management of patients with oropharyngeal dysphagia, including rehabilitative strategies.

Background: Serum-based parameters are considered non-invasive biomarkers for cancer detection. In human studies, insulin-like growth factor-I and II (IGF-I and IGF-II) and insulin-like growth factor binding protein-3 (IGFBP-3) are useful as diagnostic or prognostic markers and potential therapeutic targets. Objectives: This study examined the diagnostic utility of circulating IGF-I, IGF-II, and IGFBP-3 levels in healthy dogs and dogs with tumors. Methods: The serum concentrations of these biomarkers in 86 dogs with tumors were compared with those in 30 healthy dogs using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Results: The ELISA results showed no difference between healthy dogs and dogs with tumors in the serum IGF-II concentrations. On the other hand, there was a significant difference in the circulating IGF-I and IGFBP-3 levels between healthy dogs and dogs with tumors. The concentrations of serum IGF-I (median [interquartile range], 103.4 [59.5–175] ng/mL) in dogs with epithelial tumors were higher than those (58.4 ng/mL [43.5–79.9]) in healthy dogs.Thus, the concentrations of serum IGFBP-3 (43.4 ng/mL [33.2–57.2]) in dogs with malignant mesenchymal tumors were lower than those (60.8 ng/mL [47.6–70.5]) in healthy dogs. Conclusions The serum IGF-I and IGFBP-3 levels can be used as diagnostic biomarkers in dogs with tumors.

Background and Objectives: Smoking is well-established as a risk factor for coronary artery disease. However, recent studies demonstrated favorable results, including reduced mortality, among smokers, which are referred to as the “smoker's paradox”. This study examined the impact of smoking on clinical outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods: Patients with AMI undergoing PCI between 2004 and 2014 were enrolled and classified according to smoking status. The primary endpoint was a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) including cardiac death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and revascularization. Results: Among the 10,683 patients, 4,352 (40.7%) were current smokers. Smokers were 10.7 years younger and less likely to have comorbidities such as hypertension, diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, stroke, and prior PCI. Smokers had less MACE (hazard ratio [HR], 0.644; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.594–0.698; p<0.001) and cardiac death (HR, 0.494; 95% CI, 0.443–0.551; p<0.001) compared to nonsmokers during the 5 years in an unadjusted model. However, after propensity-score matching, smokers showed higher risk of MACE (HR, 1.125; 95% CI, 1.009–1.254; p=0.034) and cardiac death (HR, 1.190; 95% CI, 1.026–1.381; p=0.022). Smoking was a strong independent predictor of lung cancer (propensityscore matched HR, 2.749; 95% CI, 1.416–5.338; p=0.003). Conclusions In contrast to the unadjusted model, smoking is associated with worse cardiovascular outcome and higher incidence of lung cancer after adjustment of various confounding factors. This result can be explained by the characteristics of smokers, which were young and had fewer comorbidities.