Background: Limited information is available on the clinical course and treatment outcomes of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) coinfection in Korea. Materials and Methods: A retrospective case series was conducted of patients with HIV-HCV coinfection who received interferon (IFN)-based or direct-acting antiviral (DAA) treatment for HCV at a tertiary care hospital between 2000 and 2023. Early virological response (EVR) was defined as a 2-log reduction in HCV RNA levels or undetectable HCV RNA levels at treatment week 12. A sustained virologic response (SVR) was defined as undetectable HCV RNA at 12 weeks after treatment completion. Results: Of the 33 patients with HIV-HCV coinfection, 19 received anti-HCV treatment, of whom 12 received IFNbased treatment and 10 received DAA treatment. The median age at the time of anti-HCV treatment was 49 years (interquartile range, 42–57 years) and 15 patients (79%) were male. Of the 12 patients who received IFN-based antiHCV treatment, 10 showed EVR and 8 achieved SVR. However, 2 patients who achieved SVR experienced recurrence of HCV infection during follow-up; therefore, the overall success rate of IFN-based treatment was 50% (6/12). All 10 patients (including 3 in whom IFN-based treatment failed) who received DAA treatment (5 with previous anti-HCV treatment and 5 treatment-naïve), achieved SVR and did not experience recurrence of HCV infection during followup; therefore, the overall success rate of DAA treatment was 100%. Conclusion In Korean patients with HIV-HCV coinfection, treatment outcomes were better with DAA treatment than with IFN-based treatment.

Background and Objectives: Lipid lowering therapy is essential to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events; however, limited evidence exists regarding the use of statin with ezetimibe as primary prevention strategy for middle-aged adults. We aimed to investigate the impact of single pill combination therapy on clinical outcomes in relatively healthy middleaged patients when compared with statin monotherapy. Methods: Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, a propensity score match analysis was performed for baseline characteristics of 92,156 patients categorized into combination therapy (n=46,078) and statin monotherapy (n=46,078) groups. Primary outcome was composite outcomes, including death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke. And secondary outcome was all-cause death. The mean follow-up duration was 2.9±0.3 years. Results: The 3-year composite outcomes of all-cause death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke demonstrated no significant difference between the 2 groups (10.3% vs.10.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.022; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.980–1.064; p=0.309).Meanwhile, the 3-year all-cause death rate was lower in the combination therapy group than in the statin monotherapy group (0.2% vs. 0.4%; p<0.001), with a significant HR of 0.595 (95% CI, 0.460–0.769; p<0.001). Single pill combination therapy exhibited consistently lower mortality rates across various subgroups. Conclusions Compared to the statin monotherapy, the combination therapy for primary prevention showed no difference in composite outcomes but may reduce mortality risk in relatively healthy middle-aged patients. However, since the study was observational, further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Background and Objectives: Lipid lowering therapy is essential to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events; however, limited evidence exists regarding the use of statin with ezetimibe as primary prevention strategy for middle-aged adults. We aimed to investigate the impact of single pill combination therapy on clinical outcomes in relatively healthy middleaged patients when compared with statin monotherapy. Methods: Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, a propensity score match analysis was performed for baseline characteristics of 92,156 patients categorized into combination therapy (n=46,078) and statin monotherapy (n=46,078) groups. Primary outcome was composite outcomes, including death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke. And secondary outcome was all-cause death. The mean follow-up duration was 2.9±0.3 years. Results: The 3-year composite outcomes of all-cause death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke demonstrated no significant difference between the 2 groups (10.3% vs.10.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.022; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.980–1.064; p=0.309).Meanwhile, the 3-year all-cause death rate was lower in the combination therapy group than in the statin monotherapy group (0.2% vs. 0.4%; p<0.001), with a significant HR of 0.595 (95% CI, 0.460–0.769; p<0.001). Single pill combination therapy exhibited consistently lower mortality rates across various subgroups. Conclusions Compared to the statin monotherapy, the combination therapy for primary prevention showed no difference in composite outcomes but may reduce mortality risk in relatively healthy middle-aged patients. However, since the study was observational, further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Background: Limited information is available on the clinical course and treatment outcomes of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) coinfection in Korea. Materials and Methods: A retrospective case series was conducted of patients with HIV-HCV coinfection who received interferon (IFN)-based or direct-acting antiviral (DAA) treatment for HCV at a tertiary care hospital between 2000 and 2023. Early virological response (EVR) was defined as a 2-log reduction in HCV RNA levels or undetectable HCV RNA levels at treatment week 12. A sustained virologic response (SVR) was defined as undetectable HCV RNA at 12 weeks after treatment completion. Results: Of the 33 patients with HIV-HCV coinfection, 19 received anti-HCV treatment, of whom 12 received IFNbased treatment and 10 received DAA treatment. The median age at the time of anti-HCV treatment was 49 years (interquartile range, 42–57 years) and 15 patients (79%) were male. Of the 12 patients who received IFN-based antiHCV treatment, 10 showed EVR and 8 achieved SVR. However, 2 patients who achieved SVR experienced recurrence of HCV infection during follow-up; therefore, the overall success rate of IFN-based treatment was 50% (6/12). All 10 patients (including 3 in whom IFN-based treatment failed) who received DAA treatment (5 with previous anti-HCV treatment and 5 treatment-naïve), achieved SVR and did not experience recurrence of HCV infection during followup; therefore, the overall success rate of DAA treatment was 100%. Conclusion In Korean patients with HIV-HCV coinfection, treatment outcomes were better with DAA treatment than with IFN-based treatment.

