Background/Aims: Drug-eluting balloons (DEBs) represent a novel therapeutic approach for patients with small coronary artery disease. However, further studies are needed to compare the clinical efficacy of DEBs versus drug-eluting stents (DESs). Methods: In total, 492 patients (age, 67.9 ± 11.0 years; 339 men) with small coronary artery lesions (diameter < 2.75 mm) were randomly assigned to group I (DEB) (n = 104; age, 67.2 ± 10.7 years; 83 men) and group II (DES) (n = 388; age, 68.0 ± 11.1 years; 254 men). For inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis, the study population was stratified into groups I (n = 269) and II (n = 280). We compared the incidences of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) between the two groups during 12 months of clinical follow-up. Results: Group I had shorter device lengths (22.4 ± 5.8 mm) compared with group II (27.4 ± 9.3 mm; p < 0.001). Additionally, devices in group I were smaller in diameter (2.4 ± 0.1 mm) compared with those in group II (2.6 ± 0.1 mm; p < 0.001). Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was lower in group I (53.8% ± 12.6%) than in group II (58.6% ± 11.9%; p < 0.001). After IPTW, no significant differences in LVEF were observed between groups I and II. During 12 months of follow-up, the incidence of total MACE did not differ between the two groups. Conclusions No significant differences were observed in clinical efficacy between DEB and DES for the treatment of small coronary artery disease. Therefore, DEB can be considered a viable alternative to DES in patients with small coronary artery disease.

Background/Aims: Drug-eluting balloons (DEBs) represent a novel therapeutic approach for patients with small coronary artery disease. However, further studies are needed to compare the clinical efficacy of DEBs versus drug-eluting stents (DESs). Methods: In total, 492 patients (age, 67.9 ± 11.0 years; 339 men) with small coronary artery lesions (diameter < 2.75 mm) were randomly assigned to group I (DEB) (n = 104; age, 67.2 ± 10.7 years; 83 men) and group II (DES) (n = 388; age, 68.0 ± 11.1 years; 254 men). For inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis, the study population was stratified into groups I (n = 269) and II (n = 280). We compared the incidences of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) between the two groups during 12 months of clinical follow-up. Results: Group I had shorter device lengths (22.4 ± 5.8 mm) compared with group II (27.4 ± 9.3 mm; p < 0.001). Additionally, devices in group I were smaller in diameter (2.4 ± 0.1 mm) compared with those in group II (2.6 ± 0.1 mm; p < 0.001). Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was lower in group I (53.8% ± 12.6%) than in group II (58.6% ± 11.9%; p < 0.001). After IPTW, no significant differences in LVEF were observed between groups I and II. During 12 months of follow-up, the incidence of total MACE did not differ between the two groups. Conclusions No significant differences were observed in clinical efficacy between DEB and DES for the treatment of small coronary artery disease. Therefore, DEB can be considered a viable alternative to DES in patients with small coronary artery disease.

Background/Aims: Drug-eluting balloons (DEBs) represent a novel therapeutic approach for patients with small coronary artery disease. However, further studies are needed to compare the clinical efficacy of DEBs versus drug-eluting stents (DESs). Methods: In total, 492 patients (age, 67.9 ± 11.0 years; 339 men) with small coronary artery lesions (diameter < 2.75 mm) were randomly assigned to group I (DEB) (n = 104; age, 67.2 ± 10.7 years; 83 men) and group II (DES) (n = 388; age, 68.0 ± 11.1 years; 254 men). For inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis, the study population was stratified into groups I (n = 269) and II (n = 280). We compared the incidences of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) between the two groups during 12 months of clinical follow-up. Results: Group I had shorter device lengths (22.4 ± 5.8 mm) compared with group II (27.4 ± 9.3 mm; p < 0.001). Additionally, devices in group I were smaller in diameter (2.4 ± 0.1 mm) compared with those in group II (2.6 ± 0.1 mm; p < 0.001). Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was lower in group I (53.8% ± 12.6%) than in group II (58.6% ± 11.9%; p < 0.001). After IPTW, no significant differences in LVEF were observed between groups I and II. During 12 months of follow-up, the incidence of total MACE did not differ between the two groups. Conclusions No significant differences were observed in clinical efficacy between DEB and DES for the treatment of small coronary artery disease. Therefore, DEB can be considered a viable alternative to DES in patients with small coronary artery disease.

