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/Aims: Appropriate tissue tension and clear visibility of the dissection area using traction are essential for effective and safe endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). In this study, we developed a retractable robot-assisted traction device and evaluated its performance in colorectal ESD. Methods: An experienced endoscopist performed ESD 18 times on an ex vivo porcine colon using the robot and 18 times using the conventional method. The outcome measures were procedure time, dissection speed, procedure-related adverse events, and blind dissection rate. Results: Thirty-six colonic lesions were resected from ex vivo porcine colon samples. The total procedure time was significantly shorter in robot-assisted ESD (RESD) than in conventional ESD (CESD) (20.1±4.1 minutes vs 34.3±8.3 minutes, p<0.05). The submucosal dissection speed was significantly faster in the RESD group than in the CESD group (36.8±9.2 mm 2 /min vs 18.1±4.7 mm 2 /min, p<0.05). The blind dissection rate was also significantly lower in the RESD group (12.8%±3.4% vs 35.1%±3.9%, p<0.05). In an in vivo porcine feasibility study, the robotic device was attached to a colonoscope and successfully inserted into the proximal colon without damaging the colonic wall, and ESD was successfully performed. Conclusions The dissection speed and safety profile improved significantly with the retractable RESD. Thus, our robotic device has the potential to provide simple, effective, and safe multidirectional traction during colonic ESD.

Background: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) approved empagliflozin for reducing cardiovascular mortality and heart failure (HF) hospitalization in patients with both HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). However, limited data are available on the generalizability of empagliflozin to clinical practice. Therefore, we evaluated real-world eligibility and potential cost-effectiveness based on a nationwide prospective HF registry. Methods: A total of 3,108 HFrEF and 2,070 HFpEF patients from the Korean Acute Heart Failure (KorAHF) registry were analyzed. Eligibility was estimated by inclusion and exclusion criteria of EMPagliflozin outcomE tRial in Patients With chrOnic heaRt Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction (EMPEROR-Reduced) and EMPagliflozin outcomE tRial in Patients With chrOnic heaRt Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction (EMPEROR-Preserved) trials and by FDA & EMA label criteria. The cost-utility analysis was done using a Markov model to project the lifetime medical cost and quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Results: Among the KorAHF patients, 91.4% met FDA & EMA label criteria, while 44.7% met the clinical trial criteria. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of empagliflozin was calculated at US$6,764 per QALY in the overall population, which is far below a threshold of US$18,182 per QALY. The cost-effectiveness benefit was more evident in patients with HFrEF (US$5,012 per QALY) than HFpEF (US$8,971 per QALY). Conclusion There is a large discrepancy in real-world eligibility for empagliflozin between FDA & EMA labels and clinical trial criteria. Empagliflozin is cost-effective in HF patients regardless of ejection fraction in South Korea health care setting. The efficacy and safety of empagliflozin in real-world HF patients should be further investigated for a broader range of clinical applications.

Background: Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease type 1A (CMT1A) is caused by duplication of the 17p12 region including PMP22 gene. In CMT1A patients, anticipation showing increased severity by generations has been reported in the CMT1A patients. It has also been reported that severity increases in the non-de novo cases than in the de novo cases. This study was performed to examine epigenetic differences between CMT1A cases and controls as well as between de novo cases and non-de novo cases. Methods: This study examined 40 Korean CMT1A patients and 11 controls. Methylation level was determined using the SureSelect XT Methyl-Seq reagent kit and bisulfite sequence mapping program. Results: Many differentially methylated CpG sites (DMCs) were identified in the comparisonbetween cases and controls and between de novo cases and non-de novo cases. Most DMCs were located within or nearby genes related to the nervous system, mental stress, and motor ability. Conclusions This study is the first epigenetic study to uncover the mechanism of clinical heterogeneity among CMT1A patients. We suggest that weak severity in the de novo cases than the non-de novo cases may be related to the epigenomic differences in the nerve and stress-related genes.

