Background: This study aimed to determine whether a shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen is non-inferior to the standard 6-month tuberculosis regimen. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial enrolled participants with respiratory specimen positivity by Xpert MTB/RIF assay or Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture without rifampicin-resistance. Participants were randomized at 1:1 to the investigational or control group. The investigational group received high-dose rifampicin (30 mg/kg/day), isoniazid, and pyrazinamide until culture conversion, followed by high-dose rifampicin and isoniazid for 12 weeks. The control group received the standard 6-month regimen. The primary outcome was the rate of unfavorable outcomes at 18 months post-randomization. The non-inferiority margin was set at <6% difference in unfavorable outcomes rates. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04485156) Results: Between 4 November 2020 and 3 January 2022, 76 participants were enrolled. Of these, 58 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Unfavorable outcomes occurred in 10 (31.3%) of 32 in the control group and 10 (38.5%) of 26 in the investigational group. The difference was 7.2% (95% confidence interval, ∞ to 31.9%), failing to prove non-inferiority. Serious adverse events and grade 3 or higher adverse events did not differ between the groups. Conclusion The shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen failed to demonstrate non-inferiority but had an acceptable safety profile.

Background: This study aimed to determine whether a shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen is non-inferior to the standard 6-month tuberculosis regimen. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial enrolled participants with respiratory specimen positivity by Xpert MTB/RIF assay or Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture without rifampicin-resistance. Participants were randomized at 1:1 to the investigational or control group. The investigational group received high-dose rifampicin (30 mg/kg/day), isoniazid, and pyrazinamide until culture conversion, followed by high-dose rifampicin and isoniazid for 12 weeks. The control group received the standard 6-month regimen. The primary outcome was the rate of unfavorable outcomes at 18 months post-randomization. The non-inferiority margin was set at <6% difference in unfavorable outcomes rates. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04485156) Results: Between 4 November 2020 and 3 January 2022, 76 participants were enrolled. Of these, 58 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Unfavorable outcomes occurred in 10 (31.3%) of 32 in the control group and 10 (38.5%) of 26 in the investigational group. The difference was 7.2% (95% confidence interval, ∞ to 31.9%), failing to prove non-inferiority. Serious adverse events and grade 3 or higher adverse events did not differ between the groups. Conclusion The shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen failed to demonstrate non-inferiority but had an acceptable safety profile.

Background: This study aimed to determine whether a shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen is non-inferior to the standard 6-month tuberculosis regimen. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial enrolled participants with respiratory specimen positivity by Xpert MTB/RIF assay or Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture without rifampicin-resistance. Participants were randomized at 1:1 to the investigational or control group. The investigational group received high-dose rifampicin (30 mg/kg/day), isoniazid, and pyrazinamide until culture conversion, followed by high-dose rifampicin and isoniazid for 12 weeks. The control group received the standard 6-month regimen. The primary outcome was the rate of unfavorable outcomes at 18 months post-randomization. The non-inferiority margin was set at <6% difference in unfavorable outcomes rates. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04485156) Results: Between 4 November 2020 and 3 January 2022, 76 participants were enrolled. Of these, 58 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Unfavorable outcomes occurred in 10 (31.3%) of 32 in the control group and 10 (38.5%) of 26 in the investigational group. The difference was 7.2% (95% confidence interval, ∞ to 31.9%), failing to prove non-inferiority. Serious adverse events and grade 3 or higher adverse events did not differ between the groups. Conclusion The shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen failed to demonstrate non-inferiority but had an acceptable safety profile.

Background: This study aimed to determine whether a shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen is non-inferior to the standard 6-month tuberculosis regimen. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial enrolled participants with respiratory specimen positivity by Xpert MTB/RIF assay or Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture without rifampicin-resistance. Participants were randomized at 1:1 to the investigational or control group. The investigational group received high-dose rifampicin (30 mg/kg/day), isoniazid, and pyrazinamide until culture conversion, followed by high-dose rifampicin and isoniazid for 12 weeks. The control group received the standard 6-month regimen. The primary outcome was the rate of unfavorable outcomes at 18 months post-randomization. The non-inferiority margin was set at <6% difference in unfavorable outcomes rates. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04485156) Results: Between 4 November 2020 and 3 January 2022, 76 participants were enrolled. Of these, 58 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Unfavorable outcomes occurred in 10 (31.3%) of 32 in the control group and 10 (38.5%) of 26 in the investigational group. The difference was 7.2% (95% confidence interval, ∞ to 31.9%), failing to prove non-inferiority. Serious adverse events and grade 3 or higher adverse events did not differ between the groups. Conclusion The shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen failed to demonstrate non-inferiority but had an acceptable safety profile.

Heart failure (HF) is a major cause of mortality and morbidity in South Korea, imposing substantial physical, emotional, and financial burdens on patients and society. Despite the high burden of symptom and complex care needs of HF patients, palliative care and hospice services remain underutilized in South Korea due to cultural, institutional, and knowledge-related barriers. This position statement from the Korean Society of Heart Failure emphasizes the need for integrating palliative and hospice care into HF management to improve quality of life and support holistic care for patients and their families. By clarifying the role of palliative care in HF and proposing practical referral criteria, this position statement aims to bridge the gap between HF and palliative care services in South Korea, ultimately improving patient-centered outcomes and aligning treatment with the goals and values of HF patients.

