Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

Background and Objectives: Evidence remains limited on the real-world prescription of very low-dose oral anticoagulation among frail patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). We described the practice patterns, effectiveness, and safety of very low-dose edoxaban (15 mg once daily). Methods: Patients with AF prescribed edoxaban 15 mg once daily in 2 tertiary hospitals between 2016 and September 2022 were included. Baseline clinical characteristics and clinical outcomes of interest were thromboembolic and bleeding events. Results: A total of 674 patients were included (mean age 78.3±9.1, 49.7% aged ≥80 years, 49.3% women, median follow-up 1.0±1.2 years). Mean CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score was 3.9±1.6, and the modified HAS-BLED score was 2.0±1.1. Between 2016 and 2022, the number of very lowdose edoxaban prescriptions increased. The main reasons for the prescription of very lowdose were low body weight (55.5% below 60 kg), anaemia (62.8%), chronic kidney disease (40.2%), active cancer (15.3%), concomitant anti-platelet use (26.7%), and prior major bleeding (19.7%). During a median follow-up duration of 8 (interquartile range 3–16) months, overall thromboembolic and bleeding events occurred in 16 (2.3%) and 88 (13.1%) patients, respectively. Compared to the expected event rates on the established risk scoring systems, patients receiving very low-dose edoxaban demonstrated a 61% reduction in ischemic stroke, a 68% reduction of ischemic stroke/transient ischemic attack/systemic embolism, whereas a 49% increase in major bleeding. Conclusions The prescription of very low-dose edoxaban was increased over time, attributable to various clinical factors. The use of very low-dose edoxaban reduced the expected risk of thromboembolic events.

Background: and Purpose: This clinical practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for treatment of dementia, focusing on cholinesterase inhibitors and N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and other types of dementia. Methods: Using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes (PICO) framework, we developed key clinical questions and conducted systematic literature reviews. A multidisciplinary panel of experts, organized by the Korean Dementia Association, evaluated randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Recommendations were graded for evidence quality and strength using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Results: Three main recommendations are presented: (1) For AD, cholinesterase inhibitors (donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine) are strongly recommended for improving cognition and daily function based on moderate evidence; (2) Cholinesterase inhibitors are conditionally recommended for vascular dementia and Parkinson’s disease dementia, with a strong recommendation for Lewy body dementia; (3) For moderate to severe AD, NMDA receptor antagonist (memantine) is strongly recommended, demonstrating significant cognitive and functional improvements. Both drug classes showed favorable safety profiles with manageable side effects. Conclusions This guideline offers standardized, evidence-based pharmacologic recommendations for dementia management, with specific guidance on cholinesterase inhibitors and NMDA receptor antagonists. It aims to support clinical decision-making and improve patient outcomes in dementia care. Further updates will address emerging treatments, including amyloid-targeting therapies, to reflect advances in dementia management.

Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

Background and Objectives: Evidence remains limited on the real-world prescription of very low-dose oral anticoagulation among frail patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). We described the practice patterns, effectiveness, and safety of very low-dose edoxaban (15 mg once daily). Methods: Patients with AF prescribed edoxaban 15 mg once daily in 2 tertiary hospitals between 2016 and September 2022 were included. Baseline clinical characteristics and clinical outcomes of interest were thromboembolic and bleeding events. Results: A total of 674 patients were included (mean age 78.3±9.1, 49.7% aged ≥80 years, 49.3% women, median follow-up 1.0±1.2 years). Mean CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score was 3.9±1.6, and the modified HAS-BLED score was 2.0±1.1. Between 2016 and 2022, the number of very lowdose edoxaban prescriptions increased. The main reasons for the prescription of very lowdose were low body weight (55.5% below 60 kg), anaemia (62.8%), chronic kidney disease (40.2%), active cancer (15.3%), concomitant anti-platelet use (26.7%), and prior major bleeding (19.7%). During a median follow-up duration of 8 (interquartile range 3–16) months, overall thromboembolic and bleeding events occurred in 16 (2.3%) and 88 (13.1%) patients, respectively. Compared to the expected event rates on the established risk scoring systems, patients receiving very low-dose edoxaban demonstrated a 61% reduction in ischemic stroke, a 68% reduction of ischemic stroke/transient ischemic attack/systemic embolism, whereas a 49% increase in major bleeding. Conclusions The prescription of very low-dose edoxaban was increased over time, attributable to various clinical factors. The use of very low-dose edoxaban reduced the expected risk of thromboembolic events.

