Background: This study aimed to determine whether a shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen is non-inferior to the standard 6-month tuberculosis regimen. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial enrolled participants with respiratory specimen positivity by Xpert MTB/RIF assay or Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture without rifampicin-resistance. Participants were randomized at 1:1 to the investigational or control group. The investigational group received high-dose rifampicin (30 mg/kg/day), isoniazid, and pyrazinamide until culture conversion, followed by high-dose rifampicin and isoniazid for 12 weeks. The control group received the standard 6-month regimen. The primary outcome was the rate of unfavorable outcomes at 18 months post-randomization. The non-inferiority margin was set at <6% difference in unfavorable outcomes rates. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04485156) Results: Between 4 November 2020 and 3 January 2022, 76 participants were enrolled. Of these, 58 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Unfavorable outcomes occurred in 10 (31.3%) of 32 in the control group and 10 (38.5%) of 26 in the investigational group. The difference was 7.2% (95% confidence interval, ∞ to 31.9%), failing to prove non-inferiority. Serious adverse events and grade 3 or higher adverse events did not differ between the groups. Conclusion The shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen failed to demonstrate non-inferiority but had an acceptable safety profile.

Background: This study aimed to determine whether a shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen is non-inferior to the standard 6-month tuberculosis regimen. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial enrolled participants with respiratory specimen positivity by Xpert MTB/RIF assay or Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture without rifampicin-resistance. Participants were randomized at 1:1 to the investigational or control group. The investigational group received high-dose rifampicin (30 mg/kg/day), isoniazid, and pyrazinamide until culture conversion, followed by high-dose rifampicin and isoniazid for 12 weeks. The control group received the standard 6-month regimen. The primary outcome was the rate of unfavorable outcomes at 18 months post-randomization. The non-inferiority margin was set at <6% difference in unfavorable outcomes rates. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04485156) Results: Between 4 November 2020 and 3 January 2022, 76 participants were enrolled. Of these, 58 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Unfavorable outcomes occurred in 10 (31.3%) of 32 in the control group and 10 (38.5%) of 26 in the investigational group. The difference was 7.2% (95% confidence interval, ∞ to 31.9%), failing to prove non-inferiority. Serious adverse events and grade 3 or higher adverse events did not differ between the groups. Conclusion The shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen failed to demonstrate non-inferiority but had an acceptable safety profile.

Background: This study aimed to determine whether a shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen is non-inferior to the standard 6-month tuberculosis regimen. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial enrolled participants with respiratory specimen positivity by Xpert MTB/RIF assay or Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture without rifampicin-resistance. Participants were randomized at 1:1 to the investigational or control group. The investigational group received high-dose rifampicin (30 mg/kg/day), isoniazid, and pyrazinamide until culture conversion, followed by high-dose rifampicin and isoniazid for 12 weeks. The control group received the standard 6-month regimen. The primary outcome was the rate of unfavorable outcomes at 18 months post-randomization. The non-inferiority margin was set at <6% difference in unfavorable outcomes rates. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04485156) Results: Between 4 November 2020 and 3 January 2022, 76 participants were enrolled. Of these, 58 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Unfavorable outcomes occurred in 10 (31.3%) of 32 in the control group and 10 (38.5%) of 26 in the investigational group. The difference was 7.2% (95% confidence interval, ∞ to 31.9%), failing to prove non-inferiority. Serious adverse events and grade 3 or higher adverse events did not differ between the groups. Conclusion The shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen failed to demonstrate non-inferiority but had an acceptable safety profile.

