Objective: As the demand for community mental health services continues to grow, the need for well-equipped and organized services has become apparent. This study aimed to optimize the roles and infrastructure of mental health services, by establishing, among other initiatives, standardized operating models. Methods: The study was conducted in multiple phases from May 12, 2021, to December 29, 2021. Stakeholders within South Korea and metropolitan mental health welfare centers were targeted, but addiction management support centers, including officials, patients, and their families, were integrated as well. A literature review and survey, focus group interviews, a Delphi survey, and expert consultation contributed to comprehensive revisions and improvements of the mental health service model. Results: The proposed model for community mental health welfare centers emphasizes the expansion of personnel and infrastructure, with a focus on severe mental illnesses and suicide prevention. The model for metropolitan mental health welfare centers delineates essential tasks in areas such as project planning and establishment, community research, and education about severe mental illnesses. The establishment of a 24-hour emergency intervention center was a crucial feature. In the integrated addiction support center model, the need to promote addiction management is defined as an essential task and the establishment of national governance for addiction policies is recommended. Conclusion This study proposed standard operating models for three types of mental health service centers. To meet the increasing need for community care, robust mental health service delivery systems are of primary importance.

Objective: As the demand for community mental health services continues to grow, the need for well-equipped and organized services has become apparent. This study aimed to optimize the roles and infrastructure of mental health services, by establishing, among other initiatives, standardized operating models. Methods: The study was conducted in multiple phases from May 12, 2021, to December 29, 2021. Stakeholders within South Korea and metropolitan mental health welfare centers were targeted, but addiction management support centers, including officials, patients, and their families, were integrated as well. A literature review and survey, focus group interviews, a Delphi survey, and expert consultation contributed to comprehensive revisions and improvements of the mental health service model. Results: The proposed model for community mental health welfare centers emphasizes the expansion of personnel and infrastructure, with a focus on severe mental illnesses and suicide prevention. The model for metropolitan mental health welfare centers delineates essential tasks in areas such as project planning and establishment, community research, and education about severe mental illnesses. The establishment of a 24-hour emergency intervention center was a crucial feature. In the integrated addiction support center model, the need to promote addiction management is defined as an essential task and the establishment of national governance for addiction policies is recommended. Conclusion This study proposed standard operating models for three types of mental health service centers. To meet the increasing need for community care, robust mental health service delivery systems are of primary importance.

Objective: As the demand for community mental health services continues to grow, the need for well-equipped and organized services has become apparent. This study aimed to optimize the roles and infrastructure of mental health services, by establishing, among other initiatives, standardized operating models. Methods: The study was conducted in multiple phases from May 12, 2021, to December 29, 2021. Stakeholders within South Korea and metropolitan mental health welfare centers were targeted, but addiction management support centers, including officials, patients, and their families, were integrated as well. A literature review and survey, focus group interviews, a Delphi survey, and expert consultation contributed to comprehensive revisions and improvements of the mental health service model. Results: The proposed model for community mental health welfare centers emphasizes the expansion of personnel and infrastructure, with a focus on severe mental illnesses and suicide prevention. The model for metropolitan mental health welfare centers delineates essential tasks in areas such as project planning and establishment, community research, and education about severe mental illnesses. The establishment of a 24-hour emergency intervention center was a crucial feature. In the integrated addiction support center model, the need to promote addiction management is defined as an essential task and the establishment of national governance for addiction policies is recommended. Conclusion This study proposed standard operating models for three types of mental health service centers. To meet the increasing need for community care, robust mental health service delivery systems are of primary importance.

Objective: As the demand for community mental health services continues to grow, the need for well-equipped and organized services has become apparent. This study aimed to optimize the roles and infrastructure of mental health services, by establishing, among other initiatives, standardized operating models. Methods: The study was conducted in multiple phases from May 12, 2021, to December 29, 2021. Stakeholders within South Korea and metropolitan mental health welfare centers were targeted, but addiction management support centers, including officials, patients, and their families, were integrated as well. A literature review and survey, focus group interviews, a Delphi survey, and expert consultation contributed to comprehensive revisions and improvements of the mental health service model. Results: The proposed model for community mental health welfare centers emphasizes the expansion of personnel and infrastructure, with a focus on severe mental illnesses and suicide prevention. The model for metropolitan mental health welfare centers delineates essential tasks in areas such as project planning and establishment, community research, and education about severe mental illnesses. The establishment of a 24-hour emergency intervention center was a crucial feature. In the integrated addiction support center model, the need to promote addiction management is defined as an essential task and the establishment of national governance for addiction policies is recommended. Conclusion This study proposed standard operating models for three types of mental health service centers. To meet the increasing need for community care, robust mental health service delivery systems are of primary importance.

