Systemic corticosteroids play an essential role in the management of asthma. During acute exacerbation, the short-term use of systemic corticosteroids is recommended. For patients with uncontrolled asthma and severe asthma, long-term and low-dose oral corticosteroids (OCS) have frequently been advocated. However, both short-term and long-term use of systemic corticosteroids carry the risk of adverse events (AEs), including various morbidities and even mortality. Despite recent progress in adult severe asthma management and the availability of new treatment options, the current domestic guidelines for asthma do not provide specific recommendations for oral corticosteroid tapering in patients with severe asthma. Therefore, the task force team of the severe asthma working group in the Korean Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Clinical Immunology has proposed a tapering protocol for systemic corticosteroid use in severe asthma. This includes practical recommendations for monitoring OCS-related AE, particularly for adrenal insufficiency and osteoporosis, which suggests corticosteroid-sparing strategies that include alternative therapies, modifying treatable traits, timely specialist assessment, and shared decision-making with patients. However, further real-world research and collaboration with doctors from primary and academic institutes, patients, and policymakers are necessary to establish an OCS stewardship approach. This should include realistic OCS-tapering strategies for patients with severe asthma using regular OCS, education, and campaigns for patients, the public, and healthcare providers about the burden of severe asthma, as well as improving timely access to specialized severe asthma services for optimal management.

Systemic corticosteroids play an essential role in the management of asthma. During acute exacerbation, the short-term use of systemic corticosteroids is recommended. For patients with uncontrolled asthma and severe asthma, long-term and low-dose oral corticosteroids (OCS) have frequently been advocated. However, both short-term and long-term use of systemic corticosteroids carry the risk of adverse events (AEs), including various morbidities and even mortality. Despite recent progress in adult severe asthma management and the availability of new treatment options, the current domestic guidelines for asthma do not provide specific recommendations for oral corticosteroid tapering in patients with severe asthma. Therefore, the task force team of the severe asthma working group in the Korean Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Clinical Immunology has proposed a tapering protocol for systemic corticosteroid use in severe asthma. This includes practical recommendations for monitoring OCS-related AE, particularly for adrenal insufficiency and osteoporosis, which suggests corticosteroid-sparing strategies that include alternative therapies, modifying treatable traits, timely specialist assessment, and shared decision-making with patients. However, further real-world research and collaboration with doctors from primary and academic institutes, patients, and policymakers are necessary to establish an OCS stewardship approach. This should include realistic OCS-tapering strategies for patients with severe asthma using regular OCS, education, and campaigns for patients, the public, and healthcare providers about the burden of severe asthma, as well as improving timely access to specialized severe asthma services for optimal management.

Systemic corticosteroids play an essential role in the management of asthma. During acute exacerbation, the short-term use of systemic corticosteroids is recommended. For patients with uncontrolled asthma and severe asthma, long-term and low-dose oral corticosteroids (OCS) have frequently been advocated. However, both short-term and long-term use of systemic corticosteroids carry the risk of adverse events (AEs), including various morbidities and even mortality. Despite recent progress in adult severe asthma management and the availability of new treatment options, the current domestic guidelines for asthma do not provide specific recommendations for oral corticosteroid tapering in patients with severe asthma. Therefore, the task force team of the severe asthma working group in the Korean Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Clinical Immunology has proposed a tapering protocol for systemic corticosteroid use in severe asthma. This includes practical recommendations for monitoring OCS-related AE, particularly for adrenal insufficiency and osteoporosis, which suggests corticosteroid-sparing strategies that include alternative therapies, modifying treatable traits, timely specialist assessment, and shared decision-making with patients. However, further real-world research and collaboration with doctors from primary and academic institutes, patients, and policymakers are necessary to establish an OCS stewardship approach. This should include realistic OCS-tapering strategies for patients with severe asthma using regular OCS, education, and campaigns for patients, the public, and healthcare providers about the burden of severe asthma, as well as improving timely access to specialized severe asthma services for optimal management.

