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.

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.

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.

Diabetes mellitus is a heterogeneous disease that encompasses a wide range of conditions, from mild cases to severe conditions where survival depends on insulin therapy. The Korean Diabetes Association Task Force Team for Diabetes with β-Cell Failure has established the term to classify severe refractory disease with β-cell failure. Individuals with β-cell failure are at high risk of diabetes-related complications. We propose that diabetes with β-cell failure can be diagnosed when individuals treated with multiple daily insulin injections or insulin pumps meet at least one of the following criteria: fasting C-peptide ≤ 0.6 ng/mL, non-fasting C-peptide ≤ 1.8 ng/mL, 24-hour urine C-peptide < 30 μg/day, or spot urine C-peptide/creatinine ratio ≤ 0.6 nmol/mmol. Among cases of diabetes with β-cell failure, β-cell failure with absolute insulin deficiency can be diagnosed when at least one of the following criteria is met: fasting C-peptide < 0.24 ng/mL, non-fasting C-peptide < 0.6 ng/mL, or spot urine C-peptide/ creatinine ratio < 0.2 nmol/mmol. Multiple daily insulin injections with long-acting insulin analogs and rapid-acting insulin analogs or insulin pumps are required for treatment of diabetes with β-cell failure. Continuous glucose monitoring and an automated insulin delivery system, sensor-augmented pump, or smart insulin pen, along with structured education, are necessary. We call for improvements in the relevant systems to ensure that such treatments can be provided.

Background: Multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN1) is an autosomal dominant disorder characterized by tumors in multiple endocrine organs, caused by variants in the MEN1 gene. This study analyzed the clinical and genetic features of MEN1 in a Korean cohort, identifying prevalent manifestations and genetic variants, including novel variants. Methods: This multicenter retrospective study reviewed the medical records of 117 MEN1 patients treated at three tertiary centers in Korea between January 2012 and September 2022. Patient demographics, tumor manifestations, outcomes, and MEN1 genetic testing results were collected. Variants were classified using American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) and French Oncogenetics Network of Neuroendocrine Tumors propositions (TENGEN) guidelines. Results: A total of 117 patients were enrolled, including 55 familial cases, with a mean age at diagnosis of 37.4±15.3 years. Primary hyperparathyroidism was identified as the most common presentation (84.6%). The prevalence of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumor and pituitary neuroendocrine tumor (PitNET) was 77.8% (n=91) and 56.4% (n=66), respectively. Genetic testing revealed 61 distinct MEN1 variants in 101 patients, with 18 being novel. Four variants were reclassified according to the TENGEN guidelines. Patients with truncating variants (n=72) exhibited a higher prevalence of PitNETs compared to those with non-truncating variants (n=25) (59.7% vs. 36.0%, P=0.040). Conclusion The association between truncating variants and an increased prevalence of PitNETs in MEN1 underscores the importance of genetic characterization in guiding the clinical management of this disease. Our study sheds light on the clinical and genetic characteristics of MEN1 among the Korean population.