Background: This study aimed to determine whether a shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen is non-inferior to the standard 6-month tuberculosis regimen. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial enrolled participants with respiratory specimen positivity by Xpert MTB/RIF assay or Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture without rifampicin-resistance. Participants were randomized at 1:1 to the investigational or control group. The investigational group received high-dose rifampicin (30 mg/kg/day), isoniazid, and pyrazinamide until culture conversion, followed by high-dose rifampicin and isoniazid for 12 weeks. The control group received the standard 6-month regimen. The primary outcome was the rate of unfavorable outcomes at 18 months post-randomization. The non-inferiority margin was set at <6% difference in unfavorable outcomes rates. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04485156) Results: Between 4 November 2020 and 3 January 2022, 76 participants were enrolled. Of these, 58 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Unfavorable outcomes occurred in 10 (31.3%) of 32 in the control group and 10 (38.5%) of 26 in the investigational group. The difference was 7.2% (95% confidence interval, ∞ to 31.9%), failing to prove non-inferiority. Serious adverse events and grade 3 or higher adverse events did not differ between the groups. Conclusion The shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen failed to demonstrate non-inferiority but had an acceptable safety profile.

Background: This study aimed to determine whether a shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen is non-inferior to the standard 6-month tuberculosis regimen. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial enrolled participants with respiratory specimen positivity by Xpert MTB/RIF assay or Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture without rifampicin-resistance. Participants were randomized at 1:1 to the investigational or control group. The investigational group received high-dose rifampicin (30 mg/kg/day), isoniazid, and pyrazinamide until culture conversion, followed by high-dose rifampicin and isoniazid for 12 weeks. The control group received the standard 6-month regimen. The primary outcome was the rate of unfavorable outcomes at 18 months post-randomization. The non-inferiority margin was set at <6% difference in unfavorable outcomes rates. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04485156) Results: Between 4 November 2020 and 3 January 2022, 76 participants were enrolled. Of these, 58 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Unfavorable outcomes occurred in 10 (31.3%) of 32 in the control group and 10 (38.5%) of 26 in the investigational group. The difference was 7.2% (95% confidence interval, ∞ to 31.9%), failing to prove non-inferiority. Serious adverse events and grade 3 or higher adverse events did not differ between the groups. Conclusion The shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen failed to demonstrate non-inferiority but had an acceptable safety profile.

Background: This study aimed to determine whether a shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen is non-inferior to the standard 6-month tuberculosis regimen. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial enrolled participants with respiratory specimen positivity by Xpert MTB/RIF assay or Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture without rifampicin-resistance. Participants were randomized at 1:1 to the investigational or control group. The investigational group received high-dose rifampicin (30 mg/kg/day), isoniazid, and pyrazinamide until culture conversion, followed by high-dose rifampicin and isoniazid for 12 weeks. The control group received the standard 6-month regimen. The primary outcome was the rate of unfavorable outcomes at 18 months post-randomization. The non-inferiority margin was set at <6% difference in unfavorable outcomes rates. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04485156) Results: Between 4 November 2020 and 3 January 2022, 76 participants were enrolled. Of these, 58 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Unfavorable outcomes occurred in 10 (31.3%) of 32 in the control group and 10 (38.5%) of 26 in the investigational group. The difference was 7.2% (95% confidence interval, ∞ to 31.9%), failing to prove non-inferiority. Serious adverse events and grade 3 or higher adverse events did not differ between the groups. Conclusion The shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen failed to demonstrate non-inferiority but had an acceptable safety profile.

Background: This study aimed to determine whether a shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen is non-inferior to the standard 6-month tuberculosis regimen. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial enrolled participants with respiratory specimen positivity by Xpert MTB/RIF assay or Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture without rifampicin-resistance. Participants were randomized at 1:1 to the investigational or control group. The investigational group received high-dose rifampicin (30 mg/kg/day), isoniazid, and pyrazinamide until culture conversion, followed by high-dose rifampicin and isoniazid for 12 weeks. The control group received the standard 6-month regimen. The primary outcome was the rate of unfavorable outcomes at 18 months post-randomization. The non-inferiority margin was set at <6% difference in unfavorable outcomes rates. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04485156) Results: Between 4 November 2020 and 3 January 2022, 76 participants were enrolled. Of these, 58 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Unfavorable outcomes occurred in 10 (31.3%) of 32 in the control group and 10 (38.5%) of 26 in the investigational group. The difference was 7.2% (95% confidence interval, ∞ to 31.9%), failing to prove non-inferiority. Serious adverse events and grade 3 or higher adverse events did not differ between the groups. Conclusion The shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen failed to demonstrate non-inferiority but had an acceptable safety profile.

