Neuropathic pain markedly impairs quality of life and imposes a substantial socioeconomic burden, while available treatments often provide only partial relief and are limited by safety concerns. The Neuropathic Pain Special Interest Group of the International Association for the Study of Pain (NeuPSIG-IASP) first published pharmacologic recommendations in 2007, followed by a major update in 2015 and a new guideline in 2025. This narrative review specifically compares the 2015 and 2025 NeuPSIG-IASP guidelines, outlining key methodological changes and therapeutic shifts. The 2025 guideline is based on a larger, more rigorous meta-analysis, maintains α2δ-ligands (adds mirogabalin), serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors, and tricyclic antidepressants as first-line drugs, downgrades tramadol into the opioid third-line group. It also introduces high-frequency motor-cortex repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation as a weakly recommended third-line option and discusses implications for Korean clinical practice.

Purpose: Due to chronic toxicity, tacrolimus-sparing is an important issue in kidney transplant recipients (KTRs). Several studies have shown that bisphosphonate use is associated with favorable graft outcomes in KTRs. We investigated whether the association between tacrolimus trough levels (TTLs) and graft outcomes differed according to bisphosphonate use in KTRs. Materials and Methods: We conducted a retrospective study encompassing 1441 KTRs who were administered tacrolimus-based immunosuppressants. The primary exposure was a time-dependent cross-product of TTLs (low TTLs vs. normal-high TTLs with a reference of 6 ng/mL) and bisphosphonate use. Two primary outcomes were evaluated: overall graft loss (death or conversion to kidney replacement) and an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <30 mL/min/1.73 m 2 . Results: During the median follow-up of 6.1 (3.4–9.7) years, overall graft loss occurred in 157 (10.9%) patients. Cox regression revealed that normal-high TTLs without bisphosphonate use were associated with a reduced risk of overall graft loss [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR), 0.65; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.45–0.95] compared to low TTLs without bisphosphonate use. The use of bisphosphonate in conjunction with normal-high TTLs correlated with an even lower risk of overall graft loss (aHR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.08–0.80) compared with low TTLs without bisphosphonate use. In patients with low TTLs, bisphosphonate use was associated with a reduced risk of overall graft loss compared with non-use (aHR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.09–0.43). Similar trends were observed in the eGFR outcome. Conclusion The use of bisphosphonate was associated with favorable graft outcomes, even with low TTLs. Incorporating bisphosphonate into a conventional immunosuppressant regimen may potentially reduce tacrolimus requirement.

Background and Objectives: Clinical characteristics and outcomes in acute heart failure (AHF) vary by phenotype. We assessed phenotype-specific features, treatment patterns, and outcomes in a nationwide Korean cohort. Methods: The Korean Heart Failure III registry prospectively enrolled 7,351 AHF admissions at 47 hospitals. Among 6,777 patients with available left ventricular ejection fraction (EF), phenotypes were defined as heart failure with reduced EF (HFrEF, ≤40%), mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF,41–49%), or preserved EF (HFpEF, ≥50%). The primary endpoint was a 12-month composite of all-cause death or heart transplantation, evaluated from index admission and, among hospital survivors, from discharge. We used inverse probability weighting (multinomial generalized boosted models with stabilized, trimmed weights) and weighted Cox proportional-hazards models to estimate hazard ratios (HRs). Results: Phenotype distribution was 58.9% HFrEF, 13.6% HFmrEF, and 27.5% HFpEF. Crude 12-month composite rates from index admission were 13.4% (HFrEF), 12.7% (HFmrEF), and 16.8% (HFpEF). After weighting, from index admission, HFmrEF (HR, 0.892; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.731–1.088) and HFpEF (HR, 1.101; 95% CI, 0.939–1.291) did not differ from HFrEF; from discharge, HFpEF had modestly higher risk (HR, 1.207; 95% CI, 1.008–1.445) whereas HFmrEF did not (HR, 1.039; 95% CI, 0.844–1.279). Hyponatremia and chronic kidney disease were consistent adverse markers, while angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/ angiotensin II receptor blocker use at discharge was protective. Conclusions Across the EF spectrum, phenotypes showed distinct profiles and risk. Postdischarge risk was modestly higher in HFpEF, supporting phenotype-tailored care and systematic discharge optimization in Korean patients with AHF.

