Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

Rare endocrine diseases are complex conditions that require lifelong specialized care due to their chronic nature and associated long-term complications. In Korea, a lack of nationwide data on clinical practice and outcomes has limited progress in patient care. Therefore, the Multicenter Networks for Ideal Outcomes of Pediatric Rare Endocrine and Metabolic Disease (OUTSPREAD) study was initiated. This study involves 30 centers across Korea. The study aims to improve the long-term prognosis of Korean patients with rare endocrine diseases by collecting comprehensive clinical data, biospecimens, and patient-reported outcomes to identify complications and unmet needs in patient care. Patients with childhood-onset pituitary, adrenal, or gonadal disorders, such as craniopharyngioma, congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), and Turner syndrome were prioritized. The planned enrollment is 1,300 patients during the first study phase (2022–2024). Clinical, biochemical, and imaging data from diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up during 1980–2023 were retrospectively reviewed. For patients who agreed to participate in the prospective cohort, clinical data and biospecimens will be prospectively collected to discover ideal biomarkers that predict the effectiveness of disease control measures and prognosis. Patient-reported outcomes, including quality of life and depression scales, will be evaluated to assess psychosocial outcomes. Additionally, a substudy on CAH patients will develop a steroid hormone profiling method using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry to improve diagnosis and monitoring of treatment outcomes. This study will address unmet clinical needs by discovering ideal biomarkers, introducing evidence-based treatment guidelines, and ultimately improving long-term outcomes in the areas of rare endocrine and metabolic diseases.

Rare endocrine diseases are complex conditions that require lifelong specialized care due to their chronic nature and associated long-term complications. In Korea, a lack of nationwide data on clinical practice and outcomes has limited progress in patient care. Therefore, the Multicenter Networks for Ideal Outcomes of Pediatric Rare Endocrine and Metabolic Disease (OUTSPREAD) study was initiated. This study involves 30 centers across Korea. The study aims to improve the long-term prognosis of Korean patients with rare endocrine diseases by collecting comprehensive clinical data, biospecimens, and patient-reported outcomes to identify complications and unmet needs in patient care. Patients with childhood-onset pituitary, adrenal, or gonadal disorders, such as craniopharyngioma, congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), and Turner syndrome were prioritized. The planned enrollment is 1,300 patients during the first study phase (2022–2024). Clinical, biochemical, and imaging data from diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up during 1980–2023 were retrospectively reviewed. For patients who agreed to participate in the prospective cohort, clinical data and biospecimens will be prospectively collected to discover ideal biomarkers that predict the effectiveness of disease control measures and prognosis. Patient-reported outcomes, including quality of life and depression scales, will be evaluated to assess psychosocial outcomes. Additionally, a substudy on CAH patients will develop a steroid hormone profiling method using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry to improve diagnosis and monitoring of treatment outcomes. This study will address unmet clinical needs by discovering ideal biomarkers, introducing evidence-based treatment guidelines, and ultimately improving long-term outcomes in the areas of rare endocrine and metabolic diseases.

Rare endocrine diseases are complex conditions that require lifelong specialized care due to their chronic nature and associated long-term complications. In Korea, a lack of nationwide data on clinical practice and outcomes has limited progress in patient care. Therefore, the Multicenter Networks for Ideal Outcomes of Pediatric Rare Endocrine and Metabolic Disease (OUTSPREAD) study was initiated. This study involves 30 centers across Korea. The study aims to improve the long-term prognosis of Korean patients with rare endocrine diseases by collecting comprehensive clinical data, biospecimens, and patient-reported outcomes to identify complications and unmet needs in patient care. Patients with childhood-onset pituitary, adrenal, or gonadal disorders, such as craniopharyngioma, congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), and Turner syndrome were prioritized. The planned enrollment is 1,300 patients during the first study phase (2022–2024). Clinical, biochemical, and imaging data from diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up during 1980–2023 were retrospectively reviewed. For patients who agreed to participate in the prospective cohort, clinical data and biospecimens will be prospectively collected to discover ideal biomarkers that predict the effectiveness of disease control measures and prognosis. Patient-reported outcomes, including quality of life and depression scales, will be evaluated to assess psychosocial outcomes. Additionally, a substudy on CAH patients will develop a steroid hormone profiling method using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry to improve diagnosis and monitoring of treatment outcomes. This study will address unmet clinical needs by discovering ideal biomarkers, introducing evidence-based treatment guidelines, and ultimately improving long-term outcomes in the areas of rare endocrine and metabolic diseases.