Background: This study aimed to determine whether a shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen is non-inferior to the standard 6-month tuberculosis regimen. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial enrolled participants with respiratory specimen positivity by Xpert MTB/RIF assay or Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture without rifampicin-resistance. Participants were randomized at 1:1 to the investigational or control group. The investigational group received high-dose rifampicin (30 mg/kg/day), isoniazid, and pyrazinamide until culture conversion, followed by high-dose rifampicin and isoniazid for 12 weeks. The control group received the standard 6-month regimen. The primary outcome was the rate of unfavorable outcomes at 18 months post-randomization. The non-inferiority margin was set at <6% difference in unfavorable outcomes rates. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04485156) Results: Between 4 November 2020 and 3 January 2022, 76 participants were enrolled. Of these, 58 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Unfavorable outcomes occurred in 10 (31.3%) of 32 in the control group and 10 (38.5%) of 26 in the investigational group. The difference was 7.2% (95% confidence interval, ∞ to 31.9%), failing to prove non-inferiority. Serious adverse events and grade 3 or higher adverse events did not differ between the groups. Conclusion The shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen failed to demonstrate non-inferiority but had an acceptable safety profile.

Background: This study aimed to determine whether a shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen is non-inferior to the standard 6-month tuberculosis regimen. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial enrolled participants with respiratory specimen positivity by Xpert MTB/RIF assay or Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture without rifampicin-resistance. Participants were randomized at 1:1 to the investigational or control group. The investigational group received high-dose rifampicin (30 mg/kg/day), isoniazid, and pyrazinamide until culture conversion, followed by high-dose rifampicin and isoniazid for 12 weeks. The control group received the standard 6-month regimen. The primary outcome was the rate of unfavorable outcomes at 18 months post-randomization. The non-inferiority margin was set at <6% difference in unfavorable outcomes rates. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04485156) Results: Between 4 November 2020 and 3 January 2022, 76 participants were enrolled. Of these, 58 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Unfavorable outcomes occurred in 10 (31.3%) of 32 in the control group and 10 (38.5%) of 26 in the investigational group. The difference was 7.2% (95% confidence interval, ∞ to 31.9%), failing to prove non-inferiority. Serious adverse events and grade 3 or higher adverse events did not differ between the groups. Conclusion The shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen failed to demonstrate non-inferiority but had an acceptable safety profile.

In the 2023 series, we summarized the major clinical research advances in gynecologic oncology based on communications at the conference of Asian Society of Gynecologic Oncology Review Course. The review consisted of 1) Endometrial cancer: immune checkpoint inhibitor, antibody drug conjugates (ADCs), selective inhibitor of nuclear export, CDK4/6 inhibitors WEE1 inhibitor, poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. 2) Cervical cancer: surgery in low-risk early-stage cervical cancer, therapy for locally advanced stage and advanced, metastatic, or recurrent setting; and 3) Ovarian cancer: immunotherapy, triplet therapies using immune checkpoint inhibitors along with antiangiogenic agents and PARP inhibitors, and ADCs. In 2023, the field of endometrial cancer treatment witnessed a landmark year, marked by several practice-changing outcomes with immune checkpoint inhibitors and the reliable efficacy of PARP inhibitors and ADCs.

In the 2023 series, we summarized the major clinical research advances in gynecologic oncology based on communications at the conference of Asian Society of Gynecologic Oncology Review Course. The review consisted of 1) Endometrial cancer: immune checkpoint inhibitor, antibody drug conjugates (ADCs), selective inhibitor of nuclear export, CDK4/6 inhibitors WEE1 inhibitor, poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. 2) Cervical cancer: surgery in low-risk early-stage cervical cancer, therapy for locally advanced stage and advanced, metastatic, or recurrent setting; and 3) Ovarian cancer: immunotherapy, triplet therapies using immune checkpoint inhibitors along with antiangiogenic agents and PARP inhibitors, and ADCs. In 2023, the field of endometrial cancer treatment witnessed a landmark year, marked by several practice-changing outcomes with immune checkpoint inhibitors and the reliable efficacy of PARP inhibitors and ADCs.

