Background/Aims: Elevated gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT) levels indicate hepatic dysfunction and have been linked to an increased risk of pancreatobiliary cancers. However, this association, particularly in individuals with diabetes mellitus (DM), requires elucidation. We aimed to examine the association between elevated serum GGT levels and pancreatobiliary cancer risk in patients with diabetes. Methods: Our study included data from the National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) database for 2,459,966 adults aged >20 years diagnosed with DM between 2009 and 2012. We examined the association between serum GGT levels and pancreatobiliary cancer risk, considering DMrelated factors. Serum GGT levels were categorized into quartiles, and Cox proportional hazards analysis was performed to evaluate the association between serum GGT levels and pancreatobiliary cancer risk. Results: Over a median follow-up period of 7.2 years, 21,795 patients (0.89%) were newly diagnosed with pancreatobiliary cancer. The adjusted hazard ratio for pancreatobiliary cancer in quartiles 2–4 compared with that in quartile 1 was 1.091, 1.223, and 1.554, respectively, demonstrating a significant upward trend (p<0.001). This association remained consistent across all cancer types and was independent of the DM duration or treatment regimen. Conclusions Elevated serum GGT levels were independently associated with an increased risk of pancreatobiliary cancer, regardless of the duration of DM or the use of oral hypoglycemic agents and insulin. While these findings suggest the potential utility of serum GGT as a biomarker for identifying individuals at higher risk of pancreatobiliary cancer within the diabetic population, further research is needed to validate its clinical applicability.

Background/Aims: Elevated gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT) levels indicate hepatic dysfunction and have been linked to an increased risk of pancreatobiliary cancers. However, this association, particularly in individuals with diabetes mellitus (DM), requires elucidation. We aimed to examine the association between elevated serum GGT levels and pancreatobiliary cancer risk in patients with diabetes. Methods: Our study included data from the National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) database for 2,459,966 adults aged >20 years diagnosed with DM between 2009 and 2012. We examined the association between serum GGT levels and pancreatobiliary cancer risk, considering DMrelated factors. Serum GGT levels were categorized into quartiles, and Cox proportional hazards analysis was performed to evaluate the association between serum GGT levels and pancreatobiliary cancer risk. Results: Over a median follow-up period of 7.2 years, 21,795 patients (0.89%) were newly diagnosed with pancreatobiliary cancer. The adjusted hazard ratio for pancreatobiliary cancer in quartiles 2–4 compared with that in quartile 1 was 1.091, 1.223, and 1.554, respectively, demonstrating a significant upward trend (p<0.001). This association remained consistent across all cancer types and was independent of the DM duration or treatment regimen. Conclusions Elevated serum GGT levels were independently associated with an increased risk of pancreatobiliary cancer, regardless of the duration of DM or the use of oral hypoglycemic agents and insulin. While these findings suggest the potential utility of serum GGT as a biomarker for identifying individuals at higher risk of pancreatobiliary cancer within the diabetic population, further research is needed to validate its clinical applicability.

Background/Aims: Elevated gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT) levels indicate hepatic dysfunction and have been linked to an increased risk of pancreatobiliary cancers. However, this association, particularly in individuals with diabetes mellitus (DM), requires elucidation. We aimed to examine the association between elevated serum GGT levels and pancreatobiliary cancer risk in patients with diabetes. Methods: Our study included data from the National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) database for 2,459,966 adults aged >20 years diagnosed with DM between 2009 and 2012. We examined the association between serum GGT levels and pancreatobiliary cancer risk, considering DMrelated factors. Serum GGT levels were categorized into quartiles, and Cox proportional hazards analysis was performed to evaluate the association between serum GGT levels and pancreatobiliary cancer risk. Results: Over a median follow-up period of 7.2 years, 21,795 patients (0.89%) were newly diagnosed with pancreatobiliary cancer. The adjusted hazard ratio for pancreatobiliary cancer in quartiles 2–4 compared with that in quartile 1 was 1.091, 1.223, and 1.554, respectively, demonstrating a significant upward trend (p<0.001). This association remained consistent across all cancer types and was independent of the DM duration or treatment regimen. Conclusions Elevated serum GGT levels were independently associated with an increased risk of pancreatobiliary cancer, regardless of the duration of DM or the use of oral hypoglycemic agents and insulin. While these findings suggest the potential utility of serum GGT as a biomarker for identifying individuals at higher risk of pancreatobiliary cancer within the diabetic population, further research is needed to validate its clinical applicability.

