Since selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors were introduced in clinical practice in the 1990s, antidepressant prescriptions have steadily increased. In addition to the prescriptions by psychiatrists, antidepressant prescriptions by non-specialists have also increased. An advanced understanding of the pharmacological and clinical characteristics of antidepressants is essential to improving the treatment response of depressive disorders and the quality of life of patients. Antidepressant withdrawal or discontinuation syndrome can frequently occur if antidepressant maintenance is discontinued without a pre-planned clinical strategy. Nevertheless, it is often unrecognized or mistaken for other clinical situations. This causes patient distress and ultimately reduces long-term treatment compliance. Inappropriate therapeutic decisions can be made if clinicians do not recognize antidepressant discontinuation syndrome. Antidepressant withdrawal is common and preventable. This issue must be recognized because it can be adjusted through appropriate clinical management. This article systematically reviews the clinical features, biological mechanisms, coping strategies, and antidepressant discontinuation strategies related to antidepressant discontinuation syndrome.

Objective: This study was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lurasidone (160 mg/day) compared to quetiapine XR (QXR; 600 mg/day) in the treatment of acutely psychotic patients with schizophrenia. Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to 6 weeks of double-blind treatment with lurasidone 160 mg/day (n=105) or QXR 600 mg/day (n=105). Primary efficacy measure was the change from baseline to week 6 in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score and Clinical Global Impressions severity (CGI-S) score. Adverse events, body measurements, and laboratory parameters were assessed. Results: Lurasidone demonstrated non-inferiority to QXR on the PANSS total score. Adjusted mean±standard error change at week 6 on the PANSS total score was -26.42±2.02 and -27.33±2.01 in the lurasidone and QXR group, respectively. The mean difference score was -0.91 (95% confidence interval -6.35–4.53). The lurasidone group showed a greater reduction in PANSS total and negative subscale on week 1 and a greater reduction in end-point CGI-S score compared to the QXR group. Body weight, body mass index, and waist circumference in the lurasidone group were reduced, with significantly lower mean change compared to QXR. Endpoint changes in glucose, cholesterol, triglycerides, and low-density lipoprotein levels were also significantly lower. The most common adverse drug reactions with lurasidone were akathisia and nausea. Conclusion Lurasidone 160 mg/day was found to be non-inferior to QXR 600 mg/day in the treatment of schizophrenia with comparable efficacy and tolerability. Adverse effects of lurasidone were generally tolerable, and beneficial effects on metabolic parameters can be expected.

Clonazepam, a 7-nitrobenzodiazepine, has been used for the treatment of various neuropsychiatric disorders such as seizures, sleep disorders, panic disorders, anxiety, and movement disorders. However, clonazepam is officially approved as a therapeutic drug only for epilepsy and panic disorders in Korea. This raises ethical issues in clinical practice, as clonazepam is prescribed off-label for most neuropsychiatric disorders in many other countries as well. The misuse and abuse of clonazepam as a recreational drug have also been commonly reported in global literature. In this review, as a therapeutic drug as the authors aim to highlight the pharmacological aspects, clinical effects, and potential addictive risks of clonazepam use, by reviewing the current literature on clonazepam to increase its clinical use by accurately understanding and identifying its psychopharmacological benefits and characteristics. However, establishing the risk/benefit ratio of clonazepam for use in specific clinical situations is difficult because of the lack of adequate updated data. Therefore, the use of clonazepam needs to be approached from the point of view of personalized drug treatment rather than following fixed guidelines which would not reflect the current real-world clinical practices.

Benzodiazepines have been widely used as anxiolytics, sedatives, hypnotics, anticonvulsants, or central muscle relaxants since the 1960s despite significant adverse effects, the potential for misuse, and consequent overdose. Benzodiazepines exert their pharmacological action by binding to gamma-aminobutyric acid type A (GABA-A) receptors in the brain and facilitateing the inhibitory actions of the neurotransmitter GABA. Recent findings have also elucidated the effects of benzodiazepines on the allosteric modulation of GABA-A receptors, including receptor subtypes and transmembrane proteins, which is a significant step in our understanding of GABA pharmacology. In clinical practice, the use of benzodiazepines to treat psychiatric disorders has been limited due to the challenges associated with the long-term use, namely the risks of abuse, misuse, and overdose, as well as withdrawal effects. Furthermore, the approval of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors for anxiety disorders has led to their extensive use as a first-line pharmacological option and they have also been promoted in various practice guidelines for the treatment of anxiety disorders. However, although recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses have shown that benzodiazepines are useful and effective drugs for the treatment of various neuropsychiatric disorders, including anxiety, debates over the clinical use of benzodiazepines continue. More than 60 years after the introduction of benzodiazepines in clinical practice, it is necessary to revisit the controversies associated with benzodiazepine use and to update the discussion current approach to practice with thethrough an understanding of the new data on their pharmacological actions and to identify appropriate indications according to the new diagnostic systems of psychiatric disorders through an extensive literature review.

