Objective: This study was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lurasidone (160 mg/day) compared to quetiapine XR (QXR; 600 mg/day) in the treatment of acutely psychotic patients with schizophrenia. Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to 6 weeks of double-blind treatment with lurasidone 160 mg/day (n=105) or QXR 600 mg/day (n=105). Primary efficacy measure was the change from baseline to week 6 in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score and Clinical Global Impressions severity (CGI-S) score. Adverse events, body measurements, and laboratory parameters were assessed. Results: Lurasidone demonstrated non-inferiority to QXR on the PANSS total score. Adjusted mean±standard error change at week 6 on the PANSS total score was -26.42±2.02 and -27.33±2.01 in the lurasidone and QXR group, respectively. The mean difference score was -0.91 (95% confidence interval -6.35–4.53). The lurasidone group showed a greater reduction in PANSS total and negative subscale on week 1 and a greater reduction in end-point CGI-S score compared to the QXR group. Body weight, body mass index, and waist circumference in the lurasidone group were reduced, with significantly lower mean change compared to QXR. Endpoint changes in glucose, cholesterol, triglycerides, and low-density lipoprotein levels were also significantly lower. The most common adverse drug reactions with lurasidone were akathisia and nausea. Conclusion Lurasidone 160 mg/day was found to be non-inferior to QXR 600 mg/day in the treatment of schizophrenia with comparable efficacy and tolerability. Adverse effects of lurasidone were generally tolerable, and beneficial effects on metabolic parameters can be expected.

Acute pancreatitis can range from a mild, self-limiting disease requiring no more than supportive care, to severe disease with life-threatening complications. With the goal of providing a recommendation framework for clinicians to manage acute pancreatitis, and to contribute to improvements in national health care, the Korean Pancreatobiliary Association (KPBA) established the Korean guidelines for acute pancreatitis management in 2013. However, many challenging issues exist which often lead to differences in clinical practices. In addition, with newly obtained evidence regarding acute pancreatitis, there have been great changes in recent knowledge and information regarding this disorder. Therefore, the KPBA committee underwent an extensive revision of the guidelines. The revised guidelines were developed using the Delphi method, and the main topics of the guidelines include the following: diagnosis, severity assessment, initial treatment, nutritional support, convalescent treatment, and the treatment of local complications and necrotizing pancreatitis. Specific recommendations are presented, along with the evidence levels and recommendation grades.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused the death of thousands of patients worldwide. Although age is known to be a risk factor for morbidity and mortality in COVID-19 patients, critical illness or death is occurring even in the younger age group as the epidemic spreads. In early 2022, omicron became the dominant variant of the COVID-19 virus in South Korea, and the epidemic proceeded on a large scale. Accordingly, this study aimed to determine whether young adults (aged ≤ 50 years) with critical COVID-19 infection during the omicron period had different characteristics from older patients and to determine the risk factors for mortality in this specific age group. Methods: We evaluated 213 critical adult patients (high flow nasal cannula or higher respiratory support) hospitalized for polymerase chain reaction-confirmed COVID-19 in nine hospitals in South Korea between February 1, 2022 and April 30, 2022. Demographic characteristics, including body mass index (BMI) and vaccination status; underlying diseases; clinical features and laboratory findings; clinical course; treatment received; and outcomes were collected from electronic medical records (EMRs) and analyzed according to age and mortality. Results: Overall, 71 critically ill patients aged ≤ 50 years were enrolled, and 142 critically ill patients aged over 50 years were selected through 1:2 matching based on the date of diagnosis. The most frequent underlying diseases among those aged ≤ 50 years were diabetes and hypertension, and all 14 patients who died had either a BMI ≥ 25 kg/m 2 or an underlying disease. The total case fatality rate among severe patients (S-CFR) was 31.0%, and the S-CFR differed according to age and was higher than that during the delta period. The S-CFR was 19.7% for those aged ≤ 50 years, 36.6% for those aged > 50 years, and 38.1% for those aged ≥ 65 years. In multivariate analysis, age (odds ratio [OR], 1.084; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.043–1.127), initial low-density lipoprotein > 600 IU/L (OR, 4.782; 95% CI, 1.584–14.434), initial C-reactive protein > 8 mg/dL (OR, 2.940; 95% CI, 1.042–8.293), highest aspartate aminotransferase > 200 IU/L (OR, 12.931; 95% CI, 1.691–98.908), and mechanical ventilation implementation (OR, 3.671; 95% CI, 1.294–10.420) were significant independent predictors of mortality in critical COVID-19 patients during the omicron wave. A similar pattern was shown when analyzing the data by age group, but most had no statistical significance owing to the small number of deaths in the young critical group. Although the vaccination completion rate of all the patients (31.0%) was higher than that in the delta wave period (13.6%), it was still lower than that of the general population. Further, only 15 (21.1%) critically ill patients aged ≤ 50 years were fully vaccinated. Overall, the severity of hospitalized critical patients was significantly higher than that in the delta period, indicating that it was difficult to find common risk factors in the two periods only with a simple comparison. Conclusion Overall, the S-CFR of critically ill COVID-19 patients in the omicron period was higher than that in the delta period, especially in those aged ≤ 50 years. All of the patients who died had an underlying disease or obesity. In the same population, the vaccination rate was very low compared to that in the delta wave, indicating that non-vaccination significantly affected the progression to critical illness. Notably, there was a lack of prescription for Paxlovid for these patients although they satisfied the prescription criteria. Early diagnosis and active initial treatment was necessary, along with the proven methods of vaccination and personal hygiene. Further studies are needed to determine how each variant affects critically ill patients.

Background: Numerous patients around the globe are dying from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). While age is a known risk factor, risk analysis in the young generation is lacking. The present study aimed to evaluate the clinical features and mortality risk factors in younger patients (≤ 50 years) with a critical case of COVID-19 in comparison with those among older patients (> 50 years) in Korea. Methods: We analyzed the data of adult patients only in critical condition (requiring high flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy or higher respiratory support) hospitalized with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 at 11 hospitals in Korea from July 1, 2021 to November 30, 2021 when the delta variant was a dominant strain. Patients’ electronic medical records were reviewed to identify clinical characteristics. Results: During the study period, 448 patients were enrolled. One hundred and forty-two were aged 50 years or younger (the younger group), while 306 were above 50 years of age (the older group). The most common pre-existing conditions in the younger group were diabetes mellitus and hypertension, and 69.7% of the patients had a body mass index (BMI) > 25 kg/m 2 .Of 142 younger patients, 31 of 142 patients (21.8%, 19 women) did not have these pre-existing conditions. The overall case fatality rate among severity cases was 21.0%, and it differed according to age: 5.6% (n = 8/142) in the younger group, 28.1% in the older group, and 38% in the ≥ 65 years group. Age (odds ratio [OR], 7.902; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.754–18.181), mechanical ventilation therapy (OR, 17.233; 95% CI, 8.439–35.192), highest creatinine > 1.5 mg/dL (OR, 17.631; 95% CI, 8.321–37.357), and combined blood stream infection (OR, 7.092;95% CI, 1.061–18.181) were identified as independent predictors of mortality in total patients.Similar patterns were observed in age-specific analyses, but most results were statistically insignificant in multivariate analysis due to the low number of deaths in the younger group.The full vaccination rate was very low among study population (13.6%), and only three patients were fully vaccinated, with none of the patients who died having been fully vaccinated in the younger group. Seven of eight patients who died had a pre-existing condition or were obese (BMI > 25 kg/m 2 ), and the one remaining patient died from a secondary infection. Conclusion About 22% of the patients in the young critical group did not have an underlying disease or obesity, but the rate of obesity (BMI > 25 kg/m2 ) was high, with a fatality rate of 5.6%. The full vaccination rate was extremely low compared to the general population of the same age group, showing that non-vaccination has a grave impact on the progression of COVID-19 to a critical condition. The findings of this study highlight the need for measures to prevent critical progression of COVID-19, such as vaccinations and targeting young adults especially having risk factors.

