Background/Aims: Fexuprazan, a novel potassium-competitive acid blocker, was developed for treating acid-related disorders. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of fexuprazan, unlike those of proton pump inhibitors, are independent of food effect. This study aims to evaluate differences in efficacy and safety of fexuprazan in patients with erosive esophagitis (EE) according to the timing of dosing. Methods: In this multicenter, open-label noninferiority study, patients who had typical reflux symptoms with endoscopically confirmed EE were randomized 1:1 to receive fexuprazan 40 mg daily 30 minutes before or after meal. Treatment was completed after 2 weeks or 4 weeks when healing was endoscopically confirmed. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with healed EE confirmed by endoscopy up to week 4. Safety endpoints included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Results: In the prior-to-meal group (n = 89) and after-meal group (n = 86), 4-week EE healing rates were 98.77% and 100.00% (difference, 0.01%; 95% CI, –0.01% to 0.04%) and 2-week EE healing rates were 95.77% and 97.14% (difference, 0.01%; 95% CI, –0.05% to 0.07%), respectively. TEAEs were 9.78% and 8.70% in the prior-to-meal group and the after-meal group, respectively. Conclusions Non-inferiority analysis revealed that taking fexuprazan after meal was non-inferior to taking fexuprazan before meals in patients with EE. The frequency of adverse events was similar between the 2 study groups. The drug is safe and effective for healing EE regardless of the timing of dosing.

Background/Aims: Fexuprazan, a novel potassium-competitive acid blocker, was developed for treating acid-related disorders. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of fexuprazan, unlike those of proton pump inhibitors, are independent of food effect. This study aims to evaluate differences in efficacy and safety of fexuprazan in patients with erosive esophagitis (EE) according to the timing of dosing. Methods: In this multicenter, open-label noninferiority study, patients who had typical reflux symptoms with endoscopically confirmed EE were randomized 1:1 to receive fexuprazan 40 mg daily 30 minutes before or after meal. Treatment was completed after 2 weeks or 4 weeks when healing was endoscopically confirmed. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with healed EE confirmed by endoscopy up to week 4. Safety endpoints included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Results: In the prior-to-meal group (n = 89) and after-meal group (n = 86), 4-week EE healing rates were 98.77% and 100.00% (difference, 0.01%; 95% CI, –0.01% to 0.04%) and 2-week EE healing rates were 95.77% and 97.14% (difference, 0.01%; 95% CI, –0.05% to 0.07%), respectively. TEAEs were 9.78% and 8.70% in the prior-to-meal group and the after-meal group, respectively. Conclusions Non-inferiority analysis revealed that taking fexuprazan after meal was non-inferior to taking fexuprazan before meals in patients with EE. The frequency of adverse events was similar between the 2 study groups. The drug is safe and effective for healing EE regardless of the timing of dosing.

Background/Aims: Fexuprazan, a novel potassium-competitive acid blocker, was developed for treating acid-related disorders. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of fexuprazan, unlike those of proton pump inhibitors, are independent of food effect. This study aims to evaluate differences in efficacy and safety of fexuprazan in patients with erosive esophagitis (EE) according to the timing of dosing. Methods: In this multicenter, open-label noninferiority study, patients who had typical reflux symptoms with endoscopically confirmed EE were randomized 1:1 to receive fexuprazan 40 mg daily 30 minutes before or after meal. Treatment was completed after 2 weeks or 4 weeks when healing was endoscopically confirmed. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with healed EE confirmed by endoscopy up to week 4. Safety endpoints included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Results: In the prior-to-meal group (n = 89) and after-meal group (n = 86), 4-week EE healing rates were 98.77% and 100.00% (difference, 0.01%; 95% CI, –0.01% to 0.04%) and 2-week EE healing rates were 95.77% and 97.14% (difference, 0.01%; 95% CI, –0.05% to 0.07%), respectively. TEAEs were 9.78% and 8.70% in the prior-to-meal group and the after-meal group, respectively. Conclusions Non-inferiority analysis revealed that taking fexuprazan after meal was non-inferior to taking fexuprazan before meals in patients with EE. The frequency of adverse events was similar between the 2 study groups. The drug is safe and effective for healing EE regardless of the timing of dosing.

Purpose: There is a high possibility of trauma patients being referred to an unsuitable medical institution for their rehabilitation treatment since the decision is made by them. This study sought to develop a standardized scale to evaluate the need for specialized rehabilitation in patients with multiple traumas and evaluate the effectiveness of the developed scale. Methods: This study employed a systematic review of existing literature to inform the development of a specialized rehabilitation evaluation scale. An expert panel consisting of trauma surgeons, orthopedic surgeons, and rehabilitation medicine physicians collaborated to create a discharge-planning checklist by assessing the need for specialized rehabilitation. The checklist was validated using retrospective data from trauma patients treated at Seoul National University Hospital. Results: We identified 12 studies, providing factors influencing the discharge location and rehabilitation needs of trauma patients. The checklist was developed through expert consensus and comprised 3 criteria: discharge feasibility to specialized rehabilitation facilities, diagnostic eligibility for specialized rehabilitation, and functional assessment. Validation of the checklist demonstrated that the percentage agreement, likelihood ratio of a positive test, and Cohen’s kappa value were 82.1%, 5.21, and 0.375, respectively when comparing whether the checklist was met and the actual discharge location, indicating its effectiveness. Conclusion This study established standardized criteria for assessing the need for specialized rehabilitation in trauma patients, offering a practical tool for clinical use. Implementation of this assessment scale has the potential to improve the trajectory of trauma survivors by facilitating access to appropriate rehabilitation services.