Background: This study aimed to determine whether a shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen is non-inferior to the standard 6-month tuberculosis regimen. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial enrolled participants with respiratory specimen positivity by Xpert MTB/RIF assay or Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture without rifampicin-resistance. Participants were randomized at 1:1 to the investigational or control group. The investigational group received high-dose rifampicin (30 mg/kg/day), isoniazid, and pyrazinamide until culture conversion, followed by high-dose rifampicin and isoniazid for 12 weeks. The control group received the standard 6-month regimen. The primary outcome was the rate of unfavorable outcomes at 18 months post-randomization. The non-inferiority margin was set at <6% difference in unfavorable outcomes rates. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04485156) Results: Between 4 November 2020 and 3 January 2022, 76 participants were enrolled. Of these, 58 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Unfavorable outcomes occurred in 10 (31.3%) of 32 in the control group and 10 (38.5%) of 26 in the investigational group. The difference was 7.2% (95% confidence interval, ∞ to 31.9%), failing to prove non-inferiority. Serious adverse events and grade 3 or higher adverse events did not differ between the groups. Conclusion The shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen failed to demonstrate non-inferiority but had an acceptable safety profile.

Background: An increased incidence of hair loss disorders has been noted among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and individuals vaccinated against COVID-19. However, research involving large populations on this topic is lacking. Objective: To investigate the risks associated with developing hair loss disorders in patients with COVID-19 and individuals vaccinated against COVID-19. Methods: This nationwide, population-based, cross-sectional study included patients diagnosed with COVID-19 and healthy individuals without a history of COVID-19 infection registered in the Korean National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) database between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2021. COVID-19 infection and vaccine databases were integrated using this NHIS database. The odds ratios of hair loss disorders were compared using multivariate logistic regression models. Results: COVID-19 infection was associated with an increased risk of total alopecia (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.076; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.002–1.156), although this association was not significant after propensity score matching. No significant associations were found between COVID-19 infection and alopecia areata or telogen effluvium. However, COVID-19 vaccination was positively correlated with total alopecia (aOR, 1.266; 95% CI, 1.191–1.346), alopecia areata (aOR, 1.243; 95% CI, 1.154–1.339), and telogen effluvium (aOR, 1.495; 95% CI, 1.133–1.974). Conclusion COVID-19 vaccination was positively correlated with hair loss disorders but not COVID-19 infection. However, given the advantages of vaccines in reducing COVID-19 mortality and morbidity, alopecia may be relatively reversible and less severe. Physicians need to understand the benefits and possible side effects of the COVID-19 vaccine.

Background and Objectives: The medications preferred by patients for allergic rhinitis and their usage remain unclear. This study investigated treatment-seeking behaviors in patients with allergic rhinitis, including medical treatments, environmental controls, and surgical treatments. Methods: In this study, a cross-sectional survey was conducted by internal medicine, pediatric, or otorhinolaryngology physicians at university hospitals from January 2022 to April 2022. A questionnaire was administered to patients with confirmed allergic rhinitis to collect information regarding medical treatments (prescription and over-the-counter medication use patterns, comorbid asthma, and allergen-specific immunotherapy), environmental controls (usage of air purifiers and pet avoidance), and experiences with surgical treatments. Results: We included 51 patients with allergic rhinitis with a mean age of 31.6±16.0 years. Among them, 47 (92.2%) and 6 (11.8%) patients had pollen allergies and asthma, respectively. Furthermore, 41 (80.4%) patients took prescribed medicines, while 39 (76.5%) patients only used the medication when experiencing symptoms. Thirty patients (58.8%) reported concurrent use of intranasal sprays and oral medications. Thirty-three patients (64.7%) reported awareness of immunotherapy, and there were no preferential differences between subcutaneous (52%) and sublingual immunotherapy (48%). Of the 36 patients (70.6%) who reported using an air purifier, 38.9% considered it helpful in preventing allergic rhinitis symptoms. Fourteen patients (27.5%) currently or previously had a companion animal, with half experiencing worsening of symptoms. Twelve patients had received surgical treatment and reported high satisfaction levels (41.6%, very satisfied; 41.6%, satisfied). Conclusion Patients with allergic rhinitis showed similar preferences for oral and spray medications. They also showed satisfaction with surgical treatments and an interest in the environmental management of allergic rhinitis.