Background: There has been no comparison of the determinants of admission route between acute ischemic stroke (AIS) and acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We examined whether factors associated with direct versus transferred-in admission to regional cardiocerebrovascular centers (RCVCs) differed between AIS and AMI. Methods: Using a nationwide RCVC registry, we identified consecutive patients presenting with AMI and AIS between July 2016 and December 2018. We explored factors associated with direct admission to RCVCs in patients with AIS and AMI and examined whether those associations differed between AIS and AMI, including interaction terms between each factor and disease type in multivariable models. To explore the influence of emergency medical service (EMS) paramedics on hospital selection, stratified analyses according to use of EMS were also performed. Results: Among the 17,897 and 8,927 AIS and AMI patients, 66.6% and 48.2% were directly admitted to RCVCs, respectively. Multivariable analysis showed that previous coronary heart disease, prehospital awareness, higher education level, and EMS use increased the odds of direct admission to RCVCs, but the odds ratio (OR) was different between AIS and AMI (for the first 3 factors, AMI > AIS; for EMS use, AMI < AIS). EMS use was the single most important factor for both AIS and AMI (OR, 4.72 vs. 3.90). Hypertension and hyperlipidemia increased, while living alone decreased the odds of direct admission only in AMI;additionally, age (65–74 years), previous stroke, and presentation during non-working hours increased the odds only in AIS. EMS use weakened the associations between direct admission and most factors in both AIS and AMI. Conclusions Various patient factors were differentially associated with direct admission to RCVCs between AIS and AMI. Public education for symptom awareness and use of EMS is essential in optimizing the transportation and hospitalization of patients with AMI and AIS.

Acute pancreatitis can range from a mild, self-limiting disease that requires no more than supportive care to severe disease with life-threatening complications. Therefore, to provide a framework for clinicians to manage acute pancreatitis and to improve national health care, the Korean Pancreatobiliary Association (KPBA) established the first Korean guideline for the management of acute pancreatitis in 2013. However, many challenging issues exist, which sometimes lead to differences in practice between clinicians. Taking together the recent dramatic changes of latest knowledge and evidence newly obtained, the committee of the KPBA decided to perform an extensive revision of the guidelines. These revised guidelines were developed by using mainly Delphi methods, and the main topics of these guidelines fall under the following topics: 1) diagnosis, 2) severity assessment, 3) initial treatment, nutritional support, and convalescent treatment, 4) the treatment of local complication and necrotizing pancreatitis. The specific recommendations are presented with the quality of evidence and classification of recommendations.

Background: Remdesivir is widely used for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but controversies regarding its efficacy still remain. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted to evaluate the effect of remdesivir on clinical and virologic outcomes of severe COVID-19 patients from June to July 2020. Primary clinical endpoints included clinical recovery, additional mechanical ventilator (MV) support, and duration of oxygen or MV support. Viral load reduction by hospital day (HD) 15 was evaluated by calculating changes in cycle threshold (Ct) values. Results: A total of 86 severe COVID-19 patients were evaluated including 48 remdesivirtreated patients. Baseline characteristics were not significantly different between the two groups. Remdesivir was administered an average of 7.42 days from symptom onset. The proportions of clinical recovery of the remdesivir and supportive care group at HD 14 (56.3% and 39.5%) and HD 28 (87.5% and 78.9%) were not statistically different. The proportion of patients requiring MV support by HD 28 was significantly lower in the remdesivir group than in the supportive care group (22.9% vs. 44.7%, P = 0.032), and MV duration was significantly shorter in the remdesivir group (average, 1.97 vs. 5.37 days; P = 0.017). Analysis of upper respiratory tract specimens demonstrated that increases of Ct value from HD 1–5 to 11–15 were significantly greater in the remdesivir group than the supportive care group (average, 10.19 vs. 5.36; P = 0.007), and the slope of the Ct value increase was also significantly steeper in the remdesivir group (average, 5.10 vs. 2.68; P = 0.007). Conclusion The remdesivir group showed clinical and virologic benefit in terms of MV requirement and viral load reduction, supporting remdesivir treatment for severe COVID-19.

