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.

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.

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.

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.

Background: Guidelines for switching to triple combination therapy directly after monotherapy failure are limited. This study investigated the efficacy, long-term sustainability, and safety of either mono or dual add-on therapy using alogliptin and pioglitazone for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who did not achieve their target glycemic range with metformin monotherapy. Methods: The Practical Evidence of Antidiabetic Combination Therapy in Korea (PEAK) was a multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized trial. A total of 214 participants were randomized to receive alogliptin+pioglitazone (Alo+Pio group, n=70), alogliptin (Alo group, n=75), or pioglitazone (Pio group, n=69). The primary outcome was the difference in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels between the three groups at baseline to 24 weeks. For durability, the achievement of HbA1c levels <7% and <6.5% was compared in each group. The number of adverse events was investigated for safety. Results: After 24 weeks of treatment, the change of HbA1c in the Alo+Pio, Alo, and Pio groups were –1.38%±0.08%, –1.03%±0.08%, and –0.84%±0.08%, respectively. The Alo+Pio group had significantly lower HbA1c levels than the other groups (P=0.0063, P<0.0001) and had a higher proportion of patients with target HbA1c achievement. In addition, insulin sensitivity and β-cell function, lipid profiles, and other metabolic indicators were also improved. There were no significant safety issues in patients treated with triple combination therapy. Conclusion Early combination triple therapy showed better efficacy and durability than the single add-on (dual) therapy. Therefore, combination therapy with metformin, alogliptin, and pioglitazone is a valuable early treatment option for T2DM poorly controlled with metformin monotherapy.

The Korean Society of Infectious Diseases has been regularly developing guidelines for adult immunization since 2007. In 2023, the guidelines for the following seven vaccines were revised: influenza, herpes zoster, pneumococcal, tetanus-diphtheria-pertussis (Tdap), human papillomavirus (HPV), meningococcal, and rabies vaccines. For the influenza vaccine, a recommendation for enhanced vaccines for the elderly was added. For the herpes zoster vaccine, a recommendation for the recombinant zoster vaccine was added. For the pneumococcal vaccine, the current status of the 15-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine and 20-valent PCV was described. For the Tdap vaccine, the possibility of using Tdap instead of tetanus-diphtheria vaccine was described. For the HPV vaccine, the expansion of the eligible age for vaccination was described. For the meningococcal vaccine, a recommendation for the meningococcal B vaccine was added. For the rabies vaccine, the number of pre-exposure prophylaxis doses was changed. This manuscript documents the summary and rationale of the revisions for the seven vaccines. For the vaccines not mentioned in this manuscript, the recommendations in the 3rd edition of the Vaccinations for Adults textbook shall remain in effect.

Purpose: The original eCura system was designed to stratify the risk of lymph node metastasis (LNM) after endoscopic resection (ER) in patients with early gastric cancer (EGC).We assessed the effectiveness of a modified eCura system for reflecting the characteristics of undifferentiated-type (UD)-EGC. Materials and Methods: Six hundred thirty-four patients who underwent non-curative ER for UD-EGC and received either additional surgery (radical surgery group; n=270) or no further treatment (no additional treatment group; n=364) from 18 institutions between 2005 and 2015 were retrospectively included in this study. The eCuraU system assigned 1 point each for tumors >20 mm in size, ulceration, positive vertical margin, and submucosal invasion <500 µm; 2 points for submucosal invasion ≥500 µm; and 3 points for lymphovascular invasion. Results: LNM rates in the radical surgery group were 1.1%, 5.4%, and 13.3% for the low-(0–1 point), intermediate- (2–3 points), and high-risk (4–8 points), respectively (P-fortrend<0.001). The eCuraU system showed a significantly higher probability of identifying patients with LNM as high-risk than the eCura system (66.7% vs. 22.2%; McNemar P<0.001).In the no additional treatment group, overall survival (93.4%, 87.2%, and 67.6% at 5 years) and cancer-specific survival (99.6%, 98.9%, and 92.9% at 5 years) differed significantly among the low-, intermediate-, and high-risk categories, respectively (both P<0.001). In the high-risk category, surgery outperformed no treatment in terms of overall mortality (hazard ratio, 3.26; P=0.015). Conclusions The eCuraU system stratified the risk of LNM in patients with UD-EGC after ER. It is strongly recommended that high-risk patients undergo additional surgery.

Background: Limited data are available on the mortality rates of patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We aimed to analyze the relationship between COVID-19 and clinical outcomes for patients receiving ECMO. Methods: We retrospectively investigated patients with COVID-19 pneumonia requiring ECMO in 19 hospitals across Korea from January 1, 2020 to August 31, 2021. The primary outcome was the 90-day mortality after ECMO initiation. We performed multivariate analysis using a logistic regression model to estimate the odds ratio (OR) of 90-day mortality. Survival differences were analyzed using the Kaplan–Meier (KM) method. Results: Of 127 patients with COVID-19 pneumonia who received ECMO, 70 patients (55.1%) died within 90 days of ECMO initiation. The median age was 64 years, and 63% of patients were male. The incidence of ECMO was increased with age but was decreased after 70 years of age. However, the survival rate was decreased linearly with age. In multivariate analysis, age (OR, 1.048; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.010–1.089; P = 0.014) and receipt of continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) (OR, 3.069; 95% CI, 1.312–7.180; P = 0.010) were significantly associated with an increased risk of 90-day mortality. KM curves showed significant differences in survival between groups according to age (65 years) (log-rank P = 0.021) and receipt of CRRT (log-rank P = 0.004). Conclusion Older age and receipt of CRRT were associated with higher mortality rates among patients with COVID-19 who received ECMO.

Purpose: The current treatment option of bimalleolar equivalent fractures is open reduction and internal fixation of lateral malleolus followed by syndesmotic screw fixation of syndesmosis or deltoid ligament augmentation. On the other hand, there is still debate using deltoid ligament augmentation technique. This study compared the clinical results of deltoid ligament augmentation and syndesmosis screw fixation in bimalleolar equivalent fractures. Materials and Methods: From 2007 to 2022, this study retrospectively compared 31 patients who underwent deltoid ligament augmentation with fibula fixation with 12 patients who underwent syndesmosis fixation for bimalleolar equivalent fractures. The clinical results were compared by measuring visual analogue scale (VAS) score, American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) score, and ankle range of motion 12 months after surgery. The radiological results were compared by measuring medial clear space, tibiofibular overlap, and tibiofibular clear space before and after surgery. The postoperative complications were compared. Results: The post-operative AOFAS score, the VAS score, and the ankle range of motion were similar in the two groups. The radiological results showed a similar medial clear space, tibiofibular overlap, and tibiofibular clear space in the two groups before and after surgery. In addition, there were no postoperative complications in the group that underwent deltoid ligament augmentation, and one screw break and superficial infection were observed in each of the patient groups that had undergone trans-syndesmosis screw fixation. Conclusion Clinically good results could be obtained despite only deltoid ligament augmentation being performed alone after fibular fracture fixation in bimalleolar equivalent fractures. In addition, if only deltoid ligament augmentation is performed alone rather than transsyndesmosis screw fixation, there is little possibility of misalignment and no risk of screw breakage or the need for additional procedures to remove the screws. In conclusion, deltoid ligament repair without syndesmosis screw fixation could be viable for treating bimalleolar equivalent fractures.

Background: Minimalist transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) under monitored anesthesia care (MAC) emphasizes early recovery. Remimazolam is a novel benzodiazepine with a short recovery time. This study hypothesized that remimazolam is non-inferior to dexmedetomidine in terms of recovery after TAVR. Methods: In this retrospective observational study, remimazolam was compared to dexmedetomidine in patients who underwent TAVR under MAC at a tertiary academic hospital between July 2020 and July 2022. The primary outcome was timely recovery after TAVR, defined as discharge from the intensive care unit within the first day following the procedure. Propensity score matching was used to compare timely recovery between remimazolam and dexmedetomidine, applying a non-inferiority margin of -10%. Results: The study included 464 patients, of whom 218 received remimazolam and 246 received dexmedetomidine. After propensity score matching, 164 patients in each group were included in the analysis. Regarding timely recovery after TAVR, remimazolam was non-inferior to dexmedetomidine (152 of 164 [92.7%] in the remimazolam group versus 153 of 164 [93.3%] in the dexmedetomidine group, risk difference [95% CI]: −0.6% [−6.7%, 5.5%]). The use of remimazolam was associated with fewer postoperative vasopressors/inotropes (21 of 164 [12.8%] vs. 39 of 164 [23.8%]) and temporary pacemakers (TPMs) (76 of 164 [46.3%] vs. 108 of 164 [65.9%]) compared to dexmedetomidine. Conclusions In patients undergoing TAVR under MAC, remimazolam was non-inferior to dexmedetomidine in terms of timely recovery. Remimazolam may be associated with better postoperative recovery profiles, including a lesser need for vasopressors/inotropes and TPMs.