Objective: Electroconvulsive seizure (ECS) is a potent treatment modality for various neuropsychiatric diseases, including Parkinson disease (PD). Recent animal studies showed that repeated ECS activates autophagy signaling, the impairment of which is known to be involved in PD. However, the effectiveness of ECS on PD and its therapeutic mechanisms have not yet been investigated in detail. Methods: Systemic injection of a neurotoxin 1-Methyl-4-phenyl-1,2,3,6-tetrahydropyridine hydrochloride (MPTP), which destroys dopaminergic neurons in the substantia nigra compacta (SNc), in mice was utilized to induce an animal model of PD. Mice were treated with ECS 3 times per week for 2 weeks. Behavioral changes were measured with a rotarod test. Molecular changes related to autophagy signaling in midbrain including SNc, striatum, and prefrontal cortex were analyzed with immunohistochemistry and immunoblot analyses. Results: Repeated ECS treatments normalized the motor deficits and the loss of dopamiergic neurons in SNc of the MPTP PD mouse model. In the mouse model, LC3-II, an autophagy marker, was increased in midbrain while decreased in prefrontal cortex, both of which were reversed by repeated ECS treatments. In the prefrontal cortex, ECS-induced LC3-II increase was accompanied with AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK)-Unc-51-like kinase 1-Beclin1 pathway activation and inhibition of mamalian target of rapamycin signaling which promotes autophagy initiation. Conclusion The findings revealed the therapeutic effects of repeated ECS treatments on PD, which could be attributed to the neuroprotective effect of ECS mediated by AMPK-autophagy signaling.

Background: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, there was a shortage of medical resources and the need for proper treatment guidelines for brain tumor patients became more pressing. Thus, the Korean Society for Neuro-Oncology (KSNO), a multidisciplinary academic society, has undertaken efforts to develop a guideline that is tailored to the domestic situation and that can be used in similar crisis situations in the future. As part II of the guideline, this consensus survey is to suggest management options in specific clinical scenarios during the crisis period. Methods: The KSNO Guideline Working Group consisted of 22 multidisciplinary experts on neuro-oncology in Korea. In order to confirm a consensus reached by the experts, opinions on 5 specific clinical scenarios about the management of brain tumor patients during the crisis period were devised and asked. To build-up the consensus process, Delphi method was employed. Results: The summary of the final consensus from each scenario are as follows. For patients with newly diagnosed astrocytoma with isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH)-mutant and oligodendroglioma with IDH-mutant/1p19q codeleted, observation was preferred for patients with low-risk, World Health Organization (WHO) grade 2, and Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS) ≥60, while adjuvant radiotherapy alone was preferred for patients with high-risk, WHO grade 2, and KPS ≥60. For newly diagnosed patients with glioblastoma, the most preferred adjuvant treatment strategy after surgery was radiotherapy plus temozolomide except for patients aged ≥70 years with KPS of 60 and unmethylated MGMT promoters. In patients with symptomatic brain metastasis, the preferred treatment differed according to the number of brain metastasis and performance status. For patients with newly diagnosed atypical meningioma, adjuvant radiation was deferred in patients with older age, poor performance status, complete resection, or low mitotic count. Conclusion It is imperative that proper medical care for brain tumor patients be sustained and provided, even during the crisis period. The findings of this consensus survey will be a useful reference in determining appropriate treatment options for brain tumor patients in the specific clinical scenarios covered by the survey during the future crisis.

Background: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the need for appropriate treatment guidelines for patients with brain tumors was indispensable due to the lack and limitations of medical resources. Thus, the Korean Society for Neuro-Oncology (KSNO), a multidisciplinary academic society, has undertaken efforts to develop a guideline that is tailored to the domestic situation and that can be used in similar crisis situations in the future. Methods: The KSNO Guideline Working Group was composed of 22 multidisciplinary experts on neuro-oncology in Korea. In order to reach consensus among the experts, the Delphi method was used to build up the final recommendations. Results: All participating experts completed the series of surveys, and the results of final survey were used to draft the current consensus recommendations. Priority levels of surgery and radiotherapy during crises were proposed using appropriate time window-based criteria for management outcome. The highest priority for surgery is assigned to patients who are life-threatening or have a risk of significant impact on a patient’s prognosis unless immediate intervention is given within 24–48 hours. As for the radiotherapy, patients who are at risk of compromising their overall survival or neurological status within 4–6 weeks are assigned to the highest priority. Curative-intent chemotherapy has the highest priority, followed by neoadjuvant/adjuvant and palliative chemotherapy during a crisis period. Telemedicine should be actively considered as a management tool for brain tumor patients during the mass infection crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusion It is crucial that adequate medical care for patients with brain tumors is maintained and provided, even during times of crisis. This guideline will serve as a valuable resource, assisting in the delivery of treatment to brain tumor patients in the event of any future crisis.

