Background: Shortage of organ donors in the Republic of Korea has become a major problem. To address this, it has been questioned whether heart transplant (HTx) allocation should be modified to reduce priority of older patients. We aimed to evaluate post-HTx outcomes according to recipient age and specific pre-HTx conditions using a nationwide prospective cohort. Methods: We analyzed clinical characteristics of 628 patients from the Korean Organ Transplant Registry who received HTx from January 2015 to December 2020. Enrolled recipients were divided into three groups according to age. We also included comorbidities including ambulatory status. Non-ambulatory status was defined as pre-HTx support with either extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, continuous renal replacement therapy, or mechanical ventilation. Results: Of the 628 patients, 195 were < 50 years, 322 were 50–64 years and 111 were ≥ 65years at transplant. Four hundred nine (65.1%) were ambulatory and 219 (34.9%) were nonambulatory. Older recipients tended to have more comorbidities, ischemic cardiomyopathy, and received older donors. Post-HTx survival was significantly lower in older recipients (P = 0.025) and recipients with non-ambulatory status (P < 0.001). However, in contrast to non-ambulatory recipients who showed significant survival differences according to the recipient’s age (P = 0.004), ambulatory recipients showed comparable outcomes (P = 0.465). Conclusion Our results do not support use of age alone as an allocation criterion. Transplant candidate age in combination with some comorbidities such as non-ambulatory status may identify patients at a sufficiently elevated risk at which suitability of HTx should be reconsidered.

Background: Shortage of organ donors in the Republic of Korea has become a major problem. To address this, it has been questioned whether heart transplant (HTx) allocation should be modified to reduce priority of older patients. We aimed to evaluate post-HTx outcomes according to recipient age and specific pre-HTx conditions using a nationwide prospective cohort. Methods: We analyzed clinical characteristics of 628 patients from the Korean Organ Transplant Registry who received HTx from January 2015 to December 2020. Enrolled recipients were divided into three groups according to age. We also included comorbidities including ambulatory status. Non-ambulatory status was defined as pre-HTx support with either extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, continuous renal replacement therapy, or mechanical ventilation. Results: Of the 628 patients, 195 were < 50 years, 322 were 50–64 years and 111 were ≥ 65years at transplant. Four hundred nine (65.1%) were ambulatory and 219 (34.9%) were nonambulatory. Older recipients tended to have more comorbidities, ischemic cardiomyopathy, and received older donors. Post-HTx survival was significantly lower in older recipients (P = 0.025) and recipients with non-ambulatory status (P < 0.001). However, in contrast to non-ambulatory recipients who showed significant survival differences according to the recipient’s age (P = 0.004), ambulatory recipients showed comparable outcomes (P = 0.465). Conclusion Our results do not support use of age alone as an allocation criterion. Transplant candidate age in combination with some comorbidities such as non-ambulatory status may identify patients at a sufficiently elevated risk at which suitability of HTx should be reconsidered.

Background: Shortage of organ donors in the Republic of Korea has become a major problem. To address this, it has been questioned whether heart transplant (HTx) allocation should be modified to reduce priority of older patients. We aimed to evaluate post-HTx outcomes according to recipient age and specific pre-HTx conditions using a nationwide prospective cohort. Methods: We analyzed clinical characteristics of 628 patients from the Korean Organ Transplant Registry who received HTx from January 2015 to December 2020. Enrolled recipients were divided into three groups according to age. We also included comorbidities including ambulatory status. Non-ambulatory status was defined as pre-HTx support with either extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, continuous renal replacement therapy, or mechanical ventilation. Results: Of the 628 patients, 195 were < 50 years, 322 were 50–64 years and 111 were ≥ 65years at transplant. Four hundred nine (65.1%) were ambulatory and 219 (34.9%) were nonambulatory. Older recipients tended to have more comorbidities, ischemic cardiomyopathy, and received older donors. Post-HTx survival was significantly lower in older recipients (P = 0.025) and recipients with non-ambulatory status (P < 0.001). However, in contrast to non-ambulatory recipients who showed significant survival differences according to the recipient’s age (P = 0.004), ambulatory recipients showed comparable outcomes (P = 0.465). Conclusion Our results do not support use of age alone as an allocation criterion. Transplant candidate age in combination with some comorbidities such as non-ambulatory status may identify patients at a sufficiently elevated risk at which suitability of HTx should be reconsidered.