Background and Objectives: Lipid lowering therapy is essential to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events; however, limited evidence exists regarding the use of statin with ezetimibe as primary prevention strategy for middle-aged adults. We aimed to investigate the impact of single pill combination therapy on clinical outcomes in relatively healthy middleaged patients when compared with statin monotherapy. Methods: Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, a propensity score match analysis was performed for baseline characteristics of 92,156 patients categorized into combination therapy (n=46,078) and statin monotherapy (n=46,078) groups. Primary outcome was composite outcomes, including death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke. And secondary outcome was all-cause death. The mean follow-up duration was 2.9±0.3 years. Results: The 3-year composite outcomes of all-cause death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke demonstrated no significant difference between the 2 groups (10.3% vs.10.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.022; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.980–1.064; p=0.309).Meanwhile, the 3-year all-cause death rate was lower in the combination therapy group than in the statin monotherapy group (0.2% vs. 0.4%; p<0.001), with a significant HR of 0.595 (95% CI, 0.460–0.769; p<0.001). Single pill combination therapy exhibited consistently lower mortality rates across various subgroups. Conclusions Compared to the statin monotherapy, the combination therapy for primary prevention showed no difference in composite outcomes but may reduce mortality risk in relatively healthy middle-aged patients. However, since the study was observational, further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Background: Limited information is available on the clinical course and treatment outcomes of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) coinfection in Korea. Materials and Methods: A retrospective case series was conducted of patients with HIV-HCV coinfection who received interferon (IFN)-based or direct-acting antiviral (DAA) treatment for HCV at a tertiary care hospital between 2000 and 2023. Early virological response (EVR) was defined as a 2-log reduction in HCV RNA levels or undetectable HCV RNA levels at treatment week 12. A sustained virologic response (SVR) was defined as undetectable HCV RNA at 12 weeks after treatment completion. Results: Of the 33 patients with HIV-HCV coinfection, 19 received anti-HCV treatment, of whom 12 received IFNbased treatment and 10 received DAA treatment. The median age at the time of anti-HCV treatment was 49 years (interquartile range, 42–57 years) and 15 patients (79%) were male. Of the 12 patients who received IFN-based antiHCV treatment, 10 showed EVR and 8 achieved SVR. However, 2 patients who achieved SVR experienced recurrence of HCV infection during follow-up; therefore, the overall success rate of IFN-based treatment was 50% (6/12). All 10 patients (including 3 in whom IFN-based treatment failed) who received DAA treatment (5 with previous anti-HCV treatment and 5 treatment-naïve), achieved SVR and did not experience recurrence of HCV infection during followup; therefore, the overall success rate of DAA treatment was 100%. Conclusion In Korean patients with HIV-HCV coinfection, treatment outcomes were better with DAA treatment than with IFN-based treatment.

