OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to investigate the association between fracture risk and proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use to establish evidence for defining high-risk groups of fracture among PPI users. METHODS: A case-control study was performed using the National Health Insurance Sample Cohort Database from January 2002 to December 2013. The cases included all incidences of major fractures identified from January 2011 to December 2013, and up to four controls were matched to each case by age, gender, osteoporosis, and Charlson comorbidity index. Conditional logistic regression was used to calculate the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and associated 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Overall, 14,295 cases were identified, and 63,435 controls were matched to the cases. The aOR of fractures related to the use of PPIs was 1.06 (95% CI: 1.01–1.11). There was a statistically significant association between fracture and PPI use within 3 months of the last dose, and a trend of increasing fracture risk with increasing cumulative PPI dose. The risk of fracture was significantly higher in patients who took PPIs for more than 1 year during the 2-year observation period. CONCLUSION: Patients who have been using PPIs for more than 1 year should be warned about the risk of fracture during or at least 3 months after discontinuing the PPI.
Case-Control Studies ; Cohort Studies ; Comorbidity ; Humans ; Incidence ; Logistic Models ; National Health Programs ; Odds Ratio ; Osteoporosis ; Proton Pumps ; Protons

Objective: Interpersonal sensitivity, characterized by a heightened awareness of others’ behavior and emotions, is linked to mood disorders. However, current literature lacks a comprehensive analysis of how some items of the Interpersonal Sensitivity Measure (IPSM) interrelate and contribute to the overall construct. This study constructed a network for interpersonal sensitivity symptomatology to identify core IPSM items in patients with mood disorders. Methods: The IPSM, a 36-item self-report scale, was utilized to evaluate interpersonal sensitivity symptoms in 837 participants (major depressive disorder [MDD], n=265; bipolar I disorder [BD I], n=126; and bipolar II disorder [BD II], n=446). We performed exploratory graph analysis, employing regularized partial correlation models to estimate the network structure. Centrality analysis identified core IPSM symptoms for each mood disorder group. Network comparison tests assessed structural differences between the MDD and BD subgroups. Results: Network analysis detected five communities. Item 10 (“I worry about being criticized for things that I have said or done”) showed the highest value in strength. Multiple items on “Interpersonal Worry/Dependency” and “Low Self-Esteem” showed high strength centrality. Network structure invariance and global strength invariance test results indicated no significant differences between the MDD and BD subgroups. Conclusion Our findings emphasize the importance of addressing “Interpersonal Worry/Dependency” and “Low Self-Esteem” in the IPSM network among mood disorder patients based on core items of the network. Additionally, targeted treatments and comprehensive strategies in this aspect could be crucial for managing mood disorders.

Objective: Interpersonal sensitivity, characterized by a heightened awareness of others’ behavior and emotions, is linked to mood disorders. However, current literature lacks a comprehensive analysis of how some items of the Interpersonal Sensitivity Measure (IPSM) interrelate and contribute to the overall construct. This study constructed a network for interpersonal sensitivity symptomatology to identify core IPSM items in patients with mood disorders. Methods: The IPSM, a 36-item self-report scale, was utilized to evaluate interpersonal sensitivity symptoms in 837 participants (major depressive disorder [MDD], n=265; bipolar I disorder [BD I], n=126; and bipolar II disorder [BD II], n=446). We performed exploratory graph analysis, employing regularized partial correlation models to estimate the network structure. Centrality analysis identified core IPSM symptoms for each mood disorder group. Network comparison tests assessed structural differences between the MDD and BD subgroups. Results: Network analysis detected five communities. Item 10 (“I worry about being criticized for things that I have said or done”) showed the highest value in strength. Multiple items on “Interpersonal Worry/Dependency” and “Low Self-Esteem” showed high strength centrality. Network structure invariance and global strength invariance test results indicated no significant differences between the MDD and BD subgroups. Conclusion Our findings emphasize the importance of addressing “Interpersonal Worry/Dependency” and “Low Self-Esteem” in the IPSM network among mood disorder patients based on core items of the network. Additionally, targeted treatments and comprehensive strategies in this aspect could be crucial for managing mood disorders.

Objective: Interpersonal sensitivity, characterized by a heightened awareness of others’ behavior and emotions, is linked to mood disorders. However, current literature lacks a comprehensive analysis of how some items of the Interpersonal Sensitivity Measure (IPSM) interrelate and contribute to the overall construct. This study constructed a network for interpersonal sensitivity symptomatology to identify core IPSM items in patients with mood disorders. Methods: The IPSM, a 36-item self-report scale, was utilized to evaluate interpersonal sensitivity symptoms in 837 participants (major depressive disorder [MDD], n=265; bipolar I disorder [BD I], n=126; and bipolar II disorder [BD II], n=446). We performed exploratory graph analysis, employing regularized partial correlation models to estimate the network structure. Centrality analysis identified core IPSM symptoms for each mood disorder group. Network comparison tests assessed structural differences between the MDD and BD subgroups. Results: Network analysis detected five communities. Item 10 (“I worry about being criticized for things that I have said or done”) showed the highest value in strength. Multiple items on “Interpersonal Worry/Dependency” and “Low Self-Esteem” showed high strength centrality. Network structure invariance and global strength invariance test results indicated no significant differences between the MDD and BD subgroups. Conclusion Our findings emphasize the importance of addressing “Interpersonal Worry/Dependency” and “Low Self-Esteem” in the IPSM network among mood disorder patients based on core items of the network. Additionally, targeted treatments and comprehensive strategies in this aspect could be crucial for managing mood disorders.