Background: Shortage of organ donors in the Republic of Korea has become a major problem. To address this, it has been questioned whether heart transplant (HTx) allocation should be modified to reduce priority of older patients. We aimed to evaluate post-HTx outcomes according to recipient age and specific pre-HTx conditions using a nationwide prospective cohort. Methods: We analyzed clinical characteristics of 628 patients from the Korean Organ Transplant Registry who received HTx from January 2015 to December 2020. Enrolled recipients were divided into three groups according to age. We also included comorbidities including ambulatory status. Non-ambulatory status was defined as pre-HTx support with either extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, continuous renal replacement therapy, or mechanical ventilation. Results: Of the 628 patients, 195 were < 50 years, 322 were 50–64 years and 111 were ≥ 65years at transplant. Four hundred nine (65.1%) were ambulatory and 219 (34.9%) were nonambulatory. Older recipients tended to have more comorbidities, ischemic cardiomyopathy, and received older donors. Post-HTx survival was significantly lower in older recipients (P = 0.025) and recipients with non-ambulatory status (P < 0.001). However, in contrast to non-ambulatory recipients who showed significant survival differences according to the recipient’s age (P = 0.004), ambulatory recipients showed comparable outcomes (P = 0.465). Conclusion Our results do not support use of age alone as an allocation criterion. Transplant candidate age in combination with some comorbidities such as non-ambulatory status may identify patients at a sufficiently elevated risk at which suitability of HTx should be reconsidered.

Objective: Since its development in 2002 by the Korean College of Neuropsychopharmacology and the Korean Society for Affective Disorders, the Korean Medication Algorithm Project for Depressive Disorder (KMAP-DD) has undergone five revisions. Methods: To improve survey efficiency, reflect general clinical practice, and facilitate comparisons with previous KMAP-DD revisions, the overall structure of the questionnaire was retained. The six sections of the questionnaire were as follows:1) pharmacological treatment strategies for major depressive disorder with and without psychotic features; 2) pharmacological treatment strategies for persistent depressive disorder and other depressive disorder subtypes; 3) consensus on treatment-resistant depression; 4) selection of an antidepressant in consideration of safety, adverse effects, and comorbid physical conditions; 5) treatment strategies for special populations (children/adolescents, elderly, and women); and 6) non-pharmacological biological therapies. First-, second-, and third-line treatment recommendations were statistically derived. Results: Compared to KMAP-DD 2021, only minor changes were noted, due to the limited introduction of new medications or treatment modalities. Nonetheless, notable shifts included an increased preference for atypical antipsychotics (AAPs), and higher preference of combination strategies involving AAPs and mood stabilizers, indicating a more proactive and intensive treatment trend in Korea. Conclusion KMAP-DD is expected to serve as a valuable clinical resource by providing expert consensus-based recommendations on specific treatment strategies and pharmacological options for major depressive disorders, thereby supporting the integration of real-world clinical practice with evidence-based medicine.

The objective of this study was to compare recommendations of the Korean Medication Algorithm Project for Bipolar Disorder 2022 (KMAP-BP 2022) with other recently published guidelines for treating bipolar disorder. We reviewed a total of six recently published global treatment guidelines and compared treatment recommendation of the KMAP-BP 2022 with those of other guidelines. For initial treatment of mania, there were no significant differences across treatment guidelines. All guidelines recommended mood stabilizer (MS) or atypical antipsychotic (AAP) monotherapy or a combination of an MS with an AAP as a first-line treatment strategy in a same degree for mania. However, the KMAP-BP 2022 recommended MS + AAP combination therapy for psychotic mania, mixed mania and psychotic depression as treatment of choice. Aripiprazole, quetiapine and olanzapine were the first-line AAPs for nearly all phases of bipolar disorder across guidelines. Some guideline suggested olanzapine is a second-line options during maintenance treatment, related to concern about long-term tolerability. Most guidelines advocated newer AAPs (asenapine, cariprazine, long-acting injectable risperidone, and aripiprazole once monthly) as first-line treatment options for all phases while lamotrigine was recommended for depressive and maintenance phases. Lithium and valproic acid were commonly used as MSs in all phases of bipolar disorder. KMAP-BP 2022 guidelines were similar to other guidelines, reflecting current changes in prescription patterns for bipolar disorder based on accumulated research data. Strong preference for combination therapy was characteristic of KMAP-BP 2022, predominantly in the treatment of psychotic mania, mixed mania and psychotic depression.