Background/Aims: Drug-eluting balloons (DEBs) represent a novel therapeutic approach for patients with small coronary artery disease. However, further studies are needed to compare the clinical efficacy of DEBs versus drug-eluting stents (DESs). Methods: In total, 492 patients (age, 67.9 ± 11.0 years; 339 men) with small coronary artery lesions (diameter < 2.75 mm) were randomly assigned to group I (DEB) (n = 104; age, 67.2 ± 10.7 years; 83 men) and group II (DES) (n = 388; age, 68.0 ± 11.1 years; 254 men). For inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis, the study population was stratified into groups I (n = 269) and II (n = 280). We compared the incidences of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) between the two groups during 12 months of clinical follow-up. Results: Group I had shorter device lengths (22.4 ± 5.8 mm) compared with group II (27.4 ± 9.3 mm; p < 0.001). Additionally, devices in group I were smaller in diameter (2.4 ± 0.1 mm) compared with those in group II (2.6 ± 0.1 mm; p < 0.001). Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was lower in group I (53.8% ± 12.6%) than in group II (58.6% ± 11.9%; p < 0.001). After IPTW, no significant differences in LVEF were observed between groups I and II. During 12 months of follow-up, the incidence of total MACE did not differ between the two groups. Conclusions No significant differences were observed in clinical efficacy between DEB and DES for the treatment of small coronary artery disease. Therefore, DEB can be considered a viable alternative to DES in patients with small coronary artery disease.

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) has been used for over a century and has been demonstrated to be effective in treating patients with various allergic diseases. AIT allergens can be administered through various routes, including subcutaneous, sublingual, intralymphatic, oral, or epicutaneous routes. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) has recently gained clinical interest, and it is considered an alternative treatment for allergic rhinitis (AR) and asthma. This review provides an overview of the current evidence-based studies that address the use of SLIT for treating AR, including (1) mechanisms of action, (2) appropriate patient selection for SLIT, (3) the current available SLIT products in Korea, and (4) updated information on its efficacy and safety. Finally, this guideline aims to provide the clinician with practical considerations for SLIT.

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is a causative treatment of allergic diseases in which allergen extracts are regularly administered in a gradually escalated doses, leading to immune tolerance and consequent alleviation of allergic diseases. The need for uniform practice guidelines in AIT is continuously growing as the number of potential candidates for AIT increases and new therapeutic approaches are tried. This updated version of the Korean Academy of Asthma Allergy and Clinical Immunology recommendations for AIT, published in 2010, proposes an expert opinion by specialists in allergy, pediatrics, and otorhinolaryngology. This guideline deals with the basic knowledge of AIT, including mechanisms, clinical efficacy, allergen standardization, important allergens in Korea, and special consideration in pediatrics. The article also covers the methodological aspects of AIT, including patient selection, allergen selection, schedule and doses, follow-up care, efficacy measurements, and management of adverse reactions. Although this guideline suggests the optimal dosing schedule, an individualized approach and modifications are recommended considering the situation for each patient and clinic.

Background: It is well known that a large number of patients with diabetes also have dyslipidemia, which significantly increases the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of combination drugs consisting of metformin and atorvastatin, widely used as therapeutic agents for diabetes and dyslipidemia. Methods: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group and phase III multicenter study included adults with glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels >7.0% and <10.0%, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) >100 and <250 mg/dL. One hundred eighty-five eligible subjects were randomized to the combination group (metformin+atorvastatin), metformin group (metformin+atorvastatin placebo), and atorvastatin group (atorvastatin+metformin placebo). The primary efficacy endpoints were the percent changes in HbA1c and LDL-C levels from baseline at the end of the treatment. Results: After 16 weeks of treatment compared to baseline, HbA1c showed a significant difference of 0.94% compared to the atorvastatin group in the combination group (0.35% vs. −0.58%, respectively; P<0.0001), whereas the proportion of patients with increased HbA1c was also 62% and 15%, respectively, showing a significant difference (P<0.001). The combination group also showed a significant decrease in LDL-C levels compared to the metformin group (−55.20% vs. −7.69%, P<0.001) without previously unknown adverse drug events. Conclusion The addition of atorvastatin to metformin improved HbA1c and LDL-C levels to a significant extent compared to metformin or atorvastatin alone in diabetes and dyslipidemia patients. This study also suggested metformin’s preventive effect on the glucose-elevating potential of atorvastatin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and dyslipidemia, insufficiently controlled with exercise and diet. Metformin and atorvastatin combination might be an effective treatment in reducing the CVD risk in patients with both diabetes and dyslipidemia because of its lowering effect on LDL-C and glucose.

Background: Thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH)-secreting pituitary neuroendocrine tumor (TSH PitNET) is a rare subtype of PitNET. We investigated the comprehensive characteristics and outcomes of TSH PitNET cases from a single medical center. Also, we compared diagnostic methods to determine which showed superior sensitivity. Methods: A total of 17 patients diagnosed with TSH PitNET after surgery between 2002 and 2022 in Samsung Medical Center was retrospectively reviewed. Data on comprehensive characteristics and treatment outcomes were collected. The sensitivities of diagnostic methods were compared. Results: Seven were male (41%), and the median age at diagnosis was 42 years (range, 21 to 65); the median follow-up duration was 37.4 months. The most common (59%) initial presentation was hyperthyroidism-related symptoms. Hormonal co-secretion was present in four (23%) patients. Elevated serum alpha-subunit (α-SU) showed the greatest diagnostic sensitivity (91%), followed by blunted response at thyrotropin-releasing hormone (TRH) stimulation (80%) and elevated sex hormone binding globulin (63%). Fourteen (82%) patients had macroadenoma, and a specimen of one patient with heavy calcification was negative for TSH. Among 15 patients who were followed up for more than 6 months, 10 (67%) achieved hormonal and structural remission within 6 months postoperatively. A case of growth hormone (GH)/TSH/prolactin (PRL) co-secreting mixed gangliocytoma-pituitary adenoma (MGPA) was discovered. Conclusion The majority of the TSH PitNET cases was macroadenoma, and 23% showed hormone co-secretion. A rare case of GH/TSH/PRL co-secreting MGPA was discovered. Serum α-SU and TRH stimulation tests showed great diagnostic sensitivity. Careful consideration is needed in diagnosing TSH PitNET. Achieving remission requires complete tumor resection. In case of nonremission, radiotherapy or medical therapy can improve the long-term remission rate.

Background: We aimed to analyze the effects of an antimicrobial stewardship program (ASP) on the proportion of antimicrobial-resistant pathogens in bacteremia, antimicrobial use, and mortality in pediatric patients. Methods: A retrospective single-center study was performed on pediatric inpatients under 19 years old who received systemic antimicrobial treatment from 2001 to 2019. A pediatric infectious disease attending physician started ASP in January 2008. The study period was divided into the pre-intervention (2001–2008) and the post-intervention (2009–2019) periods. The amount of antimicrobial use was defined as days of therapy per 1,000 patientdays, and the differences were compared using delta slope (= changes in slopes) between the two study periods by an interrupted time-series analysis. The proportion of resistant pathogens and the 30-day overall mortality rate were analyzed by the χ2 . Results: The proportion of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae bacteremia increased from 17% (39 of 235) in the pre-intervention period to 35% (189 of 533) in the post-intervention period (P < 0.001). The total amount of antimicrobial use significantly decreased after the introduction of ASP (delta slope value = −16.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], −30.6 to −2.3; P = 0.049). The 30-day overall mortality rate in patients with bacteremia did not increase, being 10% (55 of 564) in the pre-intervention and 10% (94 of 941) in the post-intervention period (P = 0.881). Conclusion The introduction of ASP for pediatric patients reduced the delta slope of the total antimicrobial use without increasing the mortality rate despite an increased incidence of ESBL-producing gram-negative bacteremia.

Background: Enavogliflozin is a novel sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor currently under clinical development. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of enavogliflozin as an add-on to metformin in Korean patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) against dapagliflozin. Methods: In this multicenter, double-blind, randomized, phase 3 study, 200 patients were randomized to receive enavogliflozin 0.3 mg/day (n=101) or dapagliflozin 10 mg/day (n=99) in addition to ongoing metformin therapy for 24 weeks. The primary objective of the study was to prove the non-inferiority of enavogliflozin to dapagliflozin in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) change at week 24 (non-inferiority margin of 0.35%) (Clinical trial registration number: NCT04634500). Results: Adjusted mean change of HbA1c at week 24 was –0.80% with enavogliflozin and –0.75% with dapagliflozin (difference, –0.04%; 95% confidence interval, –0.21% to 0.12%). Percentages of patients achieving HbA1c <7.0% were 61% and 62%, respectively. Adjusted mean change of fasting plasma glucose at week 24 was –32.53 and –29.14 mg/dL. An increase in urine glucose-creatinine ratio (60.48 vs. 44.94, P<0.0001) and decrease in homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (–1.85 vs. –1.31, P=0.0041) were significantly greater with enavogliflozin than dapagliflozin at week 24. Beneficial effects of enavogliflozin on body weight (–3.77 kg vs. –3.58 kg) and blood pressure (systolic/diastolic, –5.93/–5.41 mm Hg vs. –6.57/–4.26 mm Hg) were comparable with those of dapagliflozin, and both drugs were safe and well-tolerated. Conclusion Enavogliflozin added to metformin significantly improved glycemic control in patients with T2DM and was non-inferior to dapagliflozin 10 mg, suggesting enavogliflozin as a viable treatment option for patients with inadequate glycemic control on metformin alone.