1.The Recommendation of the Neuropathic Pain Special Interesting Group of the International Association for the Study of Pain: A Comparison of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses between 2015 and 2025
Kyomin CHOI ; Kyung Min KIM ; Byung-Su KIM ; Hee-Jin KIM ; Seung Woo KIM ; Kyoungwon BAIK ; Jin Myoung SEOK ; Jun-Sang SUNWOO ; In-Uk SONG ; Ho Geol WOO ; Eek-Sung LEE ; Jin-Man JUNG ; Yun Ho CHOI ; Kwang Ik YANG ;
Journal of the Korean Neurological Association 2026;44(1):1-7
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.
2.Systemic Gaps in Heart Failure Care and the Need for Specialized Management: A Nationwide Survey of Korean Cardiologists
SungA BAE ; Soo-Yong LEE ; So-Ree KIM ; Minjae YOON ; Kang Un CHOI ; Junho HYUN ; Kyung-Hee KIM ; Suk Min SEO ; Byung-Su YOO ; Seong-Mi PARK ;
International Journal of Heart Failure 2026;8(1):95-100
3.Acute Heart Failure Across the Ejection Fraction Spectrum: Phenotypes, Management, and Outcomes From Nationwide KorHF III Registry
Huijin LEE ; Eung Ju KIM ; Seong Woo HAN ; Seong-Mi PARK ; Hyung-Seop KIM ; Myung-Chan CHO ; Hyo-Suk AHN ; Mi-Seung SHIN ; Seok-Jae HWANG ; Jin-Ok JEONG ; Dong Heon YANG ; Junho HYUN ; Jin Oh CHOI ; Hae-Young LEE ; Byung-Su YOO ; Seok-Min KANG ; Dong-Ju CHOI ; Hyun-Jai CHO ;
International Journal of Heart Failure 2026;8(1):43-55
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.
4.Heart Failure Statistics 2025 Update:A Report From the Korean Society of Heart Failure
Chan Joo LEE ; Hokyou LEE ; Kyu-Yong KO ; Min Gyu KONG ; Min Sun KIM ; SungA BAE ; Yuran AHN ; Kyeong-Hyeon CHUN ; Kang-Un CHOI ; Jah Yeon CHOI ; Jungkuk LEE ; Geun U PARK ; Byung Su YOO
International Journal of Heart Failure 2026;8(1):58-73
Background and Objectives:
We evaluated 20-year trends in heart failure (HF) epidemiology in Korea to quantify changes in its burden from 2002 to 2023.
Methods:
A nationwide analysis was conducted using a random 50% sample from the Korean National Health Information Database linked to mortality records (2002–2023). HF was defined using diagnostic codes recorded as a primary or secondary condition. We calculated crude and age-standardized rates of prevalence, incidence, hospitalization, and mortality. Survival was assessed using the Kaplan–Meier method, stratified by inpatient versus outpatient diagnosis.Trends in heart transplantation and left ventricular assist device implantations were also examined.
Results:
By 2023, approximately 1,750,228 individuals had HF (3.41% prevalence). The age-standardized prevalence has more than doubled from 2002 to 2023. The crude incidence increased over time; the age-standardized incidence remained stable in men and declined in women.Hospitalization rates for any cause or secondary HF diagnoses have increased substantially, whereas primary HF hospitalization rates have remained relatively stable. The annual mortality rate in patients with HF was approximately 6.0% in 2023, being markedly higher in older adults.Although short-term survival has improved, particularly in hospitalized patients, long-term survival remains limited. Use of advanced therapies significantly increased.
Conclusions
The burden of HF in Korea has increased substantially over the past two decades, driven primarily by population aging and improved survival rather than increasing age-adjusted incidence. Despite therapeutic advances, hospitalization and long-term mortality rates remain high, highlighting the need for comprehensive HF strategies in aging societies.
7.Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer 2024: An Evidence-based, Multidisciplinary Approach (Update of 2022 Guideline)
In-Ho KIM ; Seung Joo KANG ; Wonyoung CHOI ; An Na SEO ; Bang Wool EOM ; Beodeul KANG ; Bum Jun KIM ; Byung-Hoon MIN ; Chung Hyun TAE ; Chang In CHOI ; Choong-kun LEE ; Ho Jung AN ; Hwa Kyung BYUN ; Hyeon-Su IM ; Hyung-Don KIM ; Jang Ho CHO ; Kyoungjune PAK ; Jae-Joon KIM ; Jae Seok BAE ; Jeong Il YU ; Jeong Won LEE ; Jungyoon CHOI ; Jwa Hoon KIM ; Miyoung CHOI ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Nieun SEO ; Sang Soo EOM ; Soomin AHN ; Soo Jin KIM ; Sung Hak LEE ; Sung Hee LIM ; Tae-Han KIM ; Hye Sook HAN ; On behalf of The Development Working Group for the Korean Practice Guideline for Gastric Cancer 2024
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(1):5-114
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.
8.Clinical practice guidelines for ovarian cancer: an update to the Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology guidelines
Banghyun LEE ; Suk-Joon CHANG ; Byung Su KWON ; Joo-Hyuk SON ; Myong Cheol LIM ; Yun Hwan KIM ; Shin-Wha LEE ; Chel Hun CHOI ; Kyung Jin EOH ; Jung-Yun LEE ; Yoo-Young LEE ; Dong Hoon SUH ; Yong Beom KIM
Journal of Gynecologic Oncology 2025;36(1):e69-
We updated the Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology (KSGO) practice guideline for the management of ovarian cancer as version 5.1. The ovarian cancer guideline team of the KSGO published announced the fifth version (version 5.0) of its clinical practice guidelines for the management of ovarian cancer in December 2023. In version 5.0, the selection of the key questions and the systematic reviews were based on the data available up to December 2022.Therefore, we updated the guidelines version 5.0 with newly accumulated clinical data and added 5 new key questions reflecting the latest insights in the field of ovarian cancer between 2023 and 2024. For each question, recommendation was provided together with corresponding level of evidence and grade of recommendation, all established through expert consensus.

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail