Background: Achieving optimal glucose control is essential in the management of type 2 diabetes (T2D). This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of oral quadruple combination therapy for the treatment of T2D. Methods: This meta-analysis reviewed original research on oral quadruple combination therapy for T2D, including both experimental and observational studies with a minimum duration of 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was the change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to follow-up. The secondary endpoint was the incidence rate of adverse events. Two investigators independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Outcomes were pooled as the standardized mean difference (using Hedge’s g) and the risk ratio for adverse events in random-effects meta-analyses. Results: The meta-analysis included 17 studies. Oral quadruple combination therapy resulted in an additional mean reduction in HbA1c levels of 1.1% in patients who did not achieve glycemic control with oral triple combination therapy. Compared with switching to injectables, such as insulin or a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist–containing regimen, this therapy was non-inferior, even demonstrating a slightly superior glucose-lowering effect. Furthermore, it was determined to be safe, with an adverse event rate of 0.25, indicating no significant difference in safety compared with adding a placebo or switching to an injectable-containing regimen. Conclusion Oral quadruple combination therapy is a valid option for patients with T2D who are unable to achieve glycemic targets with oral triple combination therapy, offering both effective glycemic control and a favorable safety profile.

Objective: To analyze costs and cost-effectiveness of transforaminal endoscopic thoracic discectomy (TETD) for the treatment of symptomatic thoracic disc herniation (TDH) and compare it with open microdiscectomy (MD). Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent TETD or MD for symptomatic TDH and had a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Cost analysis included direct costs (primary and secondary hospital costs), indirect costs (lost wages due to work absence), total costs (direct + indirect), and cost-effectiveness (cost per quality-adjusted life year [QALY] and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]). Clinical outcomes included patient-reported outcome measures (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], 36-item Short Form health survey [SF-36]), QALY gained, and reoperation and readmission rates at 1 year. TETD and MD groups were compared for outcome measures. Results: A total of 111 patients (57 TETD, 54 MD) were included. The direct ($6,270 TETD vs. $7,410 MD, p < 0.01), indirect costs ($1,250 TETD vs. $1,450 MD, p < 0.01), total costs ($7,520 TETD vs. $8,860 MD, p < 0.01), and cost per QALY ($31,333 TETD vs. $44,300 MD, p < 0.01) were significantly lower for TETD compared to MD. ICER of TETD was found to be -$33,500. At 1 year, TETD group showed significantly greater improvement in ODI (46% vs. 36%, p < 0.01) and SF-36 (64% vs. 53%, p < 0.01) and significantly greater QALY gained (0.24 vs. 0.2, p < 0.01) compared to MD group. No significant difference was found in reoperation and readmission rates. Conclusion TETD demonstrated significantly better clinical outcomes, lower overall costs, and better cost-effectiveness than MD in appropriately selected patients of symptomatic TDH.

Background: Achieving optimal glucose control is essential in the management of type 2 diabetes (T2D). This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of oral quadruple combination therapy for the treatment of T2D. Methods: This meta-analysis reviewed original research on oral quadruple combination therapy for T2D, including both experimental and observational studies with a minimum duration of 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was the change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to follow-up. The secondary endpoint was the incidence rate of adverse events. Two investigators independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Outcomes were pooled as the standardized mean difference (using Hedge’s g) and the risk ratio for adverse events in random-effects meta-analyses. Results: The meta-analysis included 17 studies. Oral quadruple combination therapy resulted in an additional mean reduction in HbA1c levels of 1.1% in patients who did not achieve glycemic control with oral triple combination therapy. Compared with switching to injectables, such as insulin or a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist–containing regimen, this therapy was non-inferior, even demonstrating a slightly superior glucose-lowering effect. Furthermore, it was determined to be safe, with an adverse event rate of 0.25, indicating no significant difference in safety compared with adding a placebo or switching to an injectable-containing regimen. Conclusion Oral quadruple combination therapy is a valid option for patients with T2D who are unable to achieve glycemic targets with oral triple combination therapy, offering both effective glycemic control and a favorable safety profile.

Objective: To analyze costs and cost-effectiveness of transforaminal endoscopic thoracic discectomy (TETD) for the treatment of symptomatic thoracic disc herniation (TDH) and compare it with open microdiscectomy (MD). Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent TETD or MD for symptomatic TDH and had a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Cost analysis included direct costs (primary and secondary hospital costs), indirect costs (lost wages due to work absence), total costs (direct + indirect), and cost-effectiveness (cost per quality-adjusted life year [QALY] and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]). Clinical outcomes included patient-reported outcome measures (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], 36-item Short Form health survey [SF-36]), QALY gained, and reoperation and readmission rates at 1 year. TETD and MD groups were compared for outcome measures. Results: A total of 111 patients (57 TETD, 54 MD) were included. The direct ($6,270 TETD vs. $7,410 MD, p < 0.01), indirect costs ($1,250 TETD vs. $1,450 MD, p < 0.01), total costs ($7,520 TETD vs. $8,860 MD, p < 0.01), and cost per QALY ($31,333 TETD vs. $44,300 MD, p < 0.01) were significantly lower for TETD compared to MD. ICER of TETD was found to be -$33,500. At 1 year, TETD group showed significantly greater improvement in ODI (46% vs. 36%, p < 0.01) and SF-36 (64% vs. 53%, p < 0.01) and significantly greater QALY gained (0.24 vs. 0.2, p < 0.01) compared to MD group. No significant difference was found in reoperation and readmission rates. Conclusion TETD demonstrated significantly better clinical outcomes, lower overall costs, and better cost-effectiveness than MD in appropriately selected patients of symptomatic TDH.

Objective: To analyze costs and cost-effectiveness of transforaminal endoscopic thoracic discectomy (TETD) for the treatment of symptomatic thoracic disc herniation (TDH) and compare it with open microdiscectomy (MD). Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent TETD or MD for symptomatic TDH and had a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Cost analysis included direct costs (primary and secondary hospital costs), indirect costs (lost wages due to work absence), total costs (direct + indirect), and cost-effectiveness (cost per quality-adjusted life year [QALY] and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]). Clinical outcomes included patient-reported outcome measures (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], 36-item Short Form health survey [SF-36]), QALY gained, and reoperation and readmission rates at 1 year. TETD and MD groups were compared for outcome measures. Results: A total of 111 patients (57 TETD, 54 MD) were included. The direct ($6,270 TETD vs. $7,410 MD, p < 0.01), indirect costs ($1,250 TETD vs. $1,450 MD, p < 0.01), total costs ($7,520 TETD vs. $8,860 MD, p < 0.01), and cost per QALY ($31,333 TETD vs. $44,300 MD, p < 0.01) were significantly lower for TETD compared to MD. ICER of TETD was found to be -$33,500. At 1 year, TETD group showed significantly greater improvement in ODI (46% vs. 36%, p < 0.01) and SF-36 (64% vs. 53%, p < 0.01) and significantly greater QALY gained (0.24 vs. 0.2, p < 0.01) compared to MD group. No significant difference was found in reoperation and readmission rates. Conclusion TETD demonstrated significantly better clinical outcomes, lower overall costs, and better cost-effectiveness than MD in appropriately selected patients of symptomatic TDH.

Background: Achieving optimal glucose control is essential in the management of type 2 diabetes (T2D). This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of oral quadruple combination therapy for the treatment of T2D. Methods: This meta-analysis reviewed original research on oral quadruple combination therapy for T2D, including both experimental and observational studies with a minimum duration of 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was the change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to follow-up. The secondary endpoint was the incidence rate of adverse events. Two investigators independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Outcomes were pooled as the standardized mean difference (using Hedge’s g) and the risk ratio for adverse events in random-effects meta-analyses. Results: The meta-analysis included 17 studies. Oral quadruple combination therapy resulted in an additional mean reduction in HbA1c levels of 1.1% in patients who did not achieve glycemic control with oral triple combination therapy. Compared with switching to injectables, such as insulin or a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist–containing regimen, this therapy was non-inferior, even demonstrating a slightly superior glucose-lowering effect. Furthermore, it was determined to be safe, with an adverse event rate of 0.25, indicating no significant difference in safety compared with adding a placebo or switching to an injectable-containing regimen. Conclusion Oral quadruple combination therapy is a valid option for patients with T2D who are unable to achieve glycemic targets with oral triple combination therapy, offering both effective glycemic control and a favorable safety profile.