Purpose: This retrospective study evaluated the efficacy and safety of a weekly carfilzomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone (KCd) regimen in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who had been previously treated with both bortezomib- and lenalidomide-containing regimens. Materials and Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 33 patients with RRMM who received the KCd regimen between March 2020 and February 2024. All patients had prior exposure to both bortezomib and lenalidomide, and the majority (93.9%) were refractory to lenalidomide. Carfilzomib was administered once weekly at 70 mg/m2 (after a step-up dose), along with oral cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone. Treatment response was assessed according to the International Myeloma Working Group criteria, and survival outcomes were analyzed. Results: The overall response rate was 66.7%, including a complete response or better in 15.1% of patients and a very good partial response or better in 42.4%. With a median follow-up of 31.7 months, the median progression-free survival was 13.5 months (95% confidence interval, 11.47 to 15.53), while the median overall survival was not reached. The most common grade ≥ 3 adverse event was neutropenia (15.2%). Non-hematologic grade ≥ 3 toxicities were infrequent and manageable. Conclusion The weekly KCd regimen demonstrated encouraging efficacy and tolerability in a heavily pretreated RRMM population. These findings support its use as a feasible treatment option, particularly in patients refractory to lenalidomide.

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in both Korea and worldwide. Since 2004, the Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer have been regularly updated, with the 4th edition published in 2022. The 4th edition was the result of a collaborative work by an interdisciplinary team, including experts in gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and guideline development methodology. The current guideline is the 5th version, an updated version of the 4th edition. In this guideline, 6 key questions (KQs) were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group, and 7 statements were developed, or revised, or discussed based on a systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed database. Over the past 2 years, there have been significant changes in systemic treatment, leading to major updates and revisions focused on this area.Additionally, minor modifications have been made in other sections, incorporating recent research findings. The level of evidence and grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Key factors for recommendation included the level of evidence, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability. The working group reviewed and discussed the recommendations to reach a consensus. The structure of this guideline remains similar to the 2022 version.Earlier sections cover general considerations, such as screening, diagnosis, and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. In the latter sections, statements are provided for each KQ based on clinical evidence, with flowcharts supporting these statements through meta-analysis and references. This multidisciplinary, evidence-based gastric cancer guideline aims to support clinicians in providing optimal care for gastric cancer patients.

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in both Korea and worldwide. Since 2004, the Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer have been regularly updated, with the 4th edition published in 2022. The 4th edition was the result of a collaborative work by an interdisciplinary team, including experts in gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and guideline development methodology. The current guideline is the 5th version, an updated version of the 4th edition. In this guideline, 6 key questions (KQs) were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group, and 7 statements were developed, or revised, or discussed based on a systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed database. Over the past 2 years, there have been significant changes in systemic treatment, leading to major updates and revisions focused on this area.Additionally, minor modifications have been made in other sections, incorporating recent research findings. The level of evidence and grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Key factors for recommendation included the level of evidence, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability. The working group reviewed and discussed the recommendations to reach a consensus. The structure of this guideline remains similar to the 2022 version.Earlier sections cover general considerations, such as screening, diagnosis, and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. In the latter sections, statements are provided for each KQ based on clinical evidence, with flowcharts supporting these statements through meta-analysis and references. This multidisciplinary, evidence-based gastric cancer guideline aims to support clinicians in providing optimal care for gastric cancer patients.