Background and Objectives: Lipid lowering therapy is essential to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events; however, limited evidence exists regarding the use of statin with ezetimibe as primary prevention strategy for middle-aged adults. We aimed to investigate the impact of single pill combination therapy on clinical outcomes in relatively healthy middleaged patients when compared with statin monotherapy. Methods: Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, a propensity score match analysis was performed for baseline characteristics of 92,156 patients categorized into combination therapy (n=46,078) and statin monotherapy (n=46,078) groups. Primary outcome was composite outcomes, including death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke. And secondary outcome was all-cause death. The mean follow-up duration was 2.9±0.3 years. Results: The 3-year composite outcomes of all-cause death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke demonstrated no significant difference between the 2 groups (10.3% vs.10.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.022; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.980–1.064; p=0.309).Meanwhile, the 3-year all-cause death rate was lower in the combination therapy group than in the statin monotherapy group (0.2% vs. 0.4%; p<0.001), with a significant HR of 0.595 (95% CI, 0.460–0.769; p<0.001). Single pill combination therapy exhibited consistently lower mortality rates across various subgroups. Conclusions Compared to the statin monotherapy, the combination therapy for primary prevention showed no difference in composite outcomes but may reduce mortality risk in relatively healthy middle-aged patients. However, since the study was observational, further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Background: We aimed at evaluating the diagnostic performance of rapid antigen test (RAT) compared to polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and the possible transmission of infection to close contacts from patients with negative RAT and positive PCR results. Materials and Methods: Patients/guardians urgently requiring admission to the ward on the same day had been hospitalized with RAT-negative result before the PCR results were available. We performed an epidemiologic investigation of the close contacts of those with negative RAT but positive PCR results after hospitalization. Results: A total of 4,237 RATs were performed from March to August 2022. When the PCR test was used as the reference, RAT had a sensitivity of 28.8% (17/59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 17.8 - 42.1), a specificity of 100% (4,220/4,220; 95% CI, 99.9 – 100.0), a positive predictive value of 100.0% (17/17; 95% CI, 100.0 - 100.0), and a negative predictive value of 99.0% (4,178/4,220; 95% CI, 99.3 - 99.8). The epidemiologic investigation revealed that among the 32 patients with negative RAT and subsequent positive PCR results after admission into multi-patient room, two (6.3%) showed secondary coronavirus disease 2019. Conclusion The secondary transmission rate from patients with negative RAT and positive PCR results was low. Our data suggest that RAT may be useful for rapid exclusion of high transmissible cases. However, further evaluation using whole genome sequencing is needed to determine the potential for transmissibility in cases showing a negative RAT but a positive PCR result

This manuscript represents the official position of the Korean Society of Echocardiography on valvular heart diseases.This position paper focuses on the diagnosis and management of valvular heart diseases with referring to the guide‑ lines recently published by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and the European Society of Cardiology. The committee sought to reflect national data on the topic of valvular heart diseases published to date through a systematic literature search based on validity and relevance. In the part II of this article, we intend to pre‑ sent recommendations for diagnosis and treatment of mitral valve disease and tricuspid valve disease.

Background: The advent of the omicron variant and the formulation of diverse therapeutic strategies marked a new epoch in the realm of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Studies have compared the clinical outcomes between COVID-19 and seasonal influenza, but such studies were conducted during the early stages of the pandemic when effective treatment strategies had not yet been developed, which limits the generalizability of the findings.Therefore, an updated evaluation of the comparative analysis of clinical outcomes between COVID-19 and seasonal influenza is requisite. Methods: This study used data from the severe acute respiratory infection surveillance system of South Korea. We extracted data for influenza patients who were infected between 2018 and 2019 and COVID-19 patients who were infected in 2021 (pre-omicron period) and 2022 (omicron period). Comparisons of outcomes were conducted among the pre-omicron, omicron, and influenza cohorts utilizing propensity score matching. The adjusted covariates in the propensity score matching included age, sex, smoking, and comorbidities. Results: The study incorporated 1,227 patients in the pre-omicron cohort, 1,948 patients in the omicron cohort, and 920 patients in the influenza cohort. Following propensity score matching, 491 patients were included in each respective group. Clinical presentations exhibited similarities between the pre-omicron and omicron cohorts; however, COVID-19 patients demonstrated a higher prevalence of dyspnea and pulmonary infiltrates compared to their influenza counterparts. Both COVID-19 groups exhibited higher in-hospital mortality and longer hospital length of stay than the influenza group. The omicron group showed no significant improvement in clinical outcomes compared to the pre-omicron group. Conclusion The omicron group did not demonstrate better clinical outcomes than the pre-omicron group, and exhibited significant disease severity compared to the influenza group. Considering the likely persistence of COVID-19 infections, it is imperative to sustain comprehensive studies and ongoing policy support for the virus to enhance the prognosis for individuals affected by COVID-19.