Purpose: In the modern era of precision medicine, next-generation sequencing (NGS) is employed for a variety of clinical purposes. The aim of this study was to investigate the trends and clinical characteristics of NGS testing in South Korea. Materials and Methods: This nationwide, population-based, retrospective cohort study examined National Health Insurance Service claims data from 2017 to 2021 for NGS and from 2008 to 2021 for gene-targeted anticancer drugs. Results: Among the total 98,748 claims, there were 51,407 (52.1%) solid cancer panels, 30,173 (30.5%) hereditary disease panels, and 17,168 (17.4%) hematolymphoid cancer panels. The number of annual claims showed a persistent upward trend, exhibiting a 5.4-fold increase, from 5,436 in 2017 to 29,557 in 2021. In the solid cancer panel, colorectal cancer was the most common (19.2%), followed by lung cancer (18.8%). The annual claims for targeted cancer drugs have increased 25.7-fold, from 3,932 in 2008 to 101,211 in 2020. Drugs for the treatment of lung cancer accounted for 488,819 (71.9%) claims. The number of patients who received non-hereditary NGS testing has substantially increased, and among them, the count of patients prescribed targeted anticancer drugs consistently rose from 508 (13.9%) in 2017 to 2,245 (12.3%) in 2020. Conclusion This study highlights the rising nationwide demand for comprehensive genetic testing for disease diagnosis and treatment following NGS reimbursement by the National Health Insurance in South Korea, in addition to the need for greater utilization of targeted anticancer drugs.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused the death of thousands of patients worldwide. Although age is known to be a risk factor for morbidity and mortality in COVID-19 patients, critical illness or death is occurring even in the younger age group as the epidemic spreads. In early 2022, omicron became the dominant variant of the COVID-19 virus in South Korea, and the epidemic proceeded on a large scale. Accordingly, this study aimed to determine whether young adults (aged ≤ 50 years) with critical COVID-19 infection during the omicron period had different characteristics from older patients and to determine the risk factors for mortality in this specific age group. Methods: We evaluated 213 critical adult patients (high flow nasal cannula or higher respiratory support) hospitalized for polymerase chain reaction-confirmed COVID-19 in nine hospitals in South Korea between February 1, 2022 and April 30, 2022. Demographic characteristics, including body mass index (BMI) and vaccination status; underlying diseases; clinical features and laboratory findings; clinical course; treatment received; and outcomes were collected from electronic medical records (EMRs) and analyzed according to age and mortality. Results: Overall, 71 critically ill patients aged ≤ 50 years were enrolled, and 142 critically ill patients aged over 50 years were selected through 1:2 matching based on the date of diagnosis. The most frequent underlying diseases among those aged ≤ 50 years were diabetes and hypertension, and all 14 patients who died had either a BMI ≥ 25 kg/m 2 or an underlying disease. The total case fatality rate among severe patients (S-CFR) was 31.0%, and the S-CFR differed according to age and was higher than that during the delta period. The S-CFR was 19.7% for those aged ≤ 50 years, 36.6% for those aged > 50 years, and 38.1% for those aged ≥ 65 years. In multivariate analysis, age (odds ratio [OR], 1.084; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.043–1.127), initial low-density lipoprotein > 600 IU/L (OR, 4.782; 95% CI, 1.584–14.434), initial C-reactive protein > 8 mg/dL (OR, 2.940; 95% CI, 1.042–8.293), highest aspartate aminotransferase > 200 IU/L (OR, 12.931; 95% CI, 1.691–98.908), and mechanical ventilation implementation (OR, 3.671; 95% CI, 1.294–10.420) were significant independent predictors of mortality in critical COVID-19 patients during the omicron wave. A similar pattern was shown when analyzing the data by age group, but most had no statistical significance owing to the small number of deaths in the young critical group. Although the vaccination completion rate of all the patients (31.0%) was higher than that in the delta wave period (13.6%), it was still lower than that of the general population. Further, only 15 (21.1%) critically ill patients aged ≤ 50 years were fully vaccinated. Overall, the severity of hospitalized critical patients was significantly higher than that in the delta period, indicating that it was difficult to find common risk factors in the two periods only with a simple comparison. Conclusion Overall, the S-CFR of critically ill COVID-19 patients in the omicron period was higher than that in the delta period, especially in those aged ≤ 50 years. All of the patients who died had an underlying disease or obesity. In the same population, the vaccination rate was very low compared to that in the delta wave, indicating that non-vaccination significantly affected the progression to critical illness. Notably, there was a lack of prescription for Paxlovid for these patients although they satisfied the prescription criteria. Early diagnosis and active initial treatment was necessary, along with the proven methods of vaccination and personal hygiene. Further studies are needed to determine how each variant affects critically ill patients.