Neuropathic pain markedly impairs quality of life and imposes a substantial socioeconomic burden, while available treatments often provide only partial relief and are limited by safety concerns. The Neuropathic Pain Special Interest Group of the International Association for the Study of Pain (NeuPSIG-IASP) first published pharmacologic recommendations in 2007, followed by a major update in 2015 and a new guideline in 2025. This narrative review specifically compares the 2015 and 2025 NeuPSIG-IASP guidelines, outlining key methodological changes and therapeutic shifts. The 2025 guideline is based on a larger, more rigorous meta-analysis, maintains α2δ-ligands (adds mirogabalin), serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors, and tricyclic antidepressants as first-line drugs, downgrades tramadol into the opioid third-line group. It also introduces high-frequency motor-cortex repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation as a weakly recommended third-line option and discusses implications for Korean clinical practice.

Background: Asthma remission has recently emerged as an aspirational treatment goal, yet its definition remains inconsistent across studies and expert groups. The absence of a standardized framework hampers its application in clinical practice and research, particularly in Korea where biologics use is rapidly increasing. This study aimed to establish a consensus definition of clinical remission in severe asthma among Korean experts. Methods: A two-round modified Delphi survey, followed by a focused third round, was conducted among 28 board-certified pulmonologists from the Korean Academy of Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases (KATRD). The questionnaire consisted of six domains and 27 items. Responses were analyzed using agreement rates, interquartile ranges, and content validity ratios to determine consensus levels. Results: Consensus was reached on defining clinical remission as a composite of no exacerbations, no systemic corticosteroid use, sustained symptom control (Asthma Control Test ≥20 on at least three occasions over 12 months), and stabilization and optimization of pulmonary function while on maintenance treatment. Experts agreed that pulmonary function should be assessed based on clinical judgment rather than absolute thresholds. Complete remission was additionally defined as fulfilling all clinical remission criteria with normalization of type 2 inflammation (blood eosinophils <300/μL and fractional exhaled nitric oxide <25 ppb). Conclusion This Delphi consensus provides a regionally relevant and pragmatic framework for defining remission in severe asthma. These statements may help guide clinical practice, inform guideline development, and support future research on remission as a treatment goal.

Background: There are limited long-term clinical outcome data comparing first-generation (1G) versus second-generation (2G) drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with single-vessel disease (SVD). We sought to compare the efficacy and safety of 1G- and 2G-DES in SVD patients who underwent successful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) over 10 years of clinical follow-up. Methods: A total of 2,312 consecutive patients with SVD who underwent PCI with 1G-DES (paclitaxel- or sirolimus-eluting stents, n = 811) or 2G-DES (zotarolimus [Endeavor, Endeavor Resolute]- or everolimus-eluting stents [Promus Element, Xience], n = 1,082) were enrolled.After propensity score matching, 2 matched groups (538 pairs) were generated. Study endpoints included individual and composite clinical outcomes through 10 years. Results: During the 10-year follow-up, the 2G-DES group had lower incidences of myocardial infarction (MI; hazard ratio [HR], 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.22–0.92; P = 0.028) and target lesion revascularization (TLR; HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.32–0.91; P = 0.021) than the 1G-DES group. Rates of total death, cardiac death, non-target vessel revascularization, stroke, major adverse cardiac events, and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events were similar between groups. Conclusions In our single-center, all-comer registry, 2G-DES were associated with lower incidence rates of MI and TLR compared to 1G-DES in SVD patients over 10 years of followup, indicating a safer and more durable effect than 1G-DES.

