Background/Aims: We investigated the incidences of overall and site-specific malignancies and chemopreventive effects of statin, metformin, and aspirin in patients with ulcerative colitis. Methods: We collected data using the Health Insurance Review and Assessment claims database from January 2007 to April 2020. Results: The overall malignancy risk among the 35,189 ulcerative colitis patients was similar to that of the general population (standardized incidence ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.88–1.00). In male patients, standardized incidence ratios were high for thyroid cancer and low for stomach cancer, colorectal cancer, liver cancer, and lung cancer. Concurrently, standard incidence ratios were high for liver cancer and central nervous system cancer in female patients. While 122 cases of colorectal cancer occurred in the study patients, the standardized incidence ratio was 0.83 (95% confidence interval, 0.69–0.99). Treatment for ulcerative colitis was not associated with an increased adjusted hazard ratio, while comorbidities increased it for all malignancies. Treatment for ulcerative colitis was associated with an increased adjusted hazard ratio, while comorbidities did not increase it for colorectal cancer. After adjusting for age, sex, comorbidities, and ulcerative colitis treatment, statins showed a dose-dependent chemopreventive effect for all malignancies (P=0.002), while metformin and aspirin did not show any. Conclusions In ulcerative colitis patients, standardized incidence ratios for all malignancies and colorectal cancer did not increase. Adjusted hazard ratios for all malignancies increased with comorbidities and those for colorectal cancer with ulcerative colitis treatment. Statins have a dose-dependent chemopreventive effect for all malignancies.

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.

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/Aims: We investigated the incidences of overall and site-specific malignancies and chemopreventive effects of statin, metformin, and aspirin in patients with ulcerative colitis. Methods: We collected data using the Health Insurance Review and Assessment claims database from January 2007 to April 2020. Results: The overall malignancy risk among the 35,189 ulcerative colitis patients was similar to that of the general population (standardized incidence ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.88–1.00). In male patients, standardized incidence ratios were high for thyroid cancer and low for stomach cancer, colorectal cancer, liver cancer, and lung cancer. Concurrently, standard incidence ratios were high for liver cancer and central nervous system cancer in female patients. While 122 cases of colorectal cancer occurred in the study patients, the standardized incidence ratio was 0.83 (95% confidence interval, 0.69–0.99). Treatment for ulcerative colitis was not associated with an increased adjusted hazard ratio, while comorbidities increased it for all malignancies. Treatment for ulcerative colitis was associated with an increased adjusted hazard ratio, while comorbidities did not increase it for colorectal cancer. After adjusting for age, sex, comorbidities, and ulcerative colitis treatment, statins showed a dose-dependent chemopreventive effect for all malignancies (P=0.002), while metformin and aspirin did not show any. Conclusions In ulcerative colitis patients, standardized incidence ratios for all malignancies and colorectal cancer did not increase. Adjusted hazard ratios for all malignancies increased with comorbidities and those for colorectal cancer with ulcerative colitis treatment. Statins have a dose-dependent chemopreventive effect for all malignancies.

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/Aims: We investigated the incidences of overall and site-specific malignancies and chemopreventive effects of statin, metformin, and aspirin in patients with ulcerative colitis. Methods: We collected data using the Health Insurance Review and Assessment claims database from January 2007 to April 2020. Results: The overall malignancy risk among the 35,189 ulcerative colitis patients was similar to that of the general population (standardized incidence ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.88–1.00). In male patients, standardized incidence ratios were high for thyroid cancer and low for stomach cancer, colorectal cancer, liver cancer, and lung cancer. Concurrently, standard incidence ratios were high for liver cancer and central nervous system cancer in female patients. While 122 cases of colorectal cancer occurred in the study patients, the standardized incidence ratio was 0.83 (95% confidence interval, 0.69–0.99). Treatment for ulcerative colitis was not associated with an increased adjusted hazard ratio, while comorbidities increased it for all malignancies. Treatment for ulcerative colitis was associated with an increased adjusted hazard ratio, while comorbidities did not increase it for colorectal cancer. After adjusting for age, sex, comorbidities, and ulcerative colitis treatment, statins showed a dose-dependent chemopreventive effect for all malignancies (P=0.002), while metformin and aspirin did not show any. Conclusions In ulcerative colitis patients, standardized incidence ratios for all malignancies and colorectal cancer did not increase. Adjusted hazard ratios for all malignancies increased with comorbidities and those for colorectal cancer with ulcerative colitis treatment. Statins have a dose-dependent chemopreventive effect for all malignancies.

Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has emerged as a promising tool for various clinical applications, including early diagnosis, therapeutic target identification, treatment response monitoring, prognosis evaluation, and minimal residual disease detection. Consequently, ctDNA assays have been incorporated into clinical practice. In this review, we offer an indepth exploration of the clinical implementation of ctDNA assays. Notably, we examined existing evidence related to pre-analytical procedures, analytical components in current technologies, and result interpretation and reporting processes. The primary objective of this guidelines is to provide recommendations for the clinical utilization of ctDNA assays.

Purpose: Nutritional support for adult critically ill patients is essential due to the high risk of malnutrition, which can lead to severe complications. This paper aims to develop evidence-based guidelines to optimize nutritional support in intensive care units (ICUs). Methods: The Grading Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation process was used to develop and summarize the evidence on which the recommendations were based. Clinical outcomes were assessed for seven key questions. Results: We recommend the following: (1) initiate enteral nutrition (EN) within 48 hours after treatment as it is associated with improved outcomes, including reduced infection rates and shorter ICU stays; (2) early EN is preferred over early parenteral nutrition due to better clinical outcomes; (3) the use of supplementary parenteral nutrition to meet energy targets during the first week of ICU admission in patients receiving early EN is conditionally recommended based on patient-specific needs; (4) limited caloric support should be supplied to prevent overfeeding and related complications, particularly in the early phase of critical illness; (5) higher protein intake is suggested to improve clinical outcomes, such as muscle preservation and overall recovery; (6) additional enteral or parenteral glutamine is conditionally recommended against due to the lack of significant benefit and potential harm; and (7) fish oil-containing lipid emulsions is conditionally recommended due to their potential to enhance clinical outcomes, including reduced infection rates and shorter ICU stays. Conclusion These evidence-based recommendations can improve clinical outcomes and support healthcare providers in making informed decisions about nutritional interventions in the ICU.