Objective: We revised the Korean Medication Algorithm Project for Bipolar Disorder (KMAP-BP), first published in 2002 and revised in 2006, 2010, 2014, and 2018, to reflect recent progress in the treatment of bipolar disorder. Methods: The questionnaires consisted of 56 items for adult patients and 7 items for child/adolescent patients, and were used to obtain the consensus of experts regarding pharmacological treatment strategies for various phases of bipolar disorder. The review committee included 87 Korean psychiatrists and 40 child and adolescent psychiatry experts. Results: For treatment of manic episodes, a combination of a mood stabilizer (MS) and atypical antipsychotics (AAP), or monotherapy with MS or AAP were recommended as first-line treatments. Combinations of MS and AAP, or AAP and lamotrigine (LMT) were recommended as first-line treatments for depressive episodes regardless of the severity. Monotherapy with MS, AAP, or LMT were also first-line treatments for mild to moderate depressive episodes. For mixed features, a combination of MS and AAP, or monotherapy with AAP or MS were recommended as first-line treatments, and a combination of AAP and LMT, or MS and LMT were the first-line treatments for depressive mixed state. Conclusion The recommendations of the KMAP-BP 2022 have changed from the previous version, to reflect the evolution of the social culture and healthcare system in Korea and recent evidence regarding pharmacotherapy of bipolar disorder. The KMAP-BP 2022 provides clinicians with a wealth of information regarding appropriate strategies to treat patients with bipolar disorder.

Objectives: This study revised the Korean Medication Algorithm Project for Bipolar Disorder 2018 for rapid cycling. Methods: Questionnaires to survey the expert opinion of medication for rapid cycling were completed by a review committee consisting of 87 Korean expert psychiatrists. The experts’ opinions were classified into three categories based on the lowest category in which the confidence interval fell (6.5≤ for first-line, 3.5≤ for second-line, and 3.5> for third-line treatment). Results: The first-line treatments were a combination of mood stabilizers and atypical antipsychotics, atypical antipsychotics monotherapy, or mood stabilizer monotherapy. Furthermore, a mood stabilizer with lamotrigine therapy and an atypical antipsychotic with lamotrigine combinations was the first-line treatment for a depressive episode. The first-line medications in all episodes were valproate, lithium, quetiapine, olanzapine, and aripiprazole. Risperidone was the first-line medication in manic episodes and mixed states, and lamotrigine was the first-line medication for treating depressive episodes. Conclusion Compared to the surveys in 2018, the preference for atypical antipsychotics and lamotrigine has increased, and the modalities as a second-line treatment are more diversified.

Objectives: The objective of this study was to revise the Korean Medication Algorithm Project for Bipolar Disorder (KMAP-BP) 2022: children and adolescents. Methods: We performed a survey, using a questionnaire comprising 23 questions according to various situations facing children and adolescents with bipolar disorders. A total of 40 of the 60 experts in child and adolescent psychiatry responded to the survey. Results: The first-line pharmacotherapeutic strategies for manic and depressive episodes in children with bipolar disorders were a combination of mood stabilizer (MS) and atypical antipsychotics (AAP). The first-line medications selected for these children were aripiprazole (treatment of choice, TOC) and risperidone. The first-line pharmacotherapeutic strategies for manic episodes in adolescents were a combination of MS and an AAP (TOC), monotherapy with MS, and monotherapy with an AAP. Lithium, valproate, aripiprazole, risperidone, and quetiapine were selected as first-line medications for these adolescents. First-line pharmacotherapeutic strategies for depressive episodes in adolescents were a combination of MS and an AAP, monotherapy with MS, and monotherapy with an AAP. The first-line pharmacotherapeutic strategies for the depressive episodes in adolescents at high risk for bipolar disorder were a combination of MS and AAP and monotherapy with an AAP. Lithium, valproate, aripiprazole (TOC), quetiapine, and risperidone were selected as first-line medications for the treatment of depressive episodes in adolescents with bipolar disorder. Conclusion It is expected that the present KMAP-BP 2022: children and adolescents will give the direction and be usefully applied by clinicians to treat children and adolescents with bipolar disorders.

Objectives: In this study, we investigated and organized the maintenance-treatment strategies for Bipolar I and II disorders outlined in The Korean Medication Algorithm Project for Bipolar disorder 2022 (KMAP-BP 2022). Methods: The questionnaire sought to survey expert opinion on medication for bipolar disorders and was completed by a review committee consisting of 87 experienced Korean psychiatrists. It comprised 56 questions, and each question included various sub-items. The questionnaire for the maintenance treatments covered overall treatment strategies after acute mood episodes in bipolar I and II disorders, the choice of mood stabilizers and atypical antipsychotics and antidepressants, duration of medication, and treatment strategies for breakthrough symptoms. Results: In the case of bipolar I disorder, mood stabilizer monotherapy, atypical antipsychotics monotherapy, and a combination of mood stabilizers and atypical antipsychotics were selected as the first-line treatments. In maintenance management of bipolar II disorder, mood stabilizer monotherapy, atypical antipsychotics monotherapy, and combinations of mood stabilizers were selected as the preferred first-line treatments. Conclusion There has been a growing body of evidence that atypical antipsychotics have a greater preference than observed in the previous KMAP-BP of 2018. Also, monotherapy of mood stabilizers or atypical antipsychotics was more frequently selected in KMAP-BP 2022 than in the KMAP-BP 2018.