Background: The effects of psychotic disorders on cardiometabolic diseases and premature death need to be determined in Asian populations. Methods: In this population-based matched cohort study, the Korean National Health Insurance Service database (2002 to 2018) was used. The risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), acute myocardial infarction (AMI), ischemic stroke, composite of all cardiometabolic diseases, and all-cause death during follow-up was compared between individuals with psychotic disorders treated with antipsychotics (n=48,162) and 1:1 matched controls without psychiatric disorders among adults without cardiometabolic diseases before or within 3 months after baseline. Results: In this cohort, 53,683 composite cases of all cardiometabolic diseases (during median 7.38 years), 899 AMI, and 1,216 ischemic stroke cases (during median 14.14 years), 7,686 T2DM cases (during median 13.26 years), and 7,092 deaths (during median 14.23 years) occurred. The risk of all outcomes was higher in subjects with psychotic disorders than matched controls (adjusted hazard ratios [95% confidence intervals]: 1.522 [1.446 to 1.602] for T2DM; 1.455 [1.251 to 1.693] for AMI; 1.568 [1.373 to 1.790] for ischemic stroke; 1.595 [1.565 to 1.626] for composite of all cardiometabolic diseases; and 2.747 [2.599 to 2.904] for all-cause mortality) during follow-up. Similar patterns of associations were maintained in subgroup analyses but more prominent in younger individuals (P for interaction <0.0001) when categorized as those aged 18–39, 40–64, or ≥65 years. Conclusion Patients with psychotic disorders treated with antipsychotics were associated with increased risk of premature allcause mortality and cardiometabolic outcomes in an Asian population. This relationship was more pronounced in younger individuals, especially aged 18 to 39 years.

Background and Objectives: The number of people with heart failure (HF) is increasing worldwide, and the social burden is increasing as HF has high mortality and morbidity. We aimed to provide updated trends on the epidemiology of HF in Korea to shape future social measures against HF. Methods: We used the National Health Information Database of the National Health Insurance Service to determine the prevalence, incidence, hospitalization rate, mortality rate, comorbidities, in-hospital mortality, and healthcare cost of patients with HF from 2002 to 2020 in Korea. Results: The prevalence of HF in the total Korean population rose from 0.77% in 2002 to 2.58% (1,326,886 people) in 2020. Although the age-standardized incidence of HF decreased over the past 18 years, the age-standardized prevalence increased. In 2020, the hospitalization rate for any cause in patients with HF was 1,166 per 100,000 persons, with a steady increase from 2002. In 2002, the HF mortality was 3.0 per 100,000 persons, which rose to 15.6 per 100,000 persons in 2020. While hospitalization rates and in-hospital mortality for patients with HF increased, the mortality rate for patients with HF did not (5.8% in 2020), and the one-year survival rate from the first diagnosis of HF improved. The total healthcare costs for patients with HF were approximately $2.4 billion in 2020, a 16-fold increase over the $0.15 billion in 2002. Conclusions The study’s results underscore the growing socioeconomic burden of HF in Korea, driven by an aging population and increasing HF prevalence.

Background and Objectives: Lipid lowering therapy is essential to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events; however, limited evidence exists regarding the use of statin with ezetimibe as primary prevention strategy for middle-aged adults. We aimed to investigate the impact of single pill combination therapy on clinical outcomes in relatively healthy middleaged patients when compared with statin monotherapy. Methods: Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, a propensity score match analysis was performed for baseline characteristics of 92,156 patients categorized into combination therapy (n=46,078) and statin monotherapy (n=46,078) groups. Primary outcome was composite outcomes, including death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke. And secondary outcome was all-cause death. The mean follow-up duration was 2.9±0.3 years. Results: The 3-year composite outcomes of all-cause death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke demonstrated no significant difference between the 2 groups (10.3% vs.10.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.022; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.980–1.064; p=0.309).Meanwhile, the 3-year all-cause death rate was lower in the combination therapy group than in the statin monotherapy group (0.2% vs. 0.4%; p<0.001), with a significant HR of 0.595 (95% CI, 0.460–0.769; p<0.001). Single pill combination therapy exhibited consistently lower mortality rates across various subgroups. Conclusions Compared to the statin monotherapy, the combination therapy for primary prevention showed no difference in composite outcomes but may reduce mortality risk in relatively healthy middle-aged patients. However, since the study was observational, further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Background and Objectives: Lipid lowering therapy is essential to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events; however, limited evidence exists regarding the use of statin with ezetimibe as primary prevention strategy for middle-aged adults. We aimed to investigate the impact of single pill combination therapy on clinical outcomes in relatively healthy middleaged patients when compared with statin monotherapy. Methods: Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, a propensity score match analysis was performed for baseline characteristics of 92,156 patients categorized into combination therapy (n=46,078) and statin monotherapy (n=46,078) groups. Primary outcome was composite outcomes, including death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke. And secondary outcome was all-cause death. The mean follow-up duration was 2.9±0.3 years. Results: The 3-year composite outcomes of all-cause death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke demonstrated no significant difference between the 2 groups (10.3% vs.10.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.022; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.980–1.064; p=0.309).Meanwhile, the 3-year all-cause death rate was lower in the combination therapy group than in the statin monotherapy group (0.2% vs. 0.4%; p<0.001), with a significant HR of 0.595 (95% CI, 0.460–0.769; p<0.001). Single pill combination therapy exhibited consistently lower mortality rates across various subgroups. Conclusions Compared to the statin monotherapy, the combination therapy for primary prevention showed no difference in composite outcomes but may reduce mortality risk in relatively healthy middle-aged patients. However, since the study was observational, further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Background and Objectives: Lipid lowering therapy is essential to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events; however, limited evidence exists regarding the use of statin with ezetimibe as primary prevention strategy for middle-aged adults. We aimed to investigate the impact of single pill combination therapy on clinical outcomes in relatively healthy middleaged patients when compared with statin monotherapy. Methods: Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, a propensity score match analysis was performed for baseline characteristics of 92,156 patients categorized into combination therapy (n=46,078) and statin monotherapy (n=46,078) groups. Primary outcome was composite outcomes, including death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke. And secondary outcome was all-cause death. The mean follow-up duration was 2.9±0.3 years. Results: The 3-year composite outcomes of all-cause death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke demonstrated no significant difference between the 2 groups (10.3% vs.10.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.022; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.980–1.064; p=0.309).Meanwhile, the 3-year all-cause death rate was lower in the combination therapy group than in the statin monotherapy group (0.2% vs. 0.4%; p<0.001), with a significant HR of 0.595 (95% CI, 0.460–0.769; p<0.001). Single pill combination therapy exhibited consistently lower mortality rates across various subgroups. Conclusions Compared to the statin monotherapy, the combination therapy for primary prevention showed no difference in composite outcomes but may reduce mortality risk in relatively healthy middle-aged patients. However, since the study was observational, further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Background and Objectives: Lipid lowering therapy is essential to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events; however, limited evidence exists regarding the use of statin with ezetimibe as primary prevention strategy for middle-aged adults. We aimed to investigate the impact of single pill combination therapy on clinical outcomes in relatively healthy middleaged patients when compared with statin monotherapy. Methods: Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, a propensity score match analysis was performed for baseline characteristics of 92,156 patients categorized into combination therapy (n=46,078) and statin monotherapy (n=46,078) groups. Primary outcome was composite outcomes, including death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke. And secondary outcome was all-cause death. The mean follow-up duration was 2.9±0.3 years. Results: The 3-year composite outcomes of all-cause death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke demonstrated no significant difference between the 2 groups (10.3% vs.10.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.022; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.980–1.064; p=0.309).Meanwhile, the 3-year all-cause death rate was lower in the combination therapy group than in the statin monotherapy group (0.2% vs. 0.4%; p<0.001), with a significant HR of 0.595 (95% CI, 0.460–0.769; p<0.001). Single pill combination therapy exhibited consistently lower mortality rates across various subgroups. Conclusions Compared to the statin monotherapy, the combination therapy for primary prevention showed no difference in composite outcomes but may reduce mortality risk in relatively healthy middle-aged patients. However, since the study was observational, further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.