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: Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors are frequently prescribed for patients with type 2 diabetes; however, their cost can pose a significant barrier for those with impaired kidney function. This study aimed to estimate the economic benefits of substituting non-renal dose-adjusted (NRDA) DPP4 inhibitors with renal dose-adjusted (RDA) DPP4 inhibitors in patients with both impaired kidney function and type 2 diabetes. Methods: This retrospective cohort study was conducted from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2018, using data obtained from common data models of five medical centers in Korea. Model 1 applied the prescription pattern of participants with preserved kidney function to those with impaired kidney function. In contrast, model 2 replaced all NRDA DPP4 inhibitors with RDA DPP4 inhibitors, adjusting the doses of RDA DPP4 inhibitors based on individual kidney function. The primary outcome was the cost difference between the two models. Results: In total, 67,964,996 prescription records were analyzed. NRDA DPP4 inhibitors were more frequently prescribed to patients with impaired kidney function than in those with preserved kidney function (25.7%, 51.3%, 64.3%, and 71.6% in patients with estimated glomerular filtration rates [eGFRs] of ≥60, <60, <45, and <30 mL/min/1.73 m2, respectively). When model 1 was applied, the cost savings per year were 7.6% for eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 and 30.4% for eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m2. According to model 2, 15.4% to 51.2% per year could be saved depending on kidney impairment severity. Conclusion Adjusting the doses of RDA DPP4 inhibitors based on individual kidney function could alleviate the economic burden associated with medical expenses.

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a condition in which gastric contents regurgitate into the esophagus or beyond, resulting in either troublesome symptoms or complications. GERD is heterogeneous in terms of varied manifestations, test findings, and treatment responsiveness. GERD diagnosis can be established with symptomatology, pathology, or physiology. Recently the Lyon consensus defined the “proven GERD” with concrete evidence for reflux, including advanced grade erosive esophagitis (Los Angeles classification grades C and or D esophagitis), long-segment Barrett’s mucosa or peptic strictures on endoscopy or distal esophageal acid exposure time > 6% on 24-hour ambulatory pH-impedance monitoring. However, some Asian researchers have different opinions on whether the same standards should be applied to the Asian population. The prevalence of GERD is increasing in Asia. The present evidence-based guidelines were developed using a systematic review and meta-analysis approach. In GERD with typical symptoms, a proton pump inhibitor test can be recommended as a sensitive, cost-effective, and practical test for GERD diagnosis. Based on a meta-analysis of 19 estimated acid-exposure time values in Asians, the reference range upper limit for esophageal acid exposure time was 3.2% (95% confidence interval 2.7-3.9%) in the Asian countries. Esophageal manometry and novel impedance measurements, including mucosal impedance and a post-reflux swallow-induced peristaltic wave, are promising in discrimination of GERD among different reflux phenotypes, thus increasing its diagnostic yield. We also propose a long-term strategy of evidence-based GERD treatment with proton pump inhibitors and other drugs.

Background/Aims: Belching disorder (BD) is clinically distinct from gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) with belching. Supragastric belching (SGB) is closely associated with reflux episodes. This study investigates belch characteristics in association with reflux, compared between patients with BD and those who had GERD with belching. Methods: Impedance pH monitoring data from 10 patients with BD and 10 patients with GERD who exhibited belching were retrospectively analyzed. Belches were considered “isolated“ or “reflux-related” and acidicon-acidic. Belch characteristics were compared between patients with BD and those with GERD. Results: Symptomatic belches were more frequent in patients with BD than in patients with GERD (median, 160.5 vs 56.0, P < 0.05). SGB was the most common type in both groups; common subtypes comprised “isolated“ in patients with BD and “isolated during the reflux period” in patients with GERD. Reflux-related SGB was more common in patients with GERD than in BD (78.3% vs 45.2%, P < 0.005).Both “preceding belching” including the reflux period and acidic SGB were more common in patients with GERD than in BD (31.8% vs 8.6% and 38.1% vs 8.9%, both P < 0.05). Supragastric belch number positively correlated with all reflux episodes in patients with GERD (adjusted R2 = 0.572, P = 0.007). Conclusions BD is characterized by more belching, compared to GERD. SGB is more frequently associated with reflux in GERD than in BD; acidity may be related to GERD. In BD, SGB is typically non-acidic and unrelated to reflux. Distinct SGB characteristics may reflect different pathogenic mechanisms of reflux and associated symptoms.