Systemic corticosteroids play an essential role in the management of asthma. During acute exacerbation, the short-term use of systemic corticosteroids is recommended. For patients with uncontrolled asthma and severe asthma, long-term and low-dose oral corticosteroids (OCS) have frequently been advocated. However, both short-term and long-term use of systemic corticosteroids carry the risk of adverse events (AEs), including various morbidities and even mortality. Despite recent progress in adult severe asthma management and the availability of new treatment options, the current domestic guidelines for asthma do not provide specific recommendations for oral corticosteroid tapering in patients with severe asthma. Therefore, the task force team of the severe asthma working group in the Korean Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Clinical Immunology has proposed a tapering protocol for systemic corticosteroid use in severe asthma. This includes practical recommendations for monitoring OCS-related AE, particularly for adrenal insufficiency and osteoporosis, which suggests corticosteroid-sparing strategies that include alternative therapies, modifying treatable traits, timely specialist assessment, and shared decision-making with patients. However, further real-world research and collaboration with doctors from primary and academic institutes, patients, and policymakers are necessary to establish an OCS stewardship approach. This should include realistic OCS-tapering strategies for patients with severe asthma using regular OCS, education, and campaigns for patients, the public, and healthcare providers about the burden of severe asthma, as well as improving timely access to specialized severe asthma services for optimal management.

Systemic corticosteroids play an essential role in the management of asthma. During acute exacerbation, the short-term use of systemic corticosteroids is recommended. For patients with uncontrolled asthma and severe asthma, long-term and low-dose oral corticosteroids (OCS) have frequently been advocated. However, both short-term and long-term use of systemic corticosteroids carry the risk of adverse events (AEs), including various morbidities and even mortality. Despite recent progress in adult severe asthma management and the availability of new treatment options, the current domestic guidelines for asthma do not provide specific recommendations for oral corticosteroid tapering in patients with severe asthma. Therefore, the task force team of the severe asthma working group in the Korean Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Clinical Immunology has proposed a tapering protocol for systemic corticosteroid use in severe asthma. This includes practical recommendations for monitoring OCS-related AE, particularly for adrenal insufficiency and osteoporosis, which suggests corticosteroid-sparing strategies that include alternative therapies, modifying treatable traits, timely specialist assessment, and shared decision-making with patients. However, further real-world research and collaboration with doctors from primary and academic institutes, patients, and policymakers are necessary to establish an OCS stewardship approach. This should include realistic OCS-tapering strategies for patients with severe asthma using regular OCS, education, and campaigns for patients, the public, and healthcare providers about the burden of severe asthma, as well as improving timely access to specialized severe asthma services for optimal management.

Background: Living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is a viable alternative to deceased-donor liver transplantation. Enhanced recovery after surgery protocols that include early extubation offer short-term benefits; however, the effect of immediate extubation in the operating room (OR) on long-term outcomes in patients undergoing LDLT remains unknown. We hypothesized that immediate OR extubation is associated with improved long-term outcomes in patients undergoing LDLT. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 205 patients who underwent LDLT. The patients were classified based on the extubation location as OREX (those extubated in the OR) or NOREX (those extubated in the intensive care unit [ICU]). The primary outcome was overall survival (OS), while secondary outcomes included ICU stay, hospital stay duration, and various postoperative outcomes. Results: Among the 205 patients, 98 (47.8%) underwent extubation in the OR after LDLT. Univariate analysis revealed that OR extubation did not significantly affect OS (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.50, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.24–1.05; P = 0.066). Furthermore, multivariate analysis revealed no statistically significant association between OR extubation and OS (HR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.35–1.80; P = 0.580). However, OR extubation was significantly associated with a lower incidence of 30-day composite complications and shorter ICU and hospital stays. Multivariate analysis indicated that higher preoperative platelet counts, increased serum creatinine levels, and a longer surgery duration were associated with poorer OS. Conclusions Immediate OR extubation following LDLT surgery was associated with fewer 30-day composite complications and shorter ICU and hospital stays; however, it did not significantly improve OS compared with ICU extubation.

Background: An increased incidence of hair loss disorders has been noted among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and individuals vaccinated against COVID-19. However, research involving large populations on this topic is lacking. Objective: To investigate the risks associated with developing hair loss disorders in patients with COVID-19 and individuals vaccinated against COVID-19. Methods: This nationwide, population-based, cross-sectional study included patients diagnosed with COVID-19 and healthy individuals without a history of COVID-19 infection registered in the Korean National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) database between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2021. COVID-19 infection and vaccine databases were integrated using this NHIS database. The odds ratios of hair loss disorders were compared using multivariate logistic regression models. Results: COVID-19 infection was associated with an increased risk of total alopecia (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.076; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.002–1.156), although this association was not significant after propensity score matching. No significant associations were found between COVID-19 infection and alopecia areata or telogen effluvium. However, COVID-19 vaccination was positively correlated with total alopecia (aOR, 1.266; 95% CI, 1.191–1.346), alopecia areata (aOR, 1.243; 95% CI, 1.154–1.339), and telogen effluvium (aOR, 1.495; 95% CI, 1.133–1.974). Conclusion COVID-19 vaccination was positively correlated with hair loss disorders but not COVID-19 infection. However, given the advantages of vaccines in reducing COVID-19 mortality and morbidity, alopecia may be relatively reversible and less severe. Physicians need to understand the benefits and possible side effects of the COVID-19 vaccine.

Background: The Korean Occupational Stress Scale (KOSS) was developed in 2004. During this time, industrial structures have evolved, and societal awareness of occupational stress has changed. This study aims to develop and validate a revised version of the Korean Occupational Stress Scale (KOSS®19), tailored for workers, reflecting these changes. Methods: The KOSS®19 was developed based on the 26-item KOSS–short form (SF) through a review by eight experts. A survey was conducted including 359 service industry workers, comprising the KOSS®19, Burnout, and Depression scales. The KOSS®19 subscales were restructured, and their reliability and validity were evaluated. Results: The KOSS®19 composed of eight subscales: hazardous physical environment (2 items), high job demand (3 items), insufficient job control (2 items), low social support (2 items), job insecurity (2 items), organizational injustice (4 items), lack of reward (2 items), and work-life imbalance (2 items). The reliability and validity of the KOSS®19 were found to be satisfactory. Conclusions The KOSS®19 is a suitable tool for assessing occupational stress, effectively replacing the original KOSS and KOSS-SF.

Background: Emotional labor refers to the management of emotions and expressions to meet the emotional requirements of a job role. This study aimed to develop a revised version of the Korean Emotional Labor Scale (KELS®11), based on the first edition (KELS-24) introduced in 2014, and to provide practical applications and guidelines for its use in the Korean workplace through a validation process. Methods: The revised version of KELS®11 was derived from the 24-item KELS, following a review process involving eight experts. To validate the scale’s reliability and validity, a self-administered survey was conducted among 359 service industry workers using KELS®11, burnout, and depression scales. KELS®11 was reclassified, and its reliability and validity were evaluated. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was conducted to establish sex-specific cutoff values (normal vs. high-risk groups). Results: KELS®11 was designed to account for individual, organizational, and cultural contexts. It consists of four subscales and 11 items: “emotional regulation” (2 items), “emotional dissonance” (3 items), “organizational monitoring” (2 items), and “organizational protective system for emotional labor” (4 items). KELS®11 demonstrated good validity (content validity ratio: 0.84; item convergence/discriminant validity success rates: 100%; correlation with burnout: r = 0.185–0.436, p < 0.01; correlation with depression: r = 0.128–0.339, p < 0.05) and reliability (Cronbach’s alpha: 0.597–0.795). Additionally, sex-specific reference values were established to determine risk groups based on the intensity of emotional labor exposure. Conclusions KELS®11 is a validated and reliable measurement tool designed to assess the intensity and magnitude of emotional labor in the workplace. The revised tool reflects critical considerations in the development of emotional labor measurement scales.

Background: Workplace violence refers to any act or threat of physical violence, verbal abuse, harassment, intimidation, bullying, mobbing, or other aggressive and disruptive behaviors that occur at work. This study aims to develop and validate a revision of the Korean Workplace Violence Scale (KWVS®13), based on the first edition of the Korean Workplace Violence Scale (KWVS-24), and to provide practical applications and guidelines for the Korean workplace environment. Methods: The revised KWVS®13 was developed by restructuring the 24-item KWVS through a review process involving eight experts. To validate the reliability and validity of KWVS®13, a self-administered survey comprising KWVS®13, burnout, and depression scales was conducted among 359 service industry workers. KWVS®13 was reclassified, and its reliability and validity were assessed. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was performed to establish sex-specific cutoff values (normal vs. risk) of the scale. Results: KWVS®13 consists of 13 items across four subscales: “psychological and sexual violence from customers” (4 items), “psychological and sexual violence from supervisors or coworkers” (4 items), “physical assault from customers, supervisors, or coworkers” (2 items), and “organizational protective system for workplace violence” (3 items). We found that KWVS®13 shows relatively good validity (content validity ratio for content validity: 0.888; success rate of item convergent and discriminant validity: 100%, and significant correlation coefficient with burnout (r = 0.115–0.83, p < 0.05) and depression (r = 0.098–0.348, p < 0.05) with the exception of Organizational Violence Protection System for Workplace Violence) and reliability (Cronbach’s alpha: 0.827–0.860). The reference values for determining risk groups according to the intensity of exposure to workplace violence are presented separately by sex. Conclusions KWVS®13 is a robust and useful measurement tool to objectively and quantitatively assess the intensity and magnitude of workplace violence. It incorporates important considerations for workplace violence assessment and provides a reliable framework for evaluating workplace violence in various professional settings.