Objective: To analyze costs and cost-effectiveness of transforaminal endoscopic thoracic discectomy (TETD) for the treatment of symptomatic thoracic disc herniation (TDH) and compare it with open microdiscectomy (MD). Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent TETD or MD for symptomatic TDH and had a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Cost analysis included direct costs (primary and secondary hospital costs), indirect costs (lost wages due to work absence), total costs (direct + indirect), and cost-effectiveness (cost per quality-adjusted life year [QALY] and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]). Clinical outcomes included patient-reported outcome measures (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], 36-item Short Form health survey [SF-36]), QALY gained, and reoperation and readmission rates at 1 year. TETD and MD groups were compared for outcome measures. Results: A total of 111 patients (57 TETD, 54 MD) were included. The direct ($6,270 TETD vs. $7,410 MD, p < 0.01), indirect costs ($1,250 TETD vs. $1,450 MD, p < 0.01), total costs ($7,520 TETD vs. $8,860 MD, p < 0.01), and cost per QALY ($31,333 TETD vs. $44,300 MD, p < 0.01) were significantly lower for TETD compared to MD. ICER of TETD was found to be -$33,500. At 1 year, TETD group showed significantly greater improvement in ODI (46% vs. 36%, p < 0.01) and SF-36 (64% vs. 53%, p < 0.01) and significantly greater QALY gained (0.24 vs. 0.2, p < 0.01) compared to MD group. No significant difference was found in reoperation and readmission rates. Conclusion TETD demonstrated significantly better clinical outcomes, lower overall costs, and better cost-effectiveness than MD in appropriately selected patients of symptomatic TDH.

Background: Achieving optimal glucose control is essential in the management of type 2 diabetes (T2D). This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of oral quadruple combination therapy for the treatment of T2D. Methods: This meta-analysis reviewed original research on oral quadruple combination therapy for T2D, including both experimental and observational studies with a minimum duration of 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was the change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to follow-up. The secondary endpoint was the incidence rate of adverse events. Two investigators independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Outcomes were pooled as the standardized mean difference (using Hedge’s g) and the risk ratio for adverse events in random-effects meta-analyses. Results: The meta-analysis included 17 studies. Oral quadruple combination therapy resulted in an additional mean reduction in HbA1c levels of 1.1% in patients who did not achieve glycemic control with oral triple combination therapy. Compared with switching to injectables, such as insulin or a glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist–containing regimen, this therapy was non-inferior, even demonstrating a slightly superior glucose-lowering effect. Furthermore, it was determined to be safe, with an adverse event rate of 0.25, indicating no significant difference in safety compared with adding a placebo or switching to an injectable-containing regimen. Conclusion Oral quadruple combination therapy is a valid option for patients with T2D who are unable to achieve glycemic targets with oral triple combination therapy, offering both effective glycemic control and a favorable safety profile.

Objective: To analyze costs and cost-effectiveness of transforaminal endoscopic thoracic discectomy (TETD) for the treatment of symptomatic thoracic disc herniation (TDH) and compare it with open microdiscectomy (MD). Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent TETD or MD for symptomatic TDH and had a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Cost analysis included direct costs (primary and secondary hospital costs), indirect costs (lost wages due to work absence), total costs (direct + indirect), and cost-effectiveness (cost per quality-adjusted life year [QALY] and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]). Clinical outcomes included patient-reported outcome measures (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], 36-item Short Form health survey [SF-36]), QALY gained, and reoperation and readmission rates at 1 year. TETD and MD groups were compared for outcome measures. Results: A total of 111 patients (57 TETD, 54 MD) were included. The direct ($6,270 TETD vs. $7,410 MD, p < 0.01), indirect costs ($1,250 TETD vs. $1,450 MD, p < 0.01), total costs ($7,520 TETD vs. $8,860 MD, p < 0.01), and cost per QALY ($31,333 TETD vs. $44,300 MD, p < 0.01) were significantly lower for TETD compared to MD. ICER of TETD was found to be -$33,500. At 1 year, TETD group showed significantly greater improvement in ODI (46% vs. 36%, p < 0.01) and SF-36 (64% vs. 53%, p < 0.01) and significantly greater QALY gained (0.24 vs. 0.2, p < 0.01) compared to MD group. No significant difference was found in reoperation and readmission rates. Conclusion TETD demonstrated significantly better clinical outcomes, lower overall costs, and better cost-effectiveness than MD in appropriately selected patients of symptomatic TDH.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.