Background: It is well known that a large number of patients with diabetes also have dyslipidemia, which significantly increases the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of combination drugs consisting of metformin and atorvastatin, widely used as therapeutic agents for diabetes and dyslipidemia. Methods: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group and phase III multicenter study included adults with glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels >7.0% and <10.0%, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) >100 and <250 mg/dL. One hundred eighty-five eligible subjects were randomized to the combination group (metformin+atorvastatin), metformin group (metformin+atorvastatin placebo), and atorvastatin group (atorvastatin+metformin placebo). The primary efficacy endpoints were the percent changes in HbA1c and LDL-C levels from baseline at the end of the treatment. Results: After 16 weeks of treatment compared to baseline, HbA1c showed a significant difference of 0.94% compared to the atorvastatin group in the combination group (0.35% vs. −0.58%, respectively; P<0.0001), whereas the proportion of patients with increased HbA1c was also 62% and 15%, respectively, showing a significant difference (P<0.001). The combination group also showed a significant decrease in LDL-C levels compared to the metformin group (−55.20% vs. −7.69%, P<0.001) without previously unknown adverse drug events. Conclusion The addition of atorvastatin to metformin improved HbA1c and LDL-C levels to a significant extent compared to metformin or atorvastatin alone in diabetes and dyslipidemia patients. This study also suggested metformin’s preventive effect on the glucose-elevating potential of atorvastatin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and dyslipidemia, insufficiently controlled with exercise and diet. Metformin and atorvastatin combination might be an effective treatment in reducing the CVD risk in patients with both diabetes and dyslipidemia because of its lowering effect on LDL-C and glucose.

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the potential of PDRN and explore its combined effect with adipose tissue-derived MSCs (AdMSCs) in treating canine OA. Methods: To study the impact of PDRN, canine chondrocytes, synoviocytes, and AdMSCs were exposed to various PDRN concentrations, and viability was assessed using cell counting kit-8. The OA model was created by treating chondrocytes and synoviocytes with lipopolysaccharide, followed by treatment under three different conditions: PDRN alone, AdMSCs alone, and a combination of PDRN and AdMSCs. Using real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction, the anti-inflammatory effects and mechanisms were investigated by quantitatively assessing pro-inflammatory cytokines, collagen degradation markers, adenosine A2a receptor (ADORA2A), and nuclear factor-kappa B. Results: PDRN alone and combined with AdMSCs significantly reduced the expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines and collagen degradation markers in an OA model. PDRN promoted AdMSC proliferation and upregulated ADORA2A expression. AdMSCs exhibited comprehensive anti-inflammatory effects through paracrine effects, and both substances reduced inflammatory gene expression through different mechanisms, potentially enhancing therapeutic effects. Conclusions and Relevance: The results indicate that PDRN is a safe and effective antiinflammatory material that can be used independently or as an adjuvant for AdMSCs.Although additional research is necessary, this study is significant because it provides a foundation for future research at the cellular level.

Purpose: The benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy following curative-intent surgery in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) patients who had received neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX is unclear. This study aimed to assess the survival benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy in this patient population. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study included 218 patients with localized non-metastatic PDAC who received neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX and underwent curative-intent surgery (R0 or R1) between January 2017 and December 2020. The association of adjuvant chemotherapy with disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) was evaluated in overall patients and in the propensity score matched (PSM) cohort. Subgroup analysis was conducted according to the pathology-proven lymph node status. Results: Adjuvant chemotherapy was administered to 149 patients (68.3%). In the overall cohort, the adjuvant chemotherapy group had significantly improved DFS and OS compared to the observation group (DFS: median, 13.8 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 11.0 to 19.1] vs. 8.2 months [95% CI, 6.5 to 12.0]; p < 0.001; and OS: median, 38.0 months [95% CI, 32.2 to not assessable] vs. 25.7 months [95% CI, 18.3 to not assessable]; p=0.005). In the PSM cohort of 57 matched pairs of patients, DFS and OS were better in the adjuvant chemotherapy group than in the observation group (p < 0.001 and p=0.038, respectively). In the multivariate analysis, adjuvant chemotherapy was a significant favorable prognostic factor (vs. observation; DFS: hazard ratio [HR], 0.51 [95% CI, 0.36 to 0.71; p < 0.001]; OS: HR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.29 to 0.71; p < 0.001]). Conclusion Among PDAC patients who underwent surgery following neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX, adjuvant chemotherapy may be associated with improved survival. Randomized studies should be conducted to validate this finding.

Procedural sedation has become increasingly common in endoscopy. Sedatives and analgesics induce anxiolysis and amnesia. In addition, an appropriate level of sedation is necessary for safe procedures including therapeutic endoscopy. Midazolam and propofol are the most commonly used drugs in sedative endoscopy. In recent years, the need to ascertain the safety and effectiveness of sedation has increased in practice. Therefore, new sedatives and analgesic drugs for optimal sedative endoscopy, have recently emerged. This article reviews the characteristics of sedatives and analgesics, and describes their clinical use in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Background/Aims: This study aimed to determine changes in endoscopist-driven sedation practices 5 years after the first nationwide survey in 2014 by the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE). Methods: A 59-item survey covering current practices was electronically mailed to all members of the KSGE in 2019. Results: In total, 955 (12.8%) out of 7,486 questionnaires were returned. A total of 738 (77.7%) out of 955 respondents attended dedicated sedation education programs. The American Society of Anesthesiologists class was recorded by 464 (51.2%) out of 907 respondents. The recording rate was higher in respondents who completed sedation education (p=0.014) and worked in general or tertiary hospitals (p<0.001). Compared to that reported in the previous survey, the reported use of propofol was higher in 2019. The respondents had higher satisfaction scores for propofol-based sedation compared with midazolam monotherapy (p<0.001). The rates of oxygen supplementation (p<0.001) and oxygen saturation level monitoring (p<0.001) during sedative endoscopy were higher in 2019 than in the previous survey. A total of 876 (98.4%) out of 890 respondents reported a separate recovery bay, and 615 (70.5%) out of 872 respondents reported that personnel were assigned solely to the recovery bay. Conclusions Endoscopist-driven sedation and monitoring practices in 2019 were significantly different than those in 2014. The respondents favored propofol-based sedation and utilized oxygen supplementation and monitoring of O2 saturation more frequently in 2019 than in 2014.