In the 2023 series, we summarized the major clinical research advances in gynecologic oncology based on communications at the conference of Asian Society of Gynecologic Oncology Review Course. The review consisted of 1) Endometrial cancer: immune checkpoint inhibitor, antibody drug conjugates (ADCs), selective inhibitor of nuclear export, CDK4/6 inhibitors WEE1 inhibitor, poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. 2) Cervical cancer: surgery in low-risk early-stage cervical cancer, therapy for locally advanced stage and advanced, metastatic, or recurrent setting; and 3) Ovarian cancer: immunotherapy, triplet therapies using immune checkpoint inhibitors along with antiangiogenic agents and PARP inhibitors, and ADCs. In 2023, the field of endometrial cancer treatment witnessed a landmark year, marked by several practice-changing outcomes with immune checkpoint inhibitors and the reliable efficacy of PARP inhibitors and ADCs.

Background/Aims: Quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) is believed to identify patients at risk of poor outcomes in those with suspected infection. We aimed to evaluate the ability of modified qSOFA (m-qSOFA) to identify high-risk patients among those with acutely deteriorated chronic liver disease (CLD), especially those with acute-onchronic liver failure (ACLF). Methods: We used data from both the Korean Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure (KACLiF) and the Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver ACLF Research Consortium (AARC) cohorts. qSOFA was modified by replacing the Glasgow Coma Scale with hepatic encephalopathy, and an m-qSOFA ≥2 was considered high. Results: Patients with high m-qSOFA had a significantly lower 1-month transplant-free survival (TFS) in both cohorts and higher organ failure development in KACLiF than those with low m-qSOFA (Ps<0.05). Subgroup analysis by ACLF showed that patients with high m-qSOFA had lower TFS than those with low m-qSOFA. m-qSOFA was an independent prognostic factor (hazard ratios, HR=2.604, 95% confidence interval, CI 1.353–5.013, P=0.004 in KACLiF and HR=1.904, 95% CI 1.484– 2.442, P<0.001 in AARC). The patients with low m-qSOFA at baseline but high m-qSOFA on day 7 had a significantly lower 1-month TFS than those with high m-qSOFA at baseline but low m-qSOFA on day 7 (52.6% vs. 89.4%, P<0.001 in KACLiF and 26.9% vs. 61.5%, P<0.001 in AARC). Conclusions Baseline and dynamic changes in m-qSOFA may identify patients with a high risk of developing organ failure and short-term mortality among CLD patients with acute deterioration.

Background: Developmental trajectories of clinical skills in training physicians vary among tasks and show interindividual differences. This study examined the predictors of medical internship performance and residency entrance and found subtypes of performance trajectory in training physicians. Methods: This retrospective cohort study involved 888 training physicians who completed a medical internship between 2015 and 2019. After the internship, 627 physicians applied for residency training between 2016 and 2020. Finally, 160 of them completed their first-year residency in internal medicine, surgery, pediatrics, and psychiatry departments between 2016 and 2020. Pearson’s correlation coefficients of internship performance and first year-residency performance (n = 160) were calculated. Latent profile analysis identified performance trajectory subtypes according to medical school grade point average (GPA), internship performance, English proficiency, and residency selection procedures. Multivariate logistic regression models of residency acceptance (n = 627) and performance in the top 30%/lower 10% in the first year of residency were also constructed. Results: Medical internship performance showed a significant positive correlation with the medical school GPA (r = 0.194) and the written score for the medical licensing examination (r = 0.125). Higher scores in the interview (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.57) and written examination (aOR, 1.45) of residency selection procedures and higher medical internship performance (aOR, 1.19) were associated with a higher chance of residency acceptance. The latent profile analyses identified three training physician subgroups: average performance, consistently high performance (top 30%), and adaptation to changes (lowest 10%). Higher scores in the interview for residency selection (aOR, 1.35) and lower scores for medical internship performance (aOR, 0.79) were associated with a higher chance of performing in the top 30% or lowest 10% in the first year of residency, respectively. Conclusion Performance in the interview and medical internship predicted being among the top 30% and lowest 10% of performers in the first year of residency training, respectively.Individualized educational programs to enhance the prospect of trainees becoming highfunctioning physicians are needed.