During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, conclusively evaluating possible associations between COVID-19 vaccines and potential adverse events was of critical importance. The National Academy of Medicine of Korea established the COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Research Center (CoVaSC) with support from the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency to investigate the scientific relationship between COVID-19 vaccines and suspected adverse events. Although determining whether the COVID-19 vaccine was responsible for any suspected adverse event necessitated a systematic approach, traditional causal inference theories, such as Hill's criteria, encountered certain limitations and criticisms. To facilitate a systematic and evidence-based evaluation, the United States Institute of Medicine, at the request of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, offered a detailed causality assessment framework in 2012, which was updated in the recent report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) in 2024.This framework, based on a weight-of-evidence approach, allows the independent evaluation of both epidemiological and mechanistic evidence, culminating in a comprehensive conclusion about causality. Epidemiological evidence derived from population studies is categorized into four levels—high, moderate, limited, or insufficient—while mechanistic evidence, primarily from biological and clinical studies in animals and individuals, is classified as strong, intermediate, weak, or lacking. The committee then synthesizes these two types of evidence to draw a conclusion about the causal relationship, which can be described as “convincingly supports” (“evidence established” in the 2024 NASEM report), “favors acceptance,” “favors rejection,” or “inadequate to accept or reject.” The CoVaSC has established an independent committee to conduct causality assessments using the weightof-evidence framework, specifically for evaluating the causality of adverse events associated with COVID-19 vaccines. The aim of this study is to provide an overview of the weight-ofevidence framework and to detail the considerations involved in its practical application in the CoVaSC.

The COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Research Committee (CoVaSC) was established in November 2021 to address the growing need for independent, in-depth scientific evidence on adverse events (AEs) following coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination. This initiative was requested by the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency and led by the National Academy of Medicine of Korea. In September 2022, the COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Research Center was established, strengthening CoVaSC’s initiatives. The center has conducted various studies on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. During CoVaSC’s second research year, from September 29, 2022 to July 19, 2023, the center was restructured into 4 departments: Epidemiological Research, Clinical Research, Communication & Education, and International Cooperation & Policy Research. Its main activities include (1) managing CoVaSC and the COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Research Center, (2) surveying domestic and international trends in AE causality investigation, (3) assessing AEs following COVID-19 vaccination, (4) fostering international collaboration and policy research, and (5) organizing regular fora and training sessions for the public and clinicians. Causality assessments have been conducted for 27 diseases, and independent research has been conducted after organizing ad hoc committees comprising both epidemiologists and clinical experts on each AE of interest. The research process included protocol development, data analysis, interpretation of results, and causality assessment. These research outcomes have been shared transparently with the public and healthcare experts through various fora. The COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Research Center plans to continue strengthening and expanding its research activities to provide reliable, high-quality safety information to the public.

With the introduction of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines, the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency (KDCA) commissioned the National Academy of Medicine of Korea to gather experts to independently assess post-vaccination adverse events. Accordingly, the COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Research Committee (CoVaSC) was launched in November 2021 to perform safety studies and establish evidence for policy guidance. The CoVaSC established 3 committees for epidemiology, clinical research, and communication. The CoVaSC mainly utilizes pseudonymized data linking KDCA’s COVID-19 vaccination data and the National Health Insurance Service’s claims data. The CoVaSC’s 5-step research process involves defining the target diseases and organizing ad-hoc committees, developing research protocols, performing analyses, assessing causal relationships, and announcing research findings and utilizing them to guide compensation policies. As of 2022, the CoVaSC completed this research process for 15 adverse events. The CoVaSC launched the COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Research Center in September 2022 and has been reorganized into 4 divisions to promote research including international collaborative studies, long-/short-term follow-up studies, and education programs. Through these enhancements, the CoVaSC will continue to swiftly provide scientific evidence for COVID-19 vaccine research and compensation and may serve as a model for preparing for future epidemics of new diseases.