Background: The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has contributed to the change in the epidemiology of many infectious diseases. This study aimed to establish the pre-pandemic epidemiology of pediatric invasive bacterial infection (IBI). Methods: A retrospective multicenter-based surveillance for pediatric IBIs has been maintained from 1996 to 2020 in Korea. IBIs caused by eight bacteria (Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae, Neisseria meningitidis, Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus agalactiae, Streptococcus pyogenes, Listeria monocytogenes, and Salmonella species) in immunocompetent children > 3 months of age were collected at 29 centers. The annual trend in the proportion of IBIs by each pathogen was analyzed. Results: A total of 2,195 episodes were identified during the 25-year period between 1996 and 2020. S. pneumoniae (42.4%), S. aureus (22.1%), and Salmonella species (21.0%) were common in children 3 to 59 months of age. In children ≥ 5 years of age, S. aureus (58.1%), followed by Salmonella species (14.8%) and S. pneumoniae (12.2%) were common. Excluding the year 2020, there was a trend toward a decrease in the relative proportions of S. pneumoniae (rs = −0.430, P = 0.036), H. influenzae (rs = −0.922, P < 0.001), while trend toward an increase in the relative proportion of S. aureus (rs = 0.850, P < 0.001), S. agalactiae (rs = 0.615, P = 0.001), and S. pyogenes (rs = 0.554, P = 0.005). Conclusion In the proportion of IBIs over a 24-year period between 1996 and 2019, we observed a decreasing trend for S. pneumoniae and H. influenzae and an increasing trend for S. aureus, S. agalactiae, and S. pyogenes in children > 3 months of age. These findings can be used as the baseline data to navigate the trend in the epidemiology of pediatric IBI in the post COVID-19 era.

Background/Aims: Although a management fee for hospitalist service was established in Korea, the number of hospitalists required for the system to run remains outmatched. Methods: In January 2020 and February 2022, before and after the establishment of the hospitalist fee system respectively, cross-sectional online surveys were conducted among internal medicine board-certified hospitalists. Results: There were 59 and 64 respondents in the 2020 and 2022 surveys, respectively. The percentage of respondents who cited financial benefits as a motive for becoming a hospitalist was higher in the 2022 survey than in the 2020 survey (34.4% vs. 10.2%; p = 0.001). The annual salary of respondents was also higher in the 2022 survey than in the 2020 survey (mean, 182.9 vs. 163.0 million in South Korean Won; p = 0.006). A total of 81.3% of the respondents were willing to continue a hospitalist career in the 2022 survey. In multivariate regression analysis, the possibility of being appointed as a professor was found to be an independent predictive factor of continuing a hospitalist career (odds ratio, 4.00; 95% confidence interval, 1.09–14.75; p = 0.037). Conclusions Since the establishment of the hospitalist fee system, monetary compensation has improved for hospitalists. The possibility of being appointed as a professor could predict long-term work as hospitalists.

Background: The risk of device thrombosis and device-oriented clinical outcomes with bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) was reported to be significantly higher than with contemporary drug-eluting stents (DESs). However, optimal device implantation may improve clinical outcomes in patients receiving BVS. The current study evaluated mid-term safety and efficacy of Absorb BVS with meticulous device optimization under intravascular imaging guidance. Methods: The SMART-REWARD and PERSPECTIVE-PCI registries in Korea prospectively enrolled 390 patients with BVS and 675 patients with DES, respectively. The primary endpoint was target vessel failure (TVF) at 2 years and the secondary major endpoint was patientoriented composite outcome (POCO) at 2 years. Results: Patient-level pooled analysis evaluated 1,003 patients (377 patients with BVS and 626 patients with DES). Mean scaffold diameter per lesion was 3.24 ± 0.30 mm in BVS group.Most BVSs were implanted with pre-dilatation (90.9%), intravascular imaging guidance (74.9%), and post-dilatation (73.1%) at proximal to mid segment (81.9%) in target vessel.Patients treated with BVS showed comparable risks of 2-year TVF (2.9% vs. 3.7%, adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.283, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.487–3.378, P = 0.615) and 2-year POCO (4.5% vs. 5.9%, adjusted HR, 1.413, 95% CI, 0.663–3.012,P = 0.370) than those with DES. The rate of 2-year definite or probable device thrombosis (0.3% vs. 0.5%, P = 0.424) was also similar. The sensitivity analyses consistently showed comparable risk of TVF and POCO between the 2 groups. Conclusion With meticulous device optimization under imaging guidance and avoidance of implantation in small vessels, BVS showed comparable risks of 2-year TVF and device thrombosis with DES.