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.

Noncystic fibrosis bronchiectasis is a chronic respiratory disease that carries high socioeconomic and medical burdens and is caused by diverse respiratory illnesses. To improve clinical outcomes, early recognition, active treatment of exacerbations, and prevention of further exacerbations are essential. However, evidence for the treatment and prevention of acute exacerbation of noncystic fibrosis bronchiectasis, especially in children, is lacking. Therefore, the evidence- and consensus-based guidelines for medical and nonmedical treatment strategies for noncystic fibrosis bronchiectasis in children and adolescents were developed by the Korean Academy of Pediatric Allergy and Respiratory Disease using the methods recommended by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation working group with evidence published through July 2, 2020. This guideline encompasses evidence-based treatment recommendations as well as expert opinions, addressing crucial aspects of the treatment and management of non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis in children. This includes considerations for antibiotics and airway clearance strategies, particularly in areas where evidence may be limited. Large, well-designed, and controlled studies are required to accumulate further evidence of management strategies for noncystic fibrosis bronchiectasis in children and adolescents.

Noncystic fibrosis bronchiectasis is a chronic respiratory disease that carries high socioeconomic and medical burdens and is caused by diverse respiratory illnesses. To improve clinical outcomes, early recognition, active treatment of exacerbations, and prevention of further exacerbations are essential. However, evidence for the treatment and prevention of acute exacerbation of noncystic fibrosis bronchiectasis, especially in children, is lacking. Therefore, the evidence- and consensus-based guidelines for medical and nonmedical treatment strategies for noncystic fibrosis bronchiectasis in children and adolescents were developed by the Korean Academy of Pediatric Allergy and Respiratory Disease using the methods recommended by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation working group with evidence published through July 2, 2020. This guideline encompasses evidence-based treatment recommendations as well as expert opinions, addressing crucial aspects of the treatment and management of non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis in children. This includes considerations for antibiotics and airway clearance strategies, particularly in areas where evidence may be limited. Large, well-designed, and controlled studies are required to accumulate further evidence of management strategies for noncystic fibrosis bronchiectasis in children and adolescents.

Noncystic fibrosis bronchiectasis is a chronic respiratory disease that carries high socioeconomic and medical burdens and is caused by diverse respiratory illnesses. To improve clinical outcomes, early recognition, active treatment of exacerbations, and prevention of further exacerbations are essential. However, evidence for the treatment and prevention of acute exacerbation of noncystic fibrosis bronchiectasis, especially in children, is lacking. Therefore, the evidence- and consensus-based guidelines for medical and nonmedical treatment strategies for noncystic fibrosis bronchiectasis in children and adolescents were developed by the Korean Academy of Pediatric Allergy and Respiratory Disease using the methods recommended by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation working group with evidence published through July 2, 2020. This guideline encompasses evidence-based treatment recommendations as well as expert opinions, addressing crucial aspects of the treatment and management of non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis in children. This includes considerations for antibiotics and airway clearance strategies, particularly in areas where evidence may be limited. Large, well-designed, and controlled studies are required to accumulate further evidence of management strategies for noncystic fibrosis bronchiectasis in children and adolescents.

Noncystic fibrosis bronchiectasis is a chronic respiratory disease that carries high socioeconomic and medical burdens and is caused by diverse respiratory illnesses. To improve clinical outcomes, early recognition, active treatment of exacerbations, and prevention of further exacerbations are essential. However, evidence for the treatment and prevention of acute exacerbation of noncystic fibrosis bronchiectasis, especially in children, is lacking. Therefore, the evidence- and consensus-based guidelines for medical and nonmedical treatment strategies for noncystic fibrosis bronchiectasis in children and adolescents were developed by the Korean Academy of Pediatric Allergy and Respiratory Disease using the methods recommended by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation working group with evidence published through July 2, 2020. This guideline encompasses evidence-based treatment recommendations as well as expert opinions, addressing crucial aspects of the treatment and management of non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis in children. This includes considerations for antibiotics and airway clearance strategies, particularly in areas where evidence may be limited. Large, well-designed, and controlled studies are required to accumulate further evidence of management strategies for noncystic fibrosis bronchiectasis in children and adolescents.

Incidence of depression increases in patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). We evaluated the association between depression and mortality among older patients with ESKD, which has not been studied previously. Methods: This nationwide prospective cohort study included 487 patients with ESKD aged >65 years, who were categorized into minimal, mild-to-moderate, and severe depression groups based on their Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) scores. Predisposing factors for high BDI-II scores and the association between the scores and survival were analyzed. Results: The severe depression group showed a higher modified Charlson comorbidity index value and lower serum albumin, phosphate, and uric acid levels than the other depression groups. The Kaplan-Meier curve revealed a significantly lower survival in the severe depression group than in the minimal and mild-to-moderate depression groups (p = 0.011). Multivariate Cox regression analysis confirmed that severe depression was an independent risk factor for mortality in the study cohort (hazard ratio, 1.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.01–1.91; p = 0.041). Additionally, BDI-II scores were associated with modified Charlson comorbidity index (p = 0.009) and serum albumin level (p = 0.004) in multivariate linear regression. Among the three depressive symptoms, higher somatic symptom scores were associated with increased mortality. Conclusion: Severe depression among older patients with ESKD increases mortality compared with minimal or mild-to-moderate depression, and patients with concomitant somatic symptoms require careful management of their comorbidities and nutritional status.