Purpose: This study evaluated the postoperative quality of life (QoL) after various types of gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Materials and Methods: A multicenter prospective observational study was conducted in Korea using the Korean Quality of Life in Stomach Cancer Patients Study (KOQUSS)-40, a new QoL assessment tool focusing on postgastrectomy syndrome. Overall, 496 patients with gastric cancer were enrolled, and QoL was assessed at 5 time points: preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Results: Distal gastrectomy (DG) and pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (PPG) showed significantly better outcomes than total gastrectomy (TG) and proximal gastrectomy (PG) with regard to total score, indigestion, and dysphagia. DG, PPG, and TG also showed significantly better outcomes than PG in terms of dumping syndrome and worry about cancer. Postoperative QoL did not differ significantly according to anastomosis type in DG, except for Billroth I anastomosis, which achieved better bowel habit change scores than the others. No domains differed significantly when comparing double tract reconstruction and esophagogastrostomy after PG. The total QoL score correlated significantly with postoperative body weight loss (more than 10%) and extent of resection (P<0.05 for both).Reflux as assessed by KOQUSS-40 did not correlate significantly with reflux observed on gastroscopy 1 year postoperatively (P=0.064). Conclusions Our prospective observation using KOQUSS-40 revealed that DG and PPG lead to better QoL than TG and PG. Further study is needed to compare postoperative QoL according to anastomosis type in DG and PG.

Purpose: The optimal reconstruction method following distal gastrectomy has not been elucidated. Since Billroth-II (B-II) reconstruction is commonly associated with increased bile reflux, Braun jejunojejunostomy has been proposed to reduce this complication. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 325 patients with gastric cancer who underwent distal gastrectomy with B-II reconstruction between January 2015 and December 2017, comprising 159 patients without Braun anastomosis and 166 with Braun anastomosis.Outcomes were assessed over three years using annual gastroscopy based on the residual food, gastritis, and bile reflux criteria and the Los Angeles classification for reflux esophagitis. Results: In the first postoperative year, the group with Braun anastomosis showed a significant reduction in bile reflux compared to the group without Braun anastomosis (75.9% vs. 86.2%; P=0.019). Moreover, multivariate analysis identified Braun anastomosis as the sole factor associated with this outcome. Additionally, the group with Braun anastomosis had a lower incidence of heartburn (12.0% vs. 20.1%; P=0.047) and reduced use of prokinetics (P<0.001) and acid reducers (P=0.002) compared to the group without Braun anastomosis.However, these benefits diminished in subsequent years, with no significant differences in residual food, gastritis, or reflux esophagitis between the groups. Both groups showed similar body mass index scores and nutritional outcomes over the 3-year follow-up period. Conclusions Although Braun anastomosis offers short-term benefits in reducing bile reflux after B-II reconstruction, these effects are not sustainable. The routine use of Braun anastomosis should be reconsidered, though either approach remains a viable option depending on the patient’s circumstances.

Background: and Purpose: This clinical practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for treatment of dementia, focusing on cholinesterase inhibitors and N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and other types of dementia. Methods: Using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes (PICO) framework, we developed key clinical questions and conducted systematic literature reviews. A multidisciplinary panel of experts, organized by the Korean Dementia Association, evaluated randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Recommendations were graded for evidence quality and strength using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Results: Three main recommendations are presented: (1) For AD, cholinesterase inhibitors (donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine) are strongly recommended for improving cognition and daily function based on moderate evidence; (2) Cholinesterase inhibitors are conditionally recommended for vascular dementia and Parkinson’s disease dementia, with a strong recommendation for Lewy body dementia; (3) For moderate to severe AD, NMDA receptor antagonist (memantine) is strongly recommended, demonstrating significant cognitive and functional improvements. Both drug classes showed favorable safety profiles with manageable side effects. Conclusions This guideline offers standardized, evidence-based pharmacologic recommendations for dementia management, with specific guidance on cholinesterase inhibitors and NMDA receptor antagonists. It aims to support clinical decision-making and improve patient outcomes in dementia care. Further updates will address emerging treatments, including amyloid-targeting therapies, to reflect advances in dementia management.

Background: and Purpose: This clinical practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for treatment of dementia, focusing on cholinesterase inhibitors and N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and other types of dementia. Methods: Using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes (PICO) framework, we developed key clinical questions and conducted systematic literature reviews. A multidisciplinary panel of experts, organized by the Korean Dementia Association, evaluated randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Recommendations were graded for evidence quality and strength using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Results: Three main recommendations are presented: (1) For AD, cholinesterase inhibitors (donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine) are strongly recommended for improving cognition and daily function based on moderate evidence; (2) Cholinesterase inhibitors are conditionally recommended for vascular dementia and Parkinson’s disease dementia, with a strong recommendation for Lewy body dementia; (3) For moderate to severe AD, NMDA receptor antagonist (memantine) is strongly recommended, demonstrating significant cognitive and functional improvements. Both drug classes showed favorable safety profiles with manageable side effects. Conclusions This guideline offers standardized, evidence-based pharmacologic recommendations for dementia management, with specific guidance on cholinesterase inhibitors and NMDA receptor antagonists. It aims to support clinical decision-making and improve patient outcomes in dementia care. Further updates will address emerging treatments, including amyloid-targeting therapies, to reflect advances in dementia management.