Objective: As the demand for community mental health services continues to grow, the need for well-equipped and organized services has become apparent. This study aimed to optimize the roles and infrastructure of mental health services, by establishing, among other initiatives, standardized operating models. Methods: The study was conducted in multiple phases from May 12, 2021, to December 29, 2021. Stakeholders within South Korea and metropolitan mental health welfare centers were targeted, but addiction management support centers, including officials, patients, and their families, were integrated as well. A literature review and survey, focus group interviews, a Delphi survey, and expert consultation contributed to comprehensive revisions and improvements of the mental health service model. Results: The proposed model for community mental health welfare centers emphasizes the expansion of personnel and infrastructure, with a focus on severe mental illnesses and suicide prevention. The model for metropolitan mental health welfare centers delineates essential tasks in areas such as project planning and establishment, community research, and education about severe mental illnesses. The establishment of a 24-hour emergency intervention center was a crucial feature. In the integrated addiction support center model, the need to promote addiction management is defined as an essential task and the establishment of national governance for addiction policies is recommended. Conclusion This study proposed standard operating models for three types of mental health service centers. To meet the increasing need for community care, robust mental health service delivery systems are of primary importance.

Purpose: This study aimed to describe adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for acute liver failure and evaluate its clinical significance by comparing its surgical and survival outcomes with those of deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 267 consecutive patients (161 LDLT recipients and 106 DDLT recipients) aged 18 years or older who underwent liver transplantation between January 2006 and December 2020. Results: The mean periods from hepatic encephalopathy to liver transplantation were 5.85 days and 8.35 days for LDLT and DDLT, respectively (P = 0.091). Among these patients, 121 (45.3%) had grade III or IV hepatic encephalopathy (living, 34.8% vs. deceased, 61.3%; P < 0.001), and 38 (14.2%) had brain edema (living, 16.1% vs. deceased, 11.3%; P = 0.269) before liver transplantation. There were no significant differences in in-hospital mortality (living, 11.8% vs. deceased, 15.1%; P = 0.435), 10-year overall survival (living, 90.8% vs. deceased, 84.0%; P = 0.096), and graft survival (living, 83.5% vs. deceased, 71.3%;P = 0.051). However, postoperatively, the mean intensive care unit stay was shorter in the LDLT group (5.0 days vs. 9.5 days, P < 0.001). In-hospital mortality was associated with vasopressor use (odds ratio [OR], 3.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.45–7.96; P = 0.005) and brain edema (OR, 2.75; 95% CI, 1.16–6.52; P = 0.022) of recipient at the time of transplantation. However, LDLT (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.59–2.66; P = 0.553) was not independently associated with in-hospital mortality. Conclusion LDLT is feasible for acute liver failure when organs from deceased donors are not available.

Purpose: Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors have greatly improved survival in EGFR-mutant (EGFRm) non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC); however, their effects on the tumor microenvironment (TME) are unknown. We assessed the changes induced by neoadjuvant erlotinib therapy (NE) in the TME of operable EGFRm NSCLC. Materials and Methods: This was a single-arm phase II trial for neoadjuvant/adjuvant erlotinib therapy in patients with stage II/IIIA EGFRm NSCLC (EGFR exon 19 deletion or L858R mutations). Patients received up to 2 cycles of NE (150 mg/day) for 4 weeks, followed by surgery and adjuvant erlotinib or vinorelbine plus cisplatin therapy depending on observed NE response. TME changes were assessed based on gene expression analysis and mutation profiling. Results: A total of 26 patients were enrolled; the median age was 61, 69% were female, 88% were stage IIIA, and 62% had L858R mutation. Among 25 patients who received NE, the objective response rate was 72% (95% confidence interval [CI], 52.4 to 85.7). The median disease-free and overall survival (OS) were 17.9 (95% CI, 10.5 to 25.4) and 84.7 months (95% CI, 49.7 to 119.8), respectively. Gene set enrichment analysis in resected tissues revealed upregulation of interleukin, complement, cytokine, transforming growth factor β, and hedgehog pathways. Patients with upregulated pathogen defense, interleukins, and T-cell function pathways at baseline exhibited partial response to NE and longer OS. Patients with upregulated cell cycle pathways at baseline exhibited stable/progressive disease after NE and shorter OS. Conclusion NE modulated the TME in EGFRm NSCLC. Upregulation of immune-related pathways was associated with better outcomes.