Purpose: Renal tumors account for approximately 7% of all childhood cancers. These include Wilms tumor (WT), clear cell sarcoma of the kidney (CCSK), malignant rhabdoid tumor of the kidney (MRTK), renal cell carcinoma (RCC), congenital mesoblastic nephroma (CMN) and other rare tumors. We investigated the epidemiology of pediatric renal tumors in Korea. Materials and Methods: From January 2001 to December 2015, data of pediatric patients (0–18 years) newly-diagnosed with renal tumors at 26 hospitals were retrospectively analyzed. Results: Among 439 patients (male, 240), the most common tumor was WT (n=342, 77.9%), followed by RCC (n=36, 8.2%), CCSK (n=24, 5.5%), MRTK (n=16, 3.6%), CMN (n=12, 2.7%), and others (n=9, 2.1%). Median age at diagnosis was 27.1 months (range 0-225.5) and median follow-up duration was 88.5 months (range 0-211.6). Overall, 32 patients died, of whom 17, 11, 1, and 3 died of relapse, progressive disease, second malignant neoplasm, and treatment-related mortality. Five-year overall survival and event free survival were 97.2% and 84.8% in WT, 90.6% and 82.1% in RCC, 81.1% and 63.6% in CCSK, 60.3% and 56.2% in MRTK, and 100% and 91.7% in CMN, respectively (p < 0.001). Conclusion The pediatric renal tumor types in Korea are similar to those previously reported in other countries. WT accounted for a large proportion and survival was excellent. Non-Wilms renal tumors included a variety of tumors and showed inferior outcome, especially MRTK. Further efforts are necessary to optimize the treatment and analyze the genetic characteristics of pediatric renal tumors in Korea.

Background/Aims: The prospective Crohn’s Disease Clinical Network and Cohort Study is a nationwide multicenter cohort study of patients with Crohn’s disease (CD) in Korea, aiming to prospectively investigate the clinical features and long-term prognosis associated with CD. Methods: Patients diagnosed with CD between January 2009 and September 2019 were prospectively enrolled. They were divided into two cohorts according to the year of diagnosis: cohort 1 (diagnosed between 2009 and 2011) versus cohort 2 (between 2012 and 2019). Results: A total of 1,175 patients were included, and the median follow-up duration was 68 months (interquartile range, 39.0 to 91.0 months). The treatment-free durations for thiopurines (p<0.001) and anti-tumor necrosis factor agents (p=0.018) of cohort 2 were shorter than those of cohort 1. Among 887 patients with B1 behavior at diagnosis, 149 patients (16.8%) progressed to either B2 or B3 behavior during follow-up. Early use of thiopurine was associated with a reduced risk of behavioral progression (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50 to 0.90), and family history of inflammatory bowel disease was associated with an increased risk of behavioral progression (aHR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.16 to 4.50). One hundred forty-one patients (12.0%) underwent intestinal resection, and the intestinal resection-free survival time was significantly longer in cohort 2 than in cohort 1 (p=0.003). The early use of thiopurines (aHR, 0.35;95% CI, 0.23 to 0.51) was independently associated with a reduced risk of intestinal resection. Conclusions The prognosis of CD in Korea appears to have improved over time, as evidenced by the decreasing intestinal resection rate. Early use of thiopurines was associated with an improved prognosis represented by a reduced risk of intestinal resection.