Background and Objectives: The medications preferred by patients for allergic rhinitis and their usage remain unclear. This study investigated treatment-seeking behaviors in patients with allergic rhinitis, including medical treatments, environmental controls, and surgical treatments. Methods: In this study, a cross-sectional survey was conducted by internal medicine, pediatric, or otorhinolaryngology physicians at university hospitals from January 2022 to April 2022. A questionnaire was administered to patients with confirmed allergic rhinitis to collect information regarding medical treatments (prescription and over-the-counter medication use patterns, comorbid asthma, and allergen-specific immunotherapy), environmental controls (usage of air purifiers and pet avoidance), and experiences with surgical treatments. Results: We included 51 patients with allergic rhinitis with a mean age of 31.6±16.0 years. Among them, 47 (92.2%) and 6 (11.8%) patients had pollen allergies and asthma, respectively. Furthermore, 41 (80.4%) patients took prescribed medicines, while 39 (76.5%) patients only used the medication when experiencing symptoms. Thirty patients (58.8%) reported concurrent use of intranasal sprays and oral medications. Thirty-three patients (64.7%) reported awareness of immunotherapy, and there were no preferential differences between subcutaneous (52%) and sublingual immunotherapy (48%). Of the 36 patients (70.6%) who reported using an air purifier, 38.9% considered it helpful in preventing allergic rhinitis symptoms. Fourteen patients (27.5%) currently or previously had a companion animal, with half experiencing worsening of symptoms. Twelve patients had received surgical treatment and reported high satisfaction levels (41.6%, very satisfied; 41.6%, satisfied). Conclusion Patients with allergic rhinitis showed similar preferences for oral and spray medications. They also showed satisfaction with surgical treatments and an interest in the environmental management of allergic rhinitis.

Background and Objectives: The medications preferred by patients for allergic rhinitis and their usage remain unclear. This study investigated treatment-seeking behaviors in patients with allergic rhinitis, including medical treatments, environmental controls, and surgical treatments. Methods: In this study, a cross-sectional survey was conducted by internal medicine, pediatric, or otorhinolaryngology physicians at university hospitals from January 2022 to April 2022. A questionnaire was administered to patients with confirmed allergic rhinitis to collect information regarding medical treatments (prescription and over-the-counter medication use patterns, comorbid asthma, and allergen-specific immunotherapy), environmental controls (usage of air purifiers and pet avoidance), and experiences with surgical treatments. Results: We included 51 patients with allergic rhinitis with a mean age of 31.6±16.0 years. Among them, 47 (92.2%) and 6 (11.8%) patients had pollen allergies and asthma, respectively. Furthermore, 41 (80.4%) patients took prescribed medicines, while 39 (76.5%) patients only used the medication when experiencing symptoms. Thirty patients (58.8%) reported concurrent use of intranasal sprays and oral medications. Thirty-three patients (64.7%) reported awareness of immunotherapy, and there were no preferential differences between subcutaneous (52%) and sublingual immunotherapy (48%). Of the 36 patients (70.6%) who reported using an air purifier, 38.9% considered it helpful in preventing allergic rhinitis symptoms. Fourteen patients (27.5%) currently or previously had a companion animal, with half experiencing worsening of symptoms. Twelve patients had received surgical treatment and reported high satisfaction levels (41.6%, very satisfied; 41.6%, satisfied). Conclusion Patients with allergic rhinitis showed similar preferences for oral and spray medications. They also showed satisfaction with surgical treatments and an interest in the environmental management of allergic rhinitis.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is the most prevalent inflammatory skin condition, with approximately 80% of cases originating in childhood and some emerging in adulthood. In South Korea, the estimated prevalence of AD ranges between 10% and 20% in children and 1% and 3% in adults. Severe/recalcitrant AD manifests as a chronic, relapsing skin disorder, persisting with uncontrolled symptoms even after topical steroid treatment. Corticosteroids and systemic immunosuppression, conventionally the standard care for difficult-to-treat diseases, cause numerous undesirable side effects. When AD persists despite topical steroid application, systemic therapies like cyclosporine or systemic steroids become the second treatment strategy. The desire for targeted treatments, along with an enhanced understanding of AD’s pathophysiology, has spurred novel therapeutic development. Recent advances introduce novel systemic options, such as biological agents and small-molecule therapy, tailored to treat severe or recalcitrant AD. Notably, dupilumab, a monoclonal antibody inhibiting interleukin 4 and 13, marked a transformative breakthrough upon gaining approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2017, leading to a paradigm shift in the systemic treatment of AD. Furthermore, both dupilumab and Janus kinase inhibitors, including baricitinib, abrocitinib, and tofacitinib, now approved by the Korean FDA, have established their applicability in clinical practice. These innovative therapeutic agents have demonstrated favorable clinical outcomes, effectively addressing moderate to severe AD with fewer side reactions than those associated with previous systemic immunosuppressants. This review summarizes the latest advancements and evidence regarding systemic treatments for AD, including newly approved drugs in Korea.