Purpose: This subgroup analysis of the Korean subset of patients in the phase 3 LASER301 trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of lazertinib versus gefitinib as first-line therapy for epidermal growth factor receptor mutated (EGFRm) non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Materials and Methods: Patients with locally advanced or metastatic EGFRm NSCLC were randomized 1:1 to lazertinib (240 mg/day) or gefitinib (250 mg/day). The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Results: In total, 172 Korean patients were enrolled (lazertinib, n=87; gefitinib, n=85). Baseline characteristics were balanced between the treatment groups. One-third of patients had brain metastases (BM) at baseline. Median PFS was 20.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 16.7 to 26.1) for lazertinib and 9.6 months (95% CI, 8.2 to 12.3) for gefitinib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.41; 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.60). This was supported by PFS analysis based on blinded independent central review. Significant PFS benefit with lazertinib was consistently observed across predefined subgroups, including patients with BM (HR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.15 to 0.53) and those with L858R mutations (HR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.63). Lazertinib safety data were consistent with its previously reported safety profile. Common adverse events (AEs) in both groups included rash, pruritus, and diarrhoea. Numerically fewer severe AEs and severe treatment–related AEs occurred with lazertinib than gefitinib. Conclusion Consistent with results for the overall LASER301 population, this analysis showed significant PFS benefit with lazertinib versus gefitinib with comparable safety in Korean patients with untreated EGFRm NSCLC, supporting lazertinib as a new potential treatment option for this patient population.

Background: Guidelines for switching to triple combination therapy directly after monotherapy failure are limited. This study investigated the efficacy, long-term sustainability, and safety of either mono or dual add-on therapy using alogliptin and pioglitazone for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who did not achieve their target glycemic range with metformin monotherapy. Methods: The Practical Evidence of Antidiabetic Combination Therapy in Korea (PEAK) was a multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized trial. A total of 214 participants were randomized to receive alogliptin+pioglitazone (Alo+Pio group, n=70), alogliptin (Alo group, n=75), or pioglitazone (Pio group, n=69). The primary outcome was the difference in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels between the three groups at baseline to 24 weeks. For durability, the achievement of HbA1c levels <7% and <6.5% was compared in each group. The number of adverse events was investigated for safety. Results: After 24 weeks of treatment, the change of HbA1c in the Alo+Pio, Alo, and Pio groups were –1.38%±0.08%, –1.03%±0.08%, and –0.84%±0.08%, respectively. The Alo+Pio group had significantly lower HbA1c levels than the other groups (P=0.0063, P<0.0001) and had a higher proportion of patients with target HbA1c achievement. In addition, insulin sensitivity and β-cell function, lipid profiles, and other metabolic indicators were also improved. There were no significant safety issues in patients treated with triple combination therapy. Conclusion Early combination triple therapy showed better efficacy and durability than the single add-on (dual) therapy. Therefore, combination therapy with metformin, alogliptin, and pioglitazone is a valuable early treatment option for T2DM poorly controlled with metformin monotherapy.

Background: Atherogenic dyslipidemia, which is frequently associated with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and insulin resistance, contributes to the development of vascular complications. Statin therapy is the primary approach to dyslipidemia management in T2D, however, the role of non-statin therapy remains unclear. Ezetimibe reduces cholesterol burden by inhibiting intestinal cholesterol absorption. Fibrates lower triglyceride levels and increase high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels via peroxisome proliferator- activated receptor alpha agonism. Therefore, when combined, these drugs effectively lower non-HDL-C levels. Despite this, few clinical trials have specifically targeted non-HDL-C, and the efficacy of triple combination therapies, including statins, ezetimibe, and fibrates, has yet to be determined. Methods: This is a multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label, active-comparator controlled trial involving 3,958 eligible participants with T2D, cardiovascular risk factors, and elevated non-HDL-C (≥100 mg/dL). Participants, already on moderate-intensity statins, will be randomly assigned to either Ezefeno (ezetimibe/fenofibrate) addition or statin dose-escalation. The primary end point is the development of a composite of major adverse cardiovascular and diabetic microvascular events over 48 months. Conclusion This trial aims to assess whether combining statins, ezetimibe, and fenofibrate is as effective as, or possibly superior to, statin monotherapy intensification in lowering cardiovascular and microvascular disease risk for patients with T2D. This could propose a novel therapeutic approach for managing dyslipidemia in T2D.