Background: This study aimed to determine whether a shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen is non-inferior to the standard 6-month tuberculosis regimen. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial enrolled participants with respiratory specimen positivity by Xpert MTB/RIF assay or Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture without rifampicin-resistance. Participants were randomized at 1:1 to the investigational or control group. The investigational group received high-dose rifampicin (30 mg/kg/day), isoniazid, and pyrazinamide until culture conversion, followed by high-dose rifampicin and isoniazid for 12 weeks. The control group received the standard 6-month regimen. The primary outcome was the rate of unfavorable outcomes at 18 months post-randomization. The non-inferiority margin was set at <6% difference in unfavorable outcomes rates. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04485156) Results: Between 4 November 2020 and 3 January 2022, 76 participants were enrolled. Of these, 58 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Unfavorable outcomes occurred in 10 (31.3%) of 32 in the control group and 10 (38.5%) of 26 in the investigational group. The difference was 7.2% (95% confidence interval, ∞ to 31.9%), failing to prove non-inferiority. Serious adverse events and grade 3 or higher adverse events did not differ between the groups. Conclusion The shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen failed to demonstrate non-inferiority but had an acceptable safety profile.

Background: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of empagliflozin in routine clinical settings, we collected and assessed the clinical profiles of Korean patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Methods: This was a post-marketing surveillance study of empagliflozin 10 and 25 mg. Information on adverse events and adverse drug reactions (ADRs) was collected as safety data sets. Available effectiveness outcomes, including glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level, fasting plasma glucose, body weight, and blood pressure, were assessed. Results: The incidence rate of ADRs was 5.14% in the safety dataset (n=3,231). Pollakiuria, pruritis genital, and weight loss were the most common ADRs. ADRs of special interest accounted for only 1.18%, and there were no serious events that led to mortality or hospitalization. In the effectiveness data set (n=2,567), empagliflozin significantly reduced the mean HbA1c level and body weight during the study period by –0.68%±1.39% and –1.91±3.37 kg (both P<0.0001), respectively. In addition, shorter disease duration, absence of dyslipidemia, and higher baseline HbA1c levels were identified as the clinical features characteristic of a “responder” to empagliflozin therapy. Conclusion Empagliflozin is a safe and potent glucose-lowering drug in routine use among Korean patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. It is expected to have better glycemic efficacy in Korean patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Background: Antimicrobial prescriptions for serious chronic or acute illness nearing its end stages raise concerns about the potential for futile use, adverse events, increased multidrugresistant organisms, and significant patient and social cost burdens. This study investigated the nationwide situation of how antibiotics are prescribed to patients during the last 14 days of life to guide future actions. Methods: This nationwide multicenter retrospective cohort study was conducted at 13 hospitals in South Korea from November 1 to December 31, 2018. All decedents were included in the study. Antibiotic use during the last two weeks of their lives was investigated. Results: A total of 1,201 (88.9%) patients received a median of two antimicrobial agents during the last two weeks of their lives. Carbapenems were prescribed to approximately half of the patients (44.4%) in the highest amount (301.2 days of therapy per 1,000 patient-days).Among the patients receiving antimicrobial agents, 63.6% were inappropriate and only 327 patients (27.2%) were referred by infectious disease specialists. The use of carbapenem (odds ratio [OR], 1.51; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13–2.03; P = 0.006), underlying cancer (OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.20–2.01, P = 0.047), underlying cerebrovascular disease (OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.23–2.89, P = 0.004), and no microbiological testing (OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.15–2.73; P = 0.010) were independent predictors for inappropriate antibiotic prescribing. Conclusion A considerable number of antimicrobial agents are administered to patients with chronic or acute illnesses nearing their end-of-life, a high proportion of which are prescribed inappropriately. Consultation with an infectious disease specialist, in addition to an antimicrobial stewardship program, may be necessary to induce the optimal use of antibiotics.

Background/Aims: Despite the obvious benefits of adding immune checkpoint inhibitors to platinum-etoposide chemotherapy in patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC), real-world data remain scarce. Methods: This retrospective study included 89 patients with ES-SCLC treated with platinum-etoposide chemotherapy alone (chemo-only group; n = 48) or in combination with atezolizumab (atezolizumab group; n = 41) and compared the survival outcomes between these two groups. Results: Overall survival (OS) was significantly longer in the atezolizumab group than in the chemo-only group (15.2 months vs. 8.5 months; p = 0.047), whereas the median progression-free survival was almost the same (5.1 months vs. 5.0 months) in both groups (p = 0.754). Subsequent multivariate analysis revealed that thoracic radiation (hazard ratio [HR], 0.223; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.092–0.537; p = 0.001) and atezolizumab administration (HR, 0.350; 95% CI, 0.184–0.668; p = 0.001) were favorable prognostic factors for OS. In the thoracic radiation subgroup, patients who received atezolizumab demonstrated favorable survival outcomes and no grade 3–4 adverse events (AEs). Conclusions The addition of atezolizumab to platinum-etoposide resulted in favorable outcomes in this real-world study. Thoracic radiation was associated with improved OS and acceptable AE risk in combination with immunotherapy in patients with ES-SCLC.