Purpose: Outcome analysis of urachal cancer (UraC) is limited due to the scarcity of cases and different staging methods compared to urothelial bladder cancer (UroBC). We attempted to assess survival outcomes of UraC and compare to UroBC after stage-matched analyses. Materials and Methods: Total 203 UraC patients from a multicenter database and 373 UroBC patients in single institution from 2000 to 2018 were enrolled (median follow-up, 32 months). Sheldon stage conversion to corresponding TNM staging for UraC was conducted for head-to-head comparison to UroBC. Perioperative clinical variables and pathological results were recorded. Stage-matched analyses for survival by stage were conducted. Results: UraC patients were younger (mean age, 54 vs. 67 years; p < 0.001), with 163 patients (80.3%) receiving partial cystectomy and 23 patients (11.3%) radical cystectomy. UraC was more likely to harbor ≥ pT3a tumors (78.8% vs. 41.8%). While 5-year recurrence-free survival, cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival were comparable between two groups (63.4%, 67%, and 62.1% in UraC and 61.5%, 75.9%, and 67.8% in UroBC, respectively), generally favorable prognosis for UraC in lower stages (pT1-2) but unfavorable outcomes in higher stages (pT4) compared to UroBC was observed, although only 5-year CSS in ≥ pT4 showed statistical significance (p=0.028). Body mass index (hazard ratio [HR], 0.929), diabetes mellitus (HR, 1.921), pathologic T category (HR, 3.846), and lymphovascular invasion (HR, 1.993) were predictors of CSS for all patients. Conclusion Despite differing histology, UraC has comparable prognosis to UroBC with relatively favorable outcome in low stages but worse prognosis in higher stages. The presented system may be useful for future grading and risk stratification of UraC.

Objectives: During the initial clozapine titration, it is crucial to monitor for inflammatory reactions to ensure safe and effective administration. Clozapine metabolism varies by ancestry, particularly among Asians, warranting lower dosage. Recently, Dr. De Leon introduced guidelines based on ancestral differences. We aimed to provide a Korean translation, focusing on illustrating the necessity through clinical cases. Methods: The Korean translation of the guidelines, approved by Dr. De Leon, involved two psychiatrists who reviewed and revised each other’s work. An additional board-certified psychiatrist conducted an independent review. We examined two clinical cases from our institution’s database, where clozapine titration faced challenges due to fever and pneumonia, assessing guideline applicability. Results: The guidelines recommend a target clozapine dose of 175-300 mg/day for Asians with average metabolism and a slower titration rate compared to other ancestries. In both cases, CRP elevation was detected either before or simultaneously with the onset of fever, with a concentration-to-dose ratio ranging from 3.06 to 6.97. Conclusion The initial clozapine titration process should consider metabolic differences by ancestry and monitor for inflammation. Further research is needed to optimize the titration process for Koreans, considering metabolic rates, usage patterns, and side effects.

Purpose: There are few reports on outcomes following surgical repair of recurrent rectal prolapse. The purpose of this study was to examine surgical outcomes for recurrent rectal prolapse. Methods: We conducted a multicenter retrospective study of patients who underwent surgery for recurrent rectal prolapse. This study used data collected by the Korean Anorectal Physiology and Pelvic Floor Disorder Study Group. Results: A total of 166 patients who underwent surgery for recurrent rectal prolapse were registered retrospectively between 2011 and 2016 in 8 referral hospitals. Among them, 153 patients were finally enrolled, excluding 13 patients who were not followed up postoperatively. Median follow-up duration was 40 months (range, 0.2–129.3 months). Methods of surgical repair for recurrent rectal prolapse included perineal approach (n = 96) and abdominal approach (n = 57). Postoperative complications occurred in 16 patients (10.5%). There was no significant difference in complication rate between perineal and abdominal approach groups. While patients who underwent the perineal approach were older and more fragile, patients who underwent the abdominal approach had longer operation time and admission days (P < 0.05). Overall, 29 patients (19.0%) showed re-recurrence after surgery. Among variables, none affected the re-recurrence. Conclusion For the recurrent rectal prolapse, the perineal approach is used for the old and fragile patients. The postoperative complications and re-recurrence rate between perineal and abdominal approach were not different significantly. No factor including surgical method affected re-recurrence for recurrent rectal prolapse.