Purpose: This study aimed to validate pivotal pre-test probability (PTP)-coronary artery disease (CAD) models (CAD consortium model and IJC-CAD model). Materials and Methods: Traditional PTP models-CAD consortium models: two traditional PTP models were used under the CAD consortium framework, namely CAD1 and CAD2. Machine learning (ML)-based PTP models: two ML-based PTP models were derived from CAD1 and CAD2, and used to enhance predictive capabilities [ML-CAD2 and ML-IJC (IJC-CAD)]. The primary endpoint was obstructive CAD. The performance evaluation of these PTP models was conducted using receiver-operating characteristic analysis. Results: The study included 238 participants, among whom 157 individuals (65.9% of the total sample) had CAD. The IJC-CAD model demonstrated the highest performance with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.860 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.812– 0.909]. Following this, the ML-CAD2 model exhibited an AUC of 0.814 (95% CI: 0.758–0.870), CAD1 showed an AUC of 0.767 (95% CI: 0.705–0.830), and CAD2 had an AUC of 0.785 (95% CI: 0.726–0.845). Each of the PTP models was adjusted to have a CAD score cutoff that classified cases with a sensitivity of over 95%. The respective cutoff values were as follows: CAD1 and CAD2 >12, MLCAD2 >0.380, and IJC-CAD >0.367. All PTP models achieved a CAD sensitivity of over 95%. Similar to the AUC performance, the accuracy of the PTP models was highest for IJC-CAD, reaching 80.3%. The accuracy of ML-CAD2 was 77.7%, while that for CAD1 and CAD2 was 74.8% and 75.2%, respectively. Conclusion ML-CAD2 and IJC-CAD showed superior performance compared to traditional existing models (CAD1 and CAD2)

Purpose: This study aimed to validate pivotal pre-test probability (PTP)-coronary artery disease (CAD) models (CAD consortium model and IJC-CAD model). Materials and Methods: Traditional PTP models-CAD consortium models: two traditional PTP models were used under the CAD consortium framework, namely CAD1 and CAD2. Machine learning (ML)-based PTP models: two ML-based PTP models were derived from CAD1 and CAD2, and used to enhance predictive capabilities [ML-CAD2 and ML-IJC (IJC-CAD)]. The primary endpoint was obstructive CAD. The performance evaluation of these PTP models was conducted using receiver-operating characteristic analysis. Results: The study included 238 participants, among whom 157 individuals (65.9% of the total sample) had CAD. The IJC-CAD model demonstrated the highest performance with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.860 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.812– 0.909]. Following this, the ML-CAD2 model exhibited an AUC of 0.814 (95% CI: 0.758–0.870), CAD1 showed an AUC of 0.767 (95% CI: 0.705–0.830), and CAD2 had an AUC of 0.785 (95% CI: 0.726–0.845). Each of the PTP models was adjusted to have a CAD score cutoff that classified cases with a sensitivity of over 95%. The respective cutoff values were as follows: CAD1 and CAD2 >12, MLCAD2 >0.380, and IJC-CAD >0.367. All PTP models achieved a CAD sensitivity of over 95%. Similar to the AUC performance, the accuracy of the PTP models was highest for IJC-CAD, reaching 80.3%. The accuracy of ML-CAD2 was 77.7%, while that for CAD1 and CAD2 was 74.8% and 75.2%, respectively. Conclusion ML-CAD2 and IJC-CAD showed superior performance compared to traditional existing models (CAD1 and CAD2)

Purpose: This study aimed to validate pivotal pre-test probability (PTP)-coronary artery disease (CAD) models (CAD consortium model and IJC-CAD model). Materials and Methods: Traditional PTP models-CAD consortium models: two traditional PTP models were used under the CAD consortium framework, namely CAD1 and CAD2. Machine learning (ML)-based PTP models: two ML-based PTP models were derived from CAD1 and CAD2, and used to enhance predictive capabilities [ML-CAD2 and ML-IJC (IJC-CAD)]. The primary endpoint was obstructive CAD. The performance evaluation of these PTP models was conducted using receiver-operating characteristic analysis. Results: The study included 238 participants, among whom 157 individuals (65.9% of the total sample) had CAD. The IJC-CAD model demonstrated the highest performance with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.860 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.812– 0.909]. Following this, the ML-CAD2 model exhibited an AUC of 0.814 (95% CI: 0.758–0.870), CAD1 showed an AUC of 0.767 (95% CI: 0.705–0.830), and CAD2 had an AUC of 0.785 (95% CI: 0.726–0.845). Each of the PTP models was adjusted to have a CAD score cutoff that classified cases with a sensitivity of over 95%. The respective cutoff values were as follows: CAD1 and CAD2 >12, MLCAD2 >0.380, and IJC-CAD >0.367. All PTP models achieved a CAD sensitivity of over 95%. Similar to the AUC performance, the accuracy of the PTP models was highest for IJC-CAD, reaching 80.3%. The accuracy of