Background: Remdesivir is widely used for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but controversies regarding its efficacy still remain. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted to evaluate the effect of remdesivir on clinical and virologic outcomes of severe COVID-19 patients from June to July 2020. Primary clinical endpoints included clinical recovery, additional mechanical ventilator (MV) support, and duration of oxygen or MV support. Viral load reduction by hospital day (HD) 15 was evaluated by calculating changes in cycle threshold (Ct) values. Results: A total of 86 severe COVID-19 patients were evaluated including 48 remdesivirtreated patients. Baseline characteristics were not significantly different between the two groups. Remdesivir was administered an average of 7.42 days from symptom onset. The proportions of clinical recovery of the remdesivir and supportive care group at HD 14 (56.3% and 39.5%) and HD 28 (87.5% and 78.9%) were not statistically different. The proportion of patients requiring MV support by HD 28 was significantly lower in the remdesivir group than in the supportive care group (22.9% vs. 44.7%, P = 0.032), and MV duration was significantly shorter in the remdesivir group (average, 1.97 vs. 5.37 days; P = 0.017). Analysis of upper respiratory tract specimens demonstrated that increases of Ct value from HD 1–5 to 11–15 were significantly greater in the remdesivir group than the supportive care group (average, 10.19 vs. 5.36; P = 0.007), and the slope of the Ct value increase was also significantly steeper in the remdesivir group (average, 5.10 vs. 2.68; P = 0.007). Conclusion The remdesivir group showed clinical and virologic benefit in terms of MV requirement and viral load reduction, supporting remdesivir treatment for severe COVID-19.

PURPOSE: Although the height of a rectal tumor above the anal verge (tumor height) partly determines the treatment strategy, no practical standard exists for reporting this. We aimed to demonstrate the differences in tumor height according to the diagnostic modality used for its measurement. METHODS: We identified 100 patients with rectal cancers located within 15 cm of the anal verge who had recorded tumor heights measured by using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), colonoscopy, and digital rectal examination (DRE). Tumor height measured by using MRI was compared with those measured by using DRE and colonoscopy to assess reporting inconsistencies. Factors associated with differences in tumor height among the modalities were also evaluated. RESULTS: The mean tumor heights were 77.8 ± 3.3, 52.9 ± 2.3, and 68.9 ± 3.1 mm when measured by using MRI, DRE, and colonoscopy, respectively (P < 0.001). Agreement among the 3 modalities in terms of tumor sublocation within the rectum was found in only 39% of the patients. In the univariate and the multivariate analyses, clinical stage showed a possible association with concordance among modalities, but age, sex, and luminal location of the tumor were not associated with differences among modalities. CONCLUSION: The heights of rectal cancer differed according to the diagnostic modality. Tumor height has implications for rectal cancer’s surgical planning and for interpreting comparative studies. Hence, a consensus is needed for measuring and reporting tumor height.
Colonoscopy ; Consensus ; Digital Rectal Examination ; Humans ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging ; Multivariate Analysis ; Phenobarbital ; Rectal Neoplasms ; Rectum

PURPOSE: We investigated the sensitivity of various evaluating modalities in predicting a pathologic complete response (pCR) after preoperative chemoradiation therapy (PCRT) for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). METHODS: From a population of 2,247 LARC patients who underwent PCRT followed by surgery at Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea from January 2007 to June 2016, we retrospectively analyzed 313 patients (14.1%) who showed a pCR after surgery. Transrectal ultrasound (TRUS), high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), abdominopelvic computed tomography (AP-CT), and endoscopy were performed within 2 weeks prior to surgery. RESULTS: Of the 313 patients analyzed, 256 (81.8%) had a pCR after radical surgery and 57 (18.2%) showed total regression after local excision. Preoperative TRUS, MRI, and AP-CT were performed in 283, 305, and 139 patients, respectively. Among these 3 groups, a prediction of a pCR of the primary tumor was made in 41 (14.5%), 51 (16.7%), and 27 patients (19.4%), respectively, before surgery. A prediction of a clinical N0 stage was made in 204 patients (88.3%) using TRUS, 130 (52.2%) using MRI, and 78 (65.5%) using AP-CT. Of the 211 patients who underwent endoscopy, 87 (41.2%) had a mention of clinical CR in their records. A prediction of a pathologic CR was made for 124 patients (39.6%) through at least one diagnostic modality. CONCLUSION: The various evaluation methods for predicting a pCR after PCRT show a predictive sensitivity of 0.15–0.41 for primary tumors and 0.52–0.88 for lymph nodes. Endoscopy is a relatively superior modality for predicting the pCR of the primary tumor of LARC patients.
Chungcheongnam-do ; Endoscopy ; Humans ; Korea ; Lymph Nodes ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging ; Polymerase Chain Reaction ; Rectal Neoplasms ; Retrospective Studies ; Seoul ; Ultrasonography