Purpose: There is a high possibility of trauma patients being referred to an unsuitable medical institution for their rehabilitation treatment since the decision is made by them. This study sought to develop a standardized scale to evaluate the need for specialized rehabilitation in patients with multiple traumas and evaluate the effectiveness of the developed scale. Methods: This study employed a systematic review of existing literature to inform the development of a specialized rehabilitation evaluation scale. An expert panel consisting of trauma surgeons, orthopedic surgeons, and rehabilitation medicine physicians collaborated to create a discharge-planning checklist by assessing the need for specialized rehabilitation. The checklist was validated using retrospective data from trauma patients treated at Seoul National University Hospital. Results: We identified 12 studies, providing factors influencing the discharge location and rehabilitation needs of trauma patients. The checklist was developed through expert consensus and comprised 3 criteria: discharge feasibility to specialized rehabilitation facilities, diagnostic eligibility for specialized rehabilitation, and functional assessment. Validation of the checklist demonstrated that the percentage agreement, likelihood ratio of a positive test, and Cohen’s kappa value were 82.1%, 5.21, and 0.375, respectively when comparing whether the checklist was met and the actual discharge location, indicating its effectiveness. Conclusion This study established standardized criteria for assessing the need for specialized rehabilitation in trauma patients, offering a practical tool for clinical use. Implementation of this assessment scale has the potential to improve the trajectory of trauma survivors by facilitating access to appropriate rehabilitation services.

Purpose: There is a high possibility of trauma patients being referred to an unsuitable medical institution for their rehabilitation treatment since the decision is made by them. This study sought to develop a standardized scale to evaluate the need for specialized rehabilitation in patients with multiple traumas and evaluate the effectiveness of the developed scale. Methods: This study employed a systematic review of existing literature to inform the development of a specialized rehabilitation evaluation scale. An expert panel consisting of trauma surgeons, orthopedic surgeons, and rehabilitation medicine physicians collaborated to create a discharge-planning checklist by assessing the need for specialized rehabilitation. The checklist was validated using retrospective data from trauma patients treated at Seoul National University Hospital. Results: We identified 12 studies, providing factors influencing the discharge location and rehabilitation needs of trauma patients. The checklist was developed through expert consensus and comprised 3 criteria: discharge feasibility to specialized rehabilitation facilities, diagnostic eligibility for specialized rehabilitation, and functional assessment. Validation of the checklist demonstrated that the percentage agreement, likelihood ratio of a positive test, and Cohen’s kappa value were 82.1%, 5.21, and 0.375, respectively when comparing whether the checklist was met and the actual discharge location, indicating its effectiveness. Conclusion This study established standardized criteria for assessing the need for specialized rehabilitation in trauma patients, offering a practical tool for clinical use. Implementation of this assessment scale has the potential to improve the trajectory of trauma survivors by facilitating access to appropriate rehabilitation services.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Coronary artery calcium (CAC) scoring in the asymptomatic population can improve cardiovascular risk prediction. We aimed to assess CAC progression and the impact of coronary risk factors on the CAC progression rate in asymptomatic Korean individuals with a baseline CAC score of zero. METHODS: The study population was derived from the Korea Initiatives on Coronary Artery Calcification (KOICA) registry: a retrospective, single ethnicity, multicenter registry of asymptomatic individuals who underwent CAC scoring as a part of a health checkup. Individuals with at least two CAC scores and an initial score of zero were included. CAC progression was defined as [√CAC score (follow-up) − √CAC score (baseline)] ≥2.5. The 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk was calculated. RESULTS: Among 6,268 participants (mean age, 48.0±7.1 years; male, 80.5%), 719 (11.5%) experienced CAC progression during follow-up (median, 109 months; interquartile range, 78–208 months). The CAC progression rate was 0.3%, 1.9%, 4.3%, 8.6%, and 16.7% in years 1–5, respectively. The chance of CAC progression at 5 years was 13.1%, 22.0%, and 27.9% for individuals with a 10-year ASCVD risk of <5%, ≥5% but <7.5%, and ≥7.5%, respectively. A multivariable analysis revealed age, male sex, waist circumference, diabetes, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level as independently associated with annualized CAC progression (p<0.001, p=0.017, p=0.025, p=0.032, and p=0.003, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The probability of CAC progression is very low in Korean individuals with a CAC score of zero. However, the risk of CAC progression increases nonlinearly over time, and increases as the 10-year ASCVD risk increases.
Calcium ; Cardiovascular Diseases ; Cholesterol ; Coronary Vessels ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Korea ; Lipoproteins ; Male ; Retrospective Studies ; Risk Assessment ; Risk Factors ; Waist Circumference