Background: This systematic review was conducted to identify and summarize key factors, including economic methods, topics, results, and indicators, within relevant economic evaluation research on thyroid cancer. Materials and Methods: A literature search on the economic evaluation of thyroid cancer treatment was conducted using the MEDLINE database up to May 2021. Data on population, intervention, comparison, outcome, time, setting, and study design were extracted from each study. The economic evaluation method in each study was re-classified according to the theoretical criteria defined by the international economic evaluation guidelines. Results: A total of 49 studies were included, involving cost analysis (CA, n=9), cost-minimization analysis (CMA, n=3), cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA, n=29), and cost-utility analysis (CUA, n=8). When CEA and CUA were classified as one method, the consistency between the methods of the reviewers based on the theoretical criteria and those from the original studies was 77% (95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.92). Most studies dealt with specific period-related controversial issues including comparison between treatment strategies, and cost-effectiveness of the prophylactic central neck dissection, molecular testing, and rhTSH. Contrasting results have been obtained when different economic evaluation methods were applied for the same topic (e.g., total thyroidectomy [TT] was more dominant than hemithyroidectomy [HT] in CEA, but HT was more dominant than TT in CUA), and different clinical and economic inputs were applied. All studies included direct medical costs, which were mostly derived from Medicare and input probabilities in each economic model, and utility scores for outcomes were mostly based on literature reviews.Few studies included non-medical direct costs and indirect costs. Conclusion Our systematic review provides information on how to design and proceed to overcome the limitations of existing studies and ensure validity.

Objective: This study was carried out to establish a basis for understanding and correcting the problems of the emergency physicians (EP) in Korea by examining the current status through the 2020 emergency physician survey conducted by the Korean Society of Emergency Medicine (KSEM). Methods: An online survey was conducted from January 15 to February 26, 2021, through a website and mobile application. The final questionnaire was classified into three types based on the clinical work in the emergency department (ED), current position, and the year of board certification. The contents of the questionnaire were organized into eight themes, and a subcommittee was put in charge of each. Results: Of the 400 emergency medical institutions surveyed, 295 hospitals (74.2%) had board-certified EPs, and 1,453 EPs (72.5%) out of 2,000 were working in the ED. Of these, on average, 7.2 EPs worked together, and they worked 11.6 days/153.1 hours per month and did night shifts 5.9 days per month. 30.7% showed excessive sleepiness during the day, and only 9.6% said that they could adhere to mealtimes. 27.1% responded that they suffered from depression. The level of satisfaction was 3.2 points, and 43.0% responded that they would choose emergency medicine (EM) again as their major. The most important factor in choosing EM was the availability of adequate free time. Their responses indicated that the retirement age was 59.7 years, and the upper age limit for the night shift was 54.3 years. Conclusion Though there have been improvements since the first survey in 2010, there was no notable increase in EP satisfaction. Therefore, appropriate future policies should be formulated and implemented based on these survey results.

Background: and Purpose Data regarding the effects of cannabidiol (CBD) on the quality of life (QOL) are currently inadequate. We assessed the QOL of pediatric patients with epilepsy who were treated with CBD. Methods: This prospective, open-label study included pediatric and adolescent patients (aged 2–18 years) with Dravet syndrome or Lennox-Gastaut syndrome. Oral CBD was administered at 10 mg/kg/day. The Korean version of the Quality Of Life in Childhood Epilepsy (QOLCE) questionnaire was administered when CBD treatment began and again after 6 months. Adaptive behavior was measured using the Korean versions of the Child Behavior Checklist (K-CBCL) and the second edition of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales (Vineland-II). Results: This study included 41 patients (11 with Dravet syndrome and 30 with LennoxGastaut syndrome), of which 25 were male. The median age was 4.1 years. After 6 months, 26.8% (11/41) of patients experienced a ≥50% reduction in the number of seizures. The total score for the QOLCE questionnaire did not change from baseline to after 6 months of CBD treatment (85.71±39.65 vs. 83.12±48.01, respectively; p=0.630). The score in the motor skills domain of Vineland-II reduced from 48.67±13.43 at baseline to 45.18±14.08 after 6 months of treatment (p=0.005). No other Vineland-II scores and no K-CBCL scores had changed after 6 months of CBD treatment. Conclusions CBD is an efficacious antiseizure drug used to treat Dravet syndrome and Lennox-Gastaut syndrome. However, it did not improve the patient QOL in our study, possibly because all of our patients had profound intellectual disabilities.