Background/Aims: Elevated gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT) levels indicate hepatic dysfunction and have been linked to an increased risk of pancreatobiliary cancers. However, this association, particularly in individuals with diabetes mellitus (DM), requires elucidation. We aimed to examine the association between elevated serum GGT levels and pancreatobiliary cancer risk in patients with diabetes. Methods: Our study included data from the National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) database for 2,459,966 adults aged >20 years diagnosed with DM between 2009 and 2012. We examined the association between serum GGT levels and pancreatobiliary cancer risk, considering DMrelated factors. Serum GGT levels were categorized into quartiles, and Cox proportional hazards analysis was performed to evaluate the association between serum GGT levels and pancreatobiliary cancer risk. Results: Over a median follow-up period of 7.2 years, 21,795 patients (0.89%) were newly diagnosed with pancreatobiliary cancer. The adjusted hazard ratio for pancreatobiliary cancer in quartiles 2–4 compared with that in quartile 1 was 1.091, 1.223, and 1.554, respectively, demonstrating a significant upward trend (p<0.001). This association remained consistent across all cancer types and was independent of the DM duration or treatment regimen. Conclusions Elevated serum GGT levels were independently associated with an increased risk of pancreatobiliary cancer, regardless of the duration of DM or the use of oral hypoglycemic agents and insulin. While these findings suggest the potential utility of serum GGT as a biomarker for identifying individuals at higher risk of pancreatobiliary cancer within the diabetic population, further research is needed to validate its clinical applicability.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the risk of lymphadenopathy following severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination. METHODS: A self-controlled case series design was used to determine whether the risk of lymphadenopathy was higher in the 1-day to 42-day risk interval after coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination compared to the control period. In addition, subgroup analyses were conducted according to baseline characteristics, time since vaccination, and sensitivity analyses adjusted for the length of the risk interval. RESULTS: The risk of developing lymphadenopathy in the risk interval (1-42 days) after COVID-19 vaccination compared to the control period was significantly increased, with a relative incidence (RI) of 1.17 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.17 to 1.18) when the first, second, and third doses were combined. The RI was greater on the day of vaccination (1.47; 95% CI, 1.44 to 1.50). In subgroup analyses by baseline characteristics, a significantly increased risk or trend toward increased risk was observed in most subgroups except for those aged 70 years and older, with a significant increase in risk in younger individuals, those with a Charlson’s comorbidity index <5, and those who received mRNA vaccines (mRNA-1273>BNT162b2). Within the 1-day to 42-day post-dose risk period, the relative risk was highest during the 1-day to 7-day post-dose period (1.59; 95% CI, 1.57 to 1.60) compared to the control period, and then the risk declined. In the sensitivity analysis, we found that the longer the risk window, the smaller the RI. CONCLUSIONS SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is associated with a statistically significant increase in the risk of lymphadenopathy, and this risk was observed only with mRNA vaccines.

Background: We evaluated the household secondary attack rate (SAR) of the omicron and delta severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants, according to the vaccination status of the index case and household contacts; further, in vaccinated index cases, we evaluated the effect of the antibody levels on household transmission. Methods: A prospective cross-sectional study of 92 index cases and 197 quarantined household contacts was performed. Tests for SARS-CoV-2 variant type and antibody level were conducted in index cases, and results of polymerase chain reaction tests (during the quarantine period) were collected from contacts. Association of antibody levels in vaccinated index cases and SAR was evaluated by multivariate regression analysis. Results: The SAR was higher in households exposed to omicron variant (42%) than in those exposed to delta variant (27%) (P = 0.040). SAR was 35% and 23% for unvaccinated and vaccinated delta variant exposed contacts, respectively. SAR was 44% and 41% for unvaccinated and vaccinated omicron exposed contacts, respectively. Booster dose immunisation of contacts or vaccination of index cases reduced SAR of vaccinated omicron variant exposed contacts. In a model with adjustment, anti-receptor-binding domain antibody levels in vaccinated index cases were inversely correlated with household transmission of both delta and omicron variants.Neutralising antibody levels had a similar relationship. Conclusion Immunisation of household members may help to mitigate the current pandemic.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the association between daily beverage intake and obesity in young adults. This cross-sectional study was conducted with 256 adults in their 20s and 30s. Obesity was evaluated by anthropometric measurement of body mass index (BMI), waist to hip ratio and waist to height ratio. In addition, the daily intake of milk, caffeinated beverages, sweetened beverages, and alcoholic beverages was investigated using the dietary record and 24-h recall methods. Based on the BMI, men and women were classified into underweight, normal, overweight and obese. Among men, 38.3% were found to be normal, 28.1% were overweight and 31.3% obese. Among women, 11.7% were underweight, 73.4% were normal, and 10.2% were overweight, which was significantly different from men. In women, the BMI of the milk consumers was significantly lower than the non-consumers. Also, the obesity indices of caffeinated beverage consumers were significantly lower than the non-consumers. An analysis of the correlation between beverage intake and the obesity index showed that the intake of caffeinated beverages among women had a significant negative correlation with the obesity index, and intake of alcoholic beverages had a significant positive correlation with waist to height ratio. This study suggests that intake of milk and caffeinated beverage may have a positive effect on obesity, whereas the intake of alcoholic beverages may have a negative effect, especially in young adult women.

Neutralizing antibodies targeted at the receptor-binding domain of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike protein have been developed and now under evaluation in clinical trials. The US Food and Drug Administration currently issued emergency use authorizations for neutralizing monoclonal antibodies in non-hospitalized patients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who are at high risk for progressing to severe disease and/or hospitalization. In terms of this situation, there is an urgent need to investigate the clinical aspects and to develop strategies to deploy them effectively in clinical practice. Here we provide guidance for the use of anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies for the treatment of COVID-19 based on the latest evidence.

Despite the global effort to mitigate the spread, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a pandemic that took more than 2 million lives. There are numerous ongoing clinical studies aiming to find treatment options and many are being published daily. Some effective treatment options, albeit of variable efficacy, have been discovered. Therefore, it is necessary to develop an evidence-based methodology, to continuously check for new evidence, and to update recommendations accordingly. Here we provide guidelines on pharmaceutical treatment for COVID-19 based on the latest evidence.

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.