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a condition in which gastric contents regurgitate into the esophagus or beyond, resulting in either troublesome symptoms or complications. GERD is heterogeneous in terms of varied manifestations, test findings, and treatment responsiveness. GERD diagnosis can be established with symptomatology, pathology, or physiology. Recently the Lyon consensus defined the “proven GERD” with concrete evidence for reflux, including advanced grade erosive esophagitis (Los Angeles classification grades C and or D esophagitis), long-segment Barrett’s mucosa or peptic strictures on endoscopy or distal esophageal acid exposure time > 6% on 24-hour ambulatory pH-impedance monitoring. However, some Asian researchers have different opinions on whether the same standards should be applied to the Asian population. The prevalence of GERD is increasing in Asia. The present evidence-based guidelines were developed using a systematic review and meta-analysis approach. In GERD with typical symptoms, a proton pump inhibitor test can be recommended as a sensitive, cost-effective, and practical test for GERD diagnosis.Based on a meta-analysis of 19 estimated acid-exposure time values in Asians, the reference range upper limit for esophageal acid exposure time was 3.2% (95% confidence interval, 2.7-3.9%) in the Asian countries. Esophageal manometry and novel impedance measurements, including mucosal impedance and a post-reflux swallow-induced peristaltic wave, are promising in discrimination of GERD among different reflux phenotypes, thus increasing its diagnostic yield. We also propose a long-term strategy of evidence-based GERD treatment with proton pump inhibitors and other drugs.

Background/Aims: Belching disorder (BD) is clinically distinct from gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) with belching. Supragastric belching (SGB) is closely associated with reflux episodes. This study investigates belch characteristics in association with reflux, compared between patients with BD and those who had GERD with belching. Methods: Impedance pH monitoring data from 10 patients with BD and 10 patients with GERD who exhibited belching were retrospectively analyzed. Belches were considered “isolated“ or “reflux-related” and acidicon-acidic. Belch characteristics were compared between patients with BD and those with GERD. Results: Symptomatic belches were more frequent in patients with BD than in patients with GERD (median, 160.5 vs 56.0, P < 0.05). SGB was the most common type in both groups; common subtypes comprised “isolated“ in patients with BD and “isolated during the reflux period” in patients with GERD. Reflux-related SGB was more common in patients with GERD than in BD (78.3% vs 45.2%, P < 0.005).Both “preceding belching” including the reflux period and acidic SGB were more common in patients with GERD than in BD (31.8% vs 8.6% and 38.1% vs 8.9%, both P < 0.05). Supragastric belch number positively correlated with all reflux episodes in patients with GERD (adjusted R2 = 0.572, P = 0.007). Conclusions BD is characterized by more belching, compared to GERD. SGB is more frequently associated with reflux in GERD than in BD; acidity may be related to GERD. In BD, SGB is typically non-acidic and unrelated to reflux. Distinct SGB characteristics may reflect different pathogenic mechanisms of reflux and associated symptoms.

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a condition in which gastric contents regurgitate into the esophagus or beyond, resulting in either troublesome symptoms or complications. GERD is heterogeneous in terms of varied manifestations, test findings, and treatment responsiveness. GERD diagnosis can be established with symptomatology, pathology, or physiology. Recently the Lyon consensus defined the “proven GERD” with concrete evidence for reflux, including advanced grade erosive esophagitis (Los Angeles classification grades C and or D esophagitis), long-segment Barrett’s mucosa or peptic strictures on endoscopy or distal esophageal acid exposure time > 6% on 24-hour ambulatory pH-impedance monitoring. However, some Asian researchers have different opinions on whether the same standards should be applied to the Asian population. The prevalence of GERD is increasing in Asia. The present evidence-based guidelines were developed using a systematic review and meta-analysis approach. In GERD with typical symptoms, a proton pump inhibitor test can be recommended as a sensitive, cost-effective, and practical test for GERD diagnosis.Based on a meta-analysis of 19 estimated acid-exposure time values in Asians, the reference range upper limit for esophageal acid exposure time was 3.2% (95% confidence interval, 2.7-3.9%) in the Asian countries. Esophageal manometry and novel impedance measurements, including mucosal impedance and a post-reflux swallow-induced peristaltic wave, are promising in discrimination of GERD among different reflux phenotypes, thus increasing its diagnostic yield. We also propose a long-term strategy of evidence-based GERD treatment with proton pump inhibitors and other drugs.

Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is a useful tool that is widely used in the emergency and intensive care areas. In Korea, insurance coverage of ultrasound examination has been gradually expanding in accordance with measures to enhance Korean National Insurance Coverage since 2017 to 2021, and which will continue until 2021. Full coverage of health insurance for POCUS in the emergency and critical care areas was implemented in July 2019. The National Health Insurance Act classified POCUS as a single or multiple-targeted ultrasound examination (STU vs. MTU). STU scans are conducted of one organ at a time, while MTU includes scanning of multiple organs simultaneously to determine each clinical situation. POCUS can be performed even if a diagnostic ultrasound examination is conducted, based on the physician's decision. However, the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service plans to monitor the prescription status of whether the POCUS and diagnostic ultrasound examinations are prescribed simultaneously and repeatedly. Additionally, MTU is allowed only in cases of trauma, cardiac arrest, shock, chest pain, and dyspnea and should be performed by a qualified physician. Although physicians should scan all parts of the chest, heart, and abdomen when they prescribe MTU, they are not required to record all findings in the medical record. Therefore, appropriate prescription, application, and recording of POCUS are needed to enhance the quality of patient care and avoid unnecessary cut of medical budget spending. The present article provides background and clinical guidance for POCUS based on the implementation of full health insurance coverage for POCUS that began in July 2019 in Korea.
Abdomen ; Budgets ; Chest Pain ; Critical Care ; Dyspnea ; Emergencies ; Heart ; Heart Arrest ; Insurance Coverage ; Insurance ; Insurance, Health ; Korea ; Medical Records ; National Health Programs ; Patient Care ; Point-of-Care Systems ; Prescriptions ; Shock ; Thorax ; Ultrasonography

Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is a useful tool that is widely used in the emergency and intensive care areas. In Korea, insurance coverage of ultrasound examination has been gradually expanding in accordance with measures to enhance Korean National Insurance Coverage since 2017 to 2021, and which will continue until 2021. Full coverage of health insurance for POCUS in the emergency and critical care areas was implemented in July 2019. The National Health Insurance Act classified POCUS as a single or multiple-targeted ultrasound examination (STU vs. MTU). STU scans are conducted of one organ at a time, while MTU includes scanning of multiple organs simultaneously to determine each clinical situation. POCUS can be performed even if a diagnostic ultrasound examination is conducted, based on the physician's decision. However, the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service plans to monitor the prescription status of whether the POCUS and diagnostic ultrasound examinations are prescribed simultaneously and repeatedly. Additionally, MTU is allowed only in cases of trauma, cardiac arrest, shock, chest pain, and dyspnea and should be performed by a qualified physician. Although physicians should scan all parts of the chest, heart, and abdomen when they prescribe MTU, they are not required to record all findings in the medical record. Therefore, appropriate prescription, application, and recording of POCUS are needed to enhance the quality of patient care and avoid unnecessary cut of medical budget spending. The present article provides background and clinical guidance for POCUS based on the implementation of full health insurance coverage for POCUS that began in July 2019 in Korea.

Background/Aims: We aimed to evaluate associations between comorbidities, peripheral neuropathy, and spontaneous internal anal sphincter relaxation (SAR) in patients with defecatory disorders. Methods: A patient was considered to exhibit SAR during high-resolution anorectal manometry (HR-ARM) when the nadir pressure is < 15 mmHg and the time from onset to relaxation was ≥ 15 seconds in the resting pressure frame. A case-control study was performed using HR-ARM data collected from 880 patients from January 2010 to May 2015. We identified 23 cases with SAR (median age 75 years; 15 females; 12 fecal incontinence and 11 constipation). We compared HR-ARM values, Charlson index comorbidity scores, neuropathy, and the prevalence of diseases that potentially cause neuropathy between controls and SAR patients. Each SAR case was compared to 3 controls. Controls were selected to match the age, gender, and examination year of each SAR case. Results: Compared to controls (26.1%), SAR patients (52.2%) exhibited a significantly higher frequency of fecal incontinence. SAR patients also had higher Charlson index scores (5 vs 4, P = 0.028). Nine of 23 SAR patients (39.1%) exhibited peripheral neuropathy— this frequency was higher than that for the control group (11.6%; P = 0.003). Diseases that potentially cause neuropathy were observed in 17 of 23 SAR cases and 32 of 69 controls (P = 0.022). Conclusions SAR develops in patients with constipation and fecal incontinence but is more common in patients with fecal incontinence. Our controlled observational study implies that SAR is associated with peripheral neuropathy and more severe comorbidities.