Background and Objectives: In chronic heart failure (HF), natriuretic peptide (NP) levels are higher in atrial fibrillation (AF) compared to sinus rhythm (SR). However, due to the loss of atrial contraction, AF patients are prone to hemodynamic decompensation at earlier stages.Since NP levels reflect disease severity, acutely decompensated AF patients may exhibit lower NP levels compared to SR patients, who retain greater hemodynamic reserve. Methods: We analyzed 5,048 patients with acute HF from the Korea Acute Heart Failure registry with available NP data. NP levels and echocardiographic parameters were compared between AF and SR patients. The association of NP levels with in-hospital and one-year mortality was also assessed according to cardiac rhythm. Results: Brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) were measured in 2,027 and 3,021 patients, respectively. NP levels were lower in AF than in SR (median BNP, 740 vs. 1,044 pg/mL; median NT-proBNP, 4,420 vs. 5,198 pg/mL), particularly in HF with reduced or mildly reduced ejection fraction. A similar trend was observed regardless of HF onset or etiology. AF patients had smaller left ventricular (LV) end-diastolic diameter and larger left atrial size compared to SR patients. Higher NP tertiles were associated with increased in-hospital and one-year mortality in both groups. Conclusions In acute HF, NP levels are lower in AF than in SR. AF patients also exhibited smaller LV chamber sizes. Nevertheless, NP levels remain strong predictors of outcomes in both AF and SR patients.

Heart failure (HF) is a major cause of mortality and morbidity in South Korea, imposing substantial physical, emotional, and financial burdens on patients and society. Despite the high burden of symptom and complex care needs of HF patients, palliative care and hospice services remain underutilized in South Korea due to cultural, institutional, and knowledge-related barriers. This position statement from the Korean Society of Heart Failure emphasizes the need for integrating palliative and hospice care into HF management to improve quality of life and support holistic care for patients and their families. By clarifying the role of palliative care in HF and proposing practical referral criteria, this position statement aims to bridge the gap between HF and palliative care services in South Korea, ultimately improving patient-centered outcomes and aligning treatment with the goals and values of HF patients.

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in both Korea and worldwide. Since 2004, the Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer have been regularly updated, with the 4th edition published in 2022. The 4th edition was the result of a collaborative work by an interdisciplinary team, including experts in gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and guideline development methodology. The current guideline is the 5th version, an updated version of the 4th edition. In this guideline, 6 key questions (KQs) were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group, and 7 statements were developed, or revised, or discussed based on a systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed database. Over the past 2 years, there have been significant changes in systemic treatment, leading to major updates and revisions focused on this area.Additionally, minor modifications have been made in other sections, incorporating recent research findings. The level of evidence and grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Key factors for recommendation included the level of evidence, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability. The working group reviewed and discussed the recommendations to reach a consensus. The structure of this guideline remains similar to the 2022 version.Earlier sections cover general considerations, such as screening, diagnosis, and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. In the latter sections, statements are provided for each KQ based on clinical evidence, with flowcharts supporting these statements through meta-analysis and references. This multidisciplinary, evidence-based gastric cancer guideline aims to support clinicians in providing optimal care for gastric cancer patients.

Purpose: To evaluate recurrence patterns of and survival outcomes in glioblastoma treated with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) versus three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3D-CRT). Materials and Methods: We retrospectively examined 91 patients with glioblastoma treated with either IMRT (n = 60) or 3D-CRT (n = 31) between January 2013 and December 2019. Magnetic resonance imaging showing tumor recurrence and planning computed tomography scans were fused for analyzing recurrence patterns categorized as in-field, marginal, and out-of-field based on their relation to the initial radiation field. Results: The median overall survival (OS) was 18.9 months, with no significant difference between the groups. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 9.4 months, with no significant difference between the groups. Patients who underwent gross total resection (GTR) had higher OS and PFS than those who underwent less extensive surgery. Among 78 relapse cases, 67 were of in-field; 5, marginal; and 19, out-of-field recurrence. Among 3D-CRT-treated cases, 24 were of in-field; 1, marginal; and 9, out-of-field recurrence. Among IMRT-treated cases, 43 were of in-field; 4, marginal; and 10, out-of-field recurrence. In partial tumor removal or biopsy cases, out-of-field recurrence was less frequent in the IMRT (16.2%) than in the 3D-CRT (36.3%) group, with marginal significance (p = 0.079). Conclusion IMRT and 3D-CRT effectively managed glioblastoma with no significant differences in OS and PFS. The survival benefit with GTR underscored the importance of maximal surgical resection. The reduced rate of out-of-field recurrence in IMRT-treated patients with partial resection highlights its potential utility in cases with unfeasible complete tumor removal.