Background and Objectives: The medications preferred by patients for allergic rhinitis and their usage remain unclear. This study investigated treatment-seeking behaviors in patients with allergic rhinitis, including medical treatments, environmental controls, and surgical treatments. Methods: In this study, a cross-sectional survey was conducted by internal medicine, pediatric, or otorhinolaryngology physicians at university hospitals from January 2022 to April 2022. A questionnaire was administered to patients with confirmed allergic rhinitis to collect information regarding medical treatments (prescription and over-the-counter medication use patterns, comorbid asthma, and allergen-specific immunotherapy), environmental controls (usage of air purifiers and pet avoidance), and experiences with surgical treatments. Results: We included 51 patients with allergic rhinitis with a mean age of 31.6±16.0 years. Among them, 47 (92.2%) and 6 (11.8%) patients had pollen allergies and asthma, respectively. Furthermore, 41 (80.4%) patients took prescribed medicines, while 39 (76.5%) patients only used the medication when experiencing symptoms. Thirty patients (58.8%) reported concurrent use of intranasal sprays and oral medications. Thirty-three patients (64.7%) reported awareness of immunotherapy, and there were no preferential differences between subcutaneous (52%) and sublingual immunotherapy (48%). Of the 36 patients (70.6%) who reported using an air purifier, 38.9% considered it helpful in preventing allergic rhinitis symptoms. Fourteen patients (27.5%) currently or previously had a companion animal, with half experiencing worsening of symptoms. Twelve patients had received surgical treatment and reported high satisfaction levels (41.6%, very satisfied; 41.6%, satisfied). Conclusion Patients with allergic rhinitis showed similar preferences for oral and spray medications. They also showed satisfaction with surgical treatments and an interest in the environmental management of allergic rhinitis.

Background and Objectives: The medications preferred by patients for allergic rhinitis and their usage remain unclear. This study investigated treatment-seeking behaviors in patients with allergic rhinitis, including medical treatments, environmental controls, and surgical treatments. Methods: In this study, a cross-sectional survey was conducted by internal medicine, pediatric, or otorhinolaryngology physicians at university hospitals from January 2022 to April 2022. A questionnaire was administered to patients with confirmed allergic rhinitis to collect information regarding medical treatments (prescription and over-the-counter medication use patterns, comorbid asthma, and allergen-specific immunotherapy), environmental controls (usage of air purifiers and pet avoidance), and experiences with surgical treatments. Results: We included 51 patients with allergic rhinitis with a mean age of 31.6±16.0 years. Among them, 47 (92.2%) and 6 (11.8%) patients had pollen allergies and asthma, respectively. Furthermore, 41 (80.4%) patients took prescribed medicines, while 39 (76.5%) patients only used the medication when experiencing symptoms. Thirty patients (58.8%) reported concurrent use of intranasal sprays and oral medications. Thirty-three patients (64.7%) reported awareness of immunotherapy, and there were no preferential differences between subcutaneous (52%) and sublingual immunotherapy (48%). Of the 36 patients (70.6%) who reported using an air purifier, 38.9% considered it helpful in preventing allergic rhinitis symptoms. Fourteen patients (27.5%) currently or previously had a companion animal, with half experiencing worsening of symptoms. Twelve patients had received surgical treatment and reported high satisfaction levels (41.6%, very satisfied; 41.6%, satisfied). Conclusion Patients with allergic rhinitis showed similar preferences for oral and spray medications. They also showed satisfaction with surgical treatments and an interest in the environmental management of allergic rhinitis.

