Background: The recent published Korean Working Group on Sarcopenia (KWGS) guideline includes the concept of functional sarcopenia. The study investigated the prevalence of sarcopenia and its association with health-related adverse outcomes defined by the KWGS in community-dwelling older adults. Methods: Data were sourced from the Korean Longitudinal Study on Health and Aging, focusing on Koreans 65 aged and above. The definitions of sarcopenia and functional sarcopenia followed the KWGS. The risks of falls, mobility limitation, and death were analyzed using logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard. Results: Of the 594 participants, 145 (24.4%) were classified as having functional sarcopenia and 129 (12.0%) with sarcopenia. Both showed an increased prevalence with age. Functional sarcopenia had higher risks of mobility limitation (odds ratio [OR]=3.461; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.956–6.121) and mortality (hazard ratio [HR]=1.775; 95% CI, 1.229–2.564). Sarcopenia was associated with falls (OR=7.376; 95% CI, 1.500–36.272), mobility limitation (OR=2.057; 95% CI, 1.172–3.611) and mortality (HR=1.512; 95% CI, 1.054–2.169). Conclusion Functional sarcopenia is a prevalent condition that is associated with mobility limitation and mortality in community-dwelling older adults. This highlights the clinical relevance of functional sarcopenia and supports its inclusion in sarcopenia diagnosis.

Background: The recent published Korean Working Group on Sarcopenia (KWGS) guideline includes the concept of functional sarcopenia. The study investigated the prevalence of sarcopenia and its association with health-related adverse outcomes defined by the KWGS in community-dwelling older adults. Methods: Data were sourced from the Korean Longitudinal Study on Health and Aging, focusing on Koreans 65 aged and above. The definitions of sarcopenia and functional sarcopenia followed the KWGS. The risks of falls, mobility limitation, and death were analyzed using logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard. Results: Of the 594 participants, 145 (24.4%) were classified as having functional sarcopenia and 129 (12.0%) with sarcopenia. Both showed an increased prevalence with age. Functional sarcopenia had higher risks of mobility limitation (odds ratio [OR]=3.461; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.956–6.121) and mortality (hazard ratio [HR]=1.775; 95% CI, 1.229–2.564). Sarcopenia was associated with falls (OR=7.376; 95% CI, 1.500–36.272), mobility limitation (OR=2.057; 95% CI, 1.172–3.611) and mortality (HR=1.512; 95% CI, 1.054–2.169). Conclusion Functional sarcopenia is a prevalent condition that is associated with mobility limitation and mortality in community-dwelling older adults. This highlights the clinical relevance of functional sarcopenia and supports its inclusion in sarcopenia diagnosis.

Background: The recent published Korean Working Group on Sarcopenia (KWGS) guideline includes the concept of functional sarcopenia. The study investigated the prevalence of sarcopenia and its association with health-related adverse outcomes defined by the KWGS in community-dwelling older adults. Methods: Data were sourced from the Korean Longitudinal Study on Health and Aging, focusing on Koreans 65 aged and above. The definitions of sarcopenia and functional sarcopenia followed the KWGS. The risks of falls, mobility limitation, and death were analyzed using logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard. Results: Of the 594 participants, 145 (24.4%) were classified as having functional sarcopenia and 129 (12.0%) with sarcopenia. Both showed an increased prevalence with age. Functional sarcopenia had higher risks of mobility limitation (odds ratio [OR]=3.461; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.956–6.121) and mortality (hazard ratio [HR]=1.775; 95% CI, 1.229–2.564). Sarcopenia was associated with falls (OR=7.376; 95% CI, 1.500–36.272), mobility limitation (OR=2.057; 95% CI, 1.172–3.611) and mortality (HR=1.512; 95% CI, 1.054–2.169). Conclusion Functional sarcopenia is a prevalent condition that is associated with mobility limitation and mortality in community-dwelling older adults. This highlights the clinical relevance of functional sarcopenia and supports its inclusion in sarcopenia diagnosis.

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.

Purpose: The role of allogeneic stem cell transplantation (alloSCT) in multiple myeloma (MM) treatment remains controversial. We conducted a retrospective, multicenter, nationwide study in Korea to evaluate the outcomes of alloSCT in Asian patients with MM. Materials and Methods: Overall, 109 patients with MM who underwent alloSCT between 2003 and 2020 were included in this study. Data were collected from the Korean Multiple Myeloma Working Party Registry. Results: The overall response rate and stringent complete response plus complete response (CR) rates were 67.0 and 46.8%, respectively, after alloSCT. At a median follow-up of 32.5 months, the 3-year probability of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were 69.3% and 71.8%, respectively. The 3-year probabilities of OS rates in the upfront alloSCT, tandem auto-alloSCT, and later alloSCT groups were 75.0%, 88.9%, and 61.1%, respectively. Patients who achieved CR before or after alloSCT had significantly longer OS (89.8 vs. 18 months and 89.8 vs. 15.2 months, respectively). Even though patients who did not achieve CR prior to alloSCT, those who achieve CR after alloSCT had improved PFS and OS compared to those who had no achievement of CR both prior and after alloSCT. Patients who underwent alloSCT with 1-2 prior treatment lines had improved PFS (22.4 vs. 4.5 months) and OS (45.6 vs. 15.3 months) compared to those with three or more prior treatment lines. Conclusion AlloSCT may be a promising therapeutic option especially for younger, chemosensitive patients with earlier implementation from relapse.

With an aging population, the number of patients with difficulty swallowing due to medical conditions is gradually increasing. In such cases, enteral nutrition is administered through a temporary nasogastric tube. Long-term use of a nasogastric tube leads to various complications and a decreased quality of life. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is the percutaneous placement of a tube into the stomach, aided endoscopically, which may be an alternative to a nasogastric tube when enteral nutritional is required for 4 weeks or more. This paper is the first Korean clinical guideline for PEG. It was developed jointly by the Korean College of Helicobacter and Upper Gastrointestinal Research and led by the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. These guidelines aimed to provide physicians, including endoscopists, with the indications, use of prophylactic antibiotics, timing of enteric nutrition, tube placement methods, complications, replacement, and tubes removal for PEG based on the currently available clinical evidence.

Background/Aims: Tegoprazan is a novel potassium-competitive acid blocker that has beneficial effects on acid-related disorders such as gastroesophageal reflux and peptic ulcer diseases.This study aimed to validate the effect of tegoprazan on endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD)-induced artificial ulcers. Methods: Patients from 16 centers in Korea who underwent ESD for gastric neoplasia were enrolled. After ESD, pantoprazole was administered intravenously for 48 hours. The patients were randomly allocated to either the tegoprazan or esomeprazole group. Tegoprazan 50 mg or esomeprazole 40 mg were administered for 4 weeks, after which gastroscopic evaluation was performed. If the artificial ulcer had not healed, the same dose of tegoprazan or esomeprazole was administered for an additional 4 weeks, and a gastroscopic evaluation was performed. Results: One hundred sixty patients were enrolled in this study. The healing rates of artificial ulcers at 4 weeks were 30.3% (23/76) and 22.1% (15/68) in the tegoprazan and esomeprazole groups, respectively (p=0.006). At 8 weeks after ESD, the cumulative ulcer healing rates were 73.7% (56/76) and 77.9% (53/68) in the tegoprazan and esomeprazole groups, respectively (p=0.210). Delayed bleeding occurred in two patients in the tegoprazan group (2.6%) and in one patient in the esomeprazole group (1.5%). Other adverse events were negligible in both groups. Conclusions Tegoprazan showed similar effects on post-ESD artificial ulcer healing in comparison with esomeprazole.