Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) has been used for over a century and has been demonstrated to be effective in treating patients with various allergic diseases. AIT allergens can be administered through various routes, including subcutaneous, sublingual, intralymphatic, oral, or epicutaneous routes. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) has recently gained clinical interest, and it is considered an alternative treatment for allergic rhinitis (AR) and asthma. This review provides an overview of the current evidence-based studies that address the use of SLIT for treating AR, including (1) mechanisms of action, (2) appropriate patient selection for SLIT, (3) the current available SLIT products in Korea, and (4) updated information on its efficacy and safety. Finally, this guideline aims to provide the clinician with practical considerations for SLIT.

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is a causative treatment of allergic diseases in which allergen extracts are regularly administered in a gradually escalated doses, leading to immune tolerance and consequent alleviation of allergic diseases. The need for uniform practice guidelines in AIT is continuously growing as the number of potential candidates for AIT increases and new therapeutic approaches are tried. This updated version of the Korean Academy of Asthma Allergy and Clinical Immunology recommendations for AIT, published in 2010, proposes an expert opinion by specialists in allergy, pediatrics, and otorhinolaryngology. This guideline deals with the basic knowledge of AIT, including mechanisms, clinical efficacy, allergen standardization, important allergens in Korea, and special consideration in pediatrics. The article also covers the methodological aspects of AIT, including patient selection, allergen selection, schedule and doses, follow-up care, efficacy measurements, and management of adverse reactions. Although this guideline suggests the optimal dosing schedule, an individualized approach and modifications are recommended considering the situation for each patient and clinic.

Purpose: We investigated the role of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) variation as a predictor of prostate cancer in patients who underwent prebiopsy multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Materials and Methods: The clinicopathological data of 266 patients with PSA ≤20 ng/mL who underwent prebiopsy MRI and prostate biopsy between September 2019 and February 2021 were included. PSA variation was defined as the difference in PSA values taken when a prostate biopsy was recommended and performed (median 20 days). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and area under the ROC curves (AUCs) for predicting prostate cancer were analyzed through 4 models that considered conventional clinical variables and PSA variation. Results: Of the 258 patients, 166 (64.3%) were diagnosed with prostate cancer. The prostate cancer (+) group had a lower median PSA variation (-0.09 mg/mL vs. -0.27 ng/mL, p=0.006) and higher proportion of patients with PSA variation within -0.54 to 0.05 ng/mL (40 ng/mL [range, 24.1%] vs. 9 ng/mL [9.8%], p=0.002) than the prostate cancer (-) group. There was no significant difference in the duration between the 2 PSA measurements. When PSA variation and conventional variables, such as age, PSA density, prostate biopsy history, number of target lesions, were considered, the highest AUC value was 0.870. In a subgroup analysis of patients with PSA ≤10 ng/mL, the highest AUC value was 0.860 when PSA variation and conventional variables were considered. Conclusions A large PSA variation within 1 month was a negative predictor of prostate cancer among patients who underwent prebiopsy MRI.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare corneal astigmatism correction between “wound open” and “wound intact” methods during femtosecond laser-assisted transepithelial arcuate keratotomy. Methods: From April 2016 to December 2018, a retrospective survey was conducted on patients undergoing femtosecond laser cataract surgery at the Ophthalmology Department of Samsung Medical Center. Size comparison and vector analysis of corneal astigmatism before and after surgery were performed in the wound open and wound intact groups. Results: In the wound open and wound intact groups, the target-induced astigmatism (TIA) was 1.28 ± 0.55; and 1.26 ± 0.29 diopters, the surgically induced astigmatism (SIA) was 0.80 ± 0.52; and 0.53 ± 0.32 diopters, and the correction index (CI) was 0.63 ± 0.28; and 0.43 ± 0.26, respectively. The astigmatism correction was superior in the wound open group (p = 0.048, p = 0.025). In a subgroup with TIA < 1.2 diopters, there were no significant differences in SIA or CI between the two groups; however, in the subgroup with a TIA > 1.2 diopters, the SIA was 1.09 ± 0.59; and 0.54 ± 0.37 diopters and the CI was 0.60 ± 0.28; and 0.36 ± 0.23 in the wound open and wound intact groups, respectively (p = 0.022, p = 0.047). Thus, astigmatism correction was superior in the wound open group. Conclusions The wound open method during femtosecond laser-assisted transepithelial arcuate keratotomy was superior for astigmatism correction compared to the wound intact method.