Background and Objectives: The medications preferred by patients for allergic rhinitis and their usage remain unclear. This study investigated treatment-seeking behaviors in patients with allergic rhinitis, including medical treatments, environmental controls, and surgical treatments. Methods: In this study, a cross-sectional survey was conducted by internal medicine, pediatric, or otorhinolaryngology physicians at university hospitals from January 2022 to April 2022. A questionnaire was administered to patients with confirmed allergic rhinitis to collect information regarding medical treatments (prescription and over-the-counter medication use patterns, comorbid asthma, and allergen-specific immunotherapy), environmental controls (usage of air purifiers and pet avoidance), and experiences with surgical treatments. Results: We included 51 patients with allergic rhinitis with a mean age of 31.6±16.0 years. Among them, 47 (92.2%) and 6 (11.8%) patients had pollen allergies and asthma, respectively. Furthermore, 41 (80.4%) patients took prescribed medicines, while 39 (76.5%) patients only used the medication when experiencing symptoms. Thirty patients (58.8%) reported concurrent use of intranasal sprays and oral medications. Thirty-three patients (64.7%) reported awareness of immunotherapy, and there were no preferential differences between subcutaneous (52%) and sublingual immunotherapy (48%). Of the 36 patients (70.6%) who reported using an air purifier, 38.9% considered it helpful in preventing allergic rhinitis symptoms. Fourteen patients (27.5%) currently or previously had a companion animal, with half experiencing worsening of symptoms. Twelve patients had received surgical treatment and reported high satisfaction levels (41.6%, very satisfied; 41.6%, satisfied). Conclusion Patients with allergic rhinitis showed similar preferences for oral and spray medications. They also showed satisfaction with surgical treatments and an interest in the environmental management of allergic rhinitis.

Differentiated thyroid cancer demonstrates a wide range of clinical presentations, from very indolent cases to those with an aggressive prognosis. Therefore, diagnosing and treating each cancer appropriately based on its risk status is important. The Korean Thyroid Association (KTA) has provided and amended the clinical guidelines for thyroid cancer management since 2007. The main changes in this revised 2024 guideline include 1) individualization of surgical extent according to pathological tests and clinical findings, 2) application of active surveillance in low-risk papillary thyroid microcarcinoma, 3) indications for minimally invasive surgery, 4) adoption of World Health Organization pathological diagnostic criteria and definition of terminology in Korean, 5) update on literature evidence of recurrence risk for initial risk stratification, 6) addition of the role of molecular testing, 7) addition of definition of initial risk stratification and targeting thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) concentrations according to ongoing risk stratification (ORS), 8) addition of treatment of perioperative hypoparathyroidism, 9) update on systemic chemotherapy, and 10) addition of treatment for pediatric patients with thyroid cancer.

Allergic rhinitis is the most common chronic disease worldwide. Various upper airway symptoms lower quality of life, and due to the recurrent symptoms, multiple treatments are usually attempted rather than one definitive treatment. There are alternatives to medical (medication-based) and nonmedical treatments. A guideline is needed to understand allergic rhinitis and develop an appropriate treatment plan. We have developed guidelines for medical treatment based on previous reports. The current guidelines herein are associated with the “KAAACI Evidence-Based Guidelines for Allergic Rhinitis in Korea, Part 1: Update in pharmacotherapy” in which we aimed to provide evidence-based recommendations for the medical treatment of allergic rhinitis. Part 2 focuses on nonpharmacological management, including allergen-specific immunotherapy, subcutaneous or sublingual immunotherapy, nasal saline irrigation, environmental management strategies, companion animal management, and nasal turbinate surgery. The evidence to support the treatment efficacy, safety, and selection has been systematically reviewed. However, larger controlled studies are needed to elevate the level of evidence to select rational non-medical therapeutic options for patients with allergic rhinitis.

The prevalence of allergic rhinitis (AR) and the socioeconomic burden associated with the medical cost and quality of life of AR have progressively increased. Therefore, practical guidelines for the appropriate management of AR need to be developed based on scientific evidence considering the real-world environment, values, and preferences of patients and physicians. The Korean Academy of Asthma, Allergy and Clinical Immunology revised clinical guidelines for AR to address key clinical questions of the management of AR. Part 1 of the revised guideline covers the pharmacological management of patients with AR in Korea. Through a meta-analysis and a systematic review, we made 4 recommendations for AR pharmacotherapy, including intranasal corticosteroid (INCS)/intranasal antihistamine combination therapy, oral antihistamine/INCS combination therapy, leukotriene receptor antagonist treatment in AR patients with asthma, and prophylactic treatment for patients with pollen-induced AR. However, all recommendations are conditional because of the low or very low evidence of certainty. Well-designed and strictly executed randomized controlled trials are needed to measure and report appropriate outcomes.

Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the involvement of patients who died from hematologic neoplasms in the decision-making process surrounding the withdrawal of lifesustaining treatment (LST). Methods: A total of 255 patients diagnosed with hematologic neoplasms who ultimately died following decisions related to LST during their end-of-life period at a university hospital were included in the study. Data were retrospectively obtained from electronic medical records and analyzed utilizing the chi-square test, independent t-test, and logistic regression. Results: In total, 42.0% of patients participated in the decision-making process regarding LST for their hematologic neoplasms, while 58.0% of decisions were made with family involvement. Among these patients, 65.1% died in general wards and 34.9% in intensive care units (ICUs) as a result of decisions such as the suspension of LST. The period from the LST decision to death was longer when the decision was made by the patient (average, 27.15 days) than when it was made by the family (average, 7.48 days). Most decisions were made by doctors and family members in the ICU, where only 20.6% of patients exercised their right to make decisions regarding LST, a rate considerably lower than 79.4% observed in general wards. Decisions to withhold or withdraw LST were more commonly made by patients themselves than by their families. Conclusion The key to discussing the decision to suspend hospice care and LST is respecting the patient’ s self-determination. If a patient is lucid prior to admission to the ICU, considerations about suspending LST should involve the patient input.

Many countries have their own hemodialysis (HD) quality assurance programs and star rating systems for HD facilities. However, the effects of HD quality assurance programs on patient mortality are not well understood. Therefore, in the present study, the effects of the Korean HD facility star rating on patient mortality in maintenance HD patients were evaluated. Methods: This longitudinal, observational cohort study included 35,271 patients receiving HD treatment from 741 facilities. The fivestar ratings of HD facilities were determined based on HD quality assessment data from 2015, which includes 12 quality measures in structural, procedural, and outcome domains. The patients were grouped into high (three to five stars) and low (one or two stars) groups based on HD facility star rating. Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate the effects of star rating on patient mortality during the mean follow-up duration of 3 years. Results: The patient ratio between high and low HD facility star rating groups was 82.0% vs. 18.0%. The patients in the low star rating group showed lower single-pool Kt/V and higher calcium and phosphorus levels compared with subjects in the high star rating group. After adjusting for sociodemographic and clinical parameters, the HD facility star rating independently increased the mortality risk (hazard ratio, 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.04–1.18; p = 0.002). Conclusion: The HD facilities with low star rating showed higher patient mortality.

It is important for the dialysis specialist to provide essential and safe care to hemodialysis (HD) patients. However, little is known about the actual effect of dialysis specialist care on the survival of HD patients. We therefore investigated the influence of dialysis specialist care on patient mortality in a nationwide Korean dialysis cohort. Methods: We used an HD quality assessment and National Health Insurance Service claims data from October to December 2015. A total of 34,408 patients were divided into two groups according to the proportion of dialysis specialists in their HD unit, as follows: 0%, no dialysis specialist care group, and ≥50%, dialysis specialist care group. We analyzed the mortality risk of these groups using the Cox proportional hazards model after matching propensity scores. Results: After propensity score matching, 18,344 patients were enrolled. The ratio of patients from the groups with and without dialysis specialist care was 86.7% to 13.3%. The dialysis specialist care group showed a shorter dialysis vintage, higher levels of hemoglobin, higher single-pool Kt/V values, lower levels of phosphorus, and lower systolic and diastolic blood pressures than the no dialysis specialist care group. After adjusting demographic and clinical parameters, the absence of dialysis specialist care was a significant independent risk factor for all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 1.03–1.18; p = 0.004). Conclusion: Dialysis specialist care is an important determinant of overall patient survival among HD patients. Appropriate care given by dialysis specialists may improve clinical outcomes of patients undergoing HD.