Background/Aims: The prospective Crohn’s Disease Clinical Network and Cohort Study is a nationwide multicenter cohort study of patients with Crohn’s disease (CD) in Korea, aiming to prospectively investigate the clinical features and long-term prognosis associated with CD. Methods: Patients diagnosed with CD between January 2009 and September 2019 were prospectively enrolled. They were divided into two cohorts according to the year of diagnosis: cohort 1 (diagnosed between 2009 and 2011) versus cohort 2 (between 2012 and 2019). Results: A total of 1,175 patients were included, and the median follow-up duration was 68 months (interquartile range, 39.0 to 91.0 months). The treatment-free durations for thiopurines (p<0.001) and anti-tumor necrosis factor agents (p=0.018) of cohort 2 were shorter than those of cohort 1. Among 887 patients with B1 behavior at diagnosis, 149 patients (16.8%) progressed to either B2 or B3 behavior during follow-up. Early use of thiopurine was associated with a reduced risk of behavioral progression (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50 to 0.90), and family history of inflammatory bowel disease was associated with an increased risk of behavioral progression (aHR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.16 to 4.50). One hundred forty-one patients (12.0%) underwent intestinal resection, and the intestinal resection-free survival time was significantly longer in cohort 2 than in cohort 1 (p=0.003). The early use of thiopurines (aHR, 0.35;95% CI, 0.23 to 0.51) was independently associated with a reduced risk of intestinal resection. Conclusions The prognosis of CD in Korea appears to have improved over time, as evidenced by the decreasing intestinal resection rate. Early use of thiopurines was associated with an improved prognosis represented by a reduced risk of intestinal resection.

Sedation can resolve anxiety and fear in patients undergoing endoscopy. The use of sedatives has increased in Korea. Appropriate sedation is a state in which the patient feels subjectively comfortable while maintaining the airway reflex for stable spontaneous breathing. The patient should maintain a state of consciousness to the extent that he or she can cooperate with the needs of the medical staff. Despite its benefits, endoscopic sedation has been associated with cardiopulmonary complications. Cardiopulmonary complications are usually temporary. Most patients recover without sequelae. However, they may progress to serious complications, such as cardiovascular collapse. Therefore, it is essential to screen high-risk patients before sedation and reduce complications by meticulous monitoring. Additionally, physicians should be familiar with the management of emergencies. The first Korean clinical practice guideline for endoscopic sedation was developed based on previous worldwide guidelines for endoscopic sedation using an adaptation process. The guideline consists of nine recommendations based on a critical review of currently available data and expert consensus when the guideline was drafted. These guidelines should provide clinicians, nurses, medical school students, and policy makers with information on how to perform endoscopic sedation with minimal risk.

Sedation can resolve anxiety and fear in patients undergoing endoscopy. The use of sedatives has increased in Korea. Appropriate sedation is a state in which the patient feels subjectively comfortable while maintaining the airway reflex for stable spontaneous breathing. The patient should maintain a state of consciousness to the extent that he or she can cooperate with the needs of the medical staff. Despite its benefits, endoscopic sedation has been associated with cardiopulmonary complications. Such cardiopulmonary complications are usually temporary, and most patients recover without sequelae. However, these events may progress to serious complications, such as cardiovascular collapse. Therefore, it is essential to screen high-risk patients before sedation and reduce complications by meticulous monitoring. Additionally, physicians should be familiar with the management of emergencies. The first Korean clinical practice guideline for endoscopic sedation was developed based on previous worldwide guidelines for endoscopic sedation using an adaptation process. The guideline consists of nine recommendations based on a critical review of currently available data and expert consensus when the guideline was drafted. These guidelines should provide clinicians, nurses, medical school students, and policy makers with information on how to perform endoscopic sedation with minimal risk.

Purpose: There are few reports on outcomes following surgical repair of recurrent rectal prolapse. The purpose of this study was to examine surgical outcomes for recurrent rectal prolapse. Methods: We conducted a multicenter retrospective study of patients who underwent surgery for recurrent rectal prolapse. This study used data collected by the Korean Anorectal Physiology and Pelvic Floor Disorder Study Group. Results: A total of 166 patients who underwent surgery for recurrent rectal prolapse were registered retrospectively between 2011 and 2016 in 8 referral hospitals. Among them, 153 patients were finally enrolled, excluding 13 patients who were not followed up postoperatively. Median follow-up duration was 40 months (range, 0.2–129.3 months). Methods of surgical repair for recurrent rectal prolapse included perineal approach (n = 96) and abdominal approach (n = 57). Postoperative complications occurred in 16 patients (10.5%). There was no significant difference in complication rate between perineal and abdominal approach groups. While patients who underwent the perineal approach were older and more fragile, patients who underwent the abdominal approach had longer operation time and admission days (P < 0.05). Overall, 29 patients (19.0%) showed re-recurrence after surgery. Among variables, none affected the re-recurrence. Conclusion For the recurrent rectal prolapse, the perineal approach is used for the old and fragile patients. The postoperative complications and re-recurrence rate between perineal and abdominal approach were not different significantly. No factor including surgical method affected re-recurrence for recurrent rectal prolapse.