Objective: Interpersonal sensitivity, characterized by a heightened awareness of others’ behavior and emotions, is linked to mood disorders. However, current literature lacks a comprehensive analysis of how some items of the Interpersonal Sensitivity Measure (IPSM) interrelate and contribute to the overall construct. This study constructed a network for interpersonal sensitivity symptomatology to identify core IPSM items in patients with mood disorders. Methods: The IPSM, a 36-item self-report scale, was utilized to evaluate interpersonal sensitivity symptoms in 837 participants (major depressive disorder [MDD], n=265; bipolar I disorder [BD I], n=126; and bipolar II disorder [BD II], n=446). We performed exploratory graph analysis, employing regularized partial correlation models to estimate the network structure. Centrality analysis identified core IPSM symptoms for each mood disorder group. Network comparison tests assessed structural differences between the MDD and BD subgroups. Results: Network analysis detected five communities. Item 10 (“I worry about being criticized for things that I have said or done”) showed the highest value in strength. Multiple items on “Interpersonal Worry/Dependency” and “Low Self-Esteem” showed high strength centrality. Network structure invariance and global strength invariance test results indicated no significant differences between the MDD and BD subgroups. Conclusion Our findings emphasize the importance of addressing “Interpersonal Worry/Dependency” and “Low Self-Esteem” in the IPSM network among mood disorder patients based on core items of the network. Additionally, targeted treatments and comprehensive strategies in this aspect could be crucial for managing mood disorders.

As per guidelines for treating dyslipidemia, the recommended low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level in extremely high-risk patients, including those with coronary artery diseases is <55 mg/dL. Although this recommendation has been adopted in the guidelines for dyslipidemia in various countries, there is limited evidence of its efficacy in reducing cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), especially among East Asian patients. This study aimed to investigate whether an LDL-C value below 55 mg/dL is associated with decreased risk of CVDs. Methods: Seven clinical trials including 50,970 patients that compared intensive lipidlowering therapy with less therapy or placebo in patients who had >6 months of follow-up, those with a sample size of ≥150 were selected as the final literature for analysis. Risk ratios (RR) using random effects were represented with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the reliability of the results. Results: An LDL-C level of <55 mg/dL was related to significantly reduced events of major CVDs (RR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.80-0.98) and myocardial infarction (RR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.73-0.90) and a reduced risk of ischemic stroke (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.69-0.89, mean follow-up=2 years). However, an LDL-C level below 55 mg/dL did not reduce the incidence of CVD in intensive therapy in East Asian patients. Conclusions: A goal LDL-C value below 55 mg/dL was identified to be related to a decreased risk of developing CVD. However, the relation to LDL-C below 55 mg/dL with a decreased risk of CVD was not observed in East Asian patients.

Objective: This study evaluated the clinical effectiveness of Minds.NAVI, a depression screening kit combining psychometric measures and stress hormone biomarkers, in a prospective clinical trial. The objective was to assess its potential as a depression screening tool and investigate the associations between psychological assessments, salivary hormone staging, and depression severity. Methods: Thirty-five participants with major depressive disorder and 12 healthy controls (HCs) were included. The Minds.NAVI software, utilizing the PROtective and Vulnerable factors battEry Test (PROVE) and salivary cortisol/dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) analysis, was employed. The PROVE test is a comprehensive self-report questionnaire that assesses depressive symptoms, suicide risk, attachment style, adverse childhood experiences, mentalization capacity, and resilience. In addition, salivary cortisol and DHEA levels were measured to evaluate the functional stage of the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal (HPA) axis. Results: Minds.NAVI exhibited 100% sensitivity, 91.7% specificity, and 97.9% accuracy in distinguishing depression from HCs within an exploratory small group. Salivary stress hormone phases showed changes with depression stage (p=0.030), and the proportion of patients with “adrenal exhaustion stage” was higher in the moderate/severe depression group (p=0.038). Protective/vulnerable factors differed significantly between controls and depressed groups (p<0.001). Cortisol awakening response inversely correlated with depressive symptom severity (r=-0.31, p=0.034). Conclusion This study suggested possible clinical effectiveness of Minds.NAVI, a depression screening tool that integrates psychometric measures and stress hormone biomarkers. The findings support the potential association between depression, chronic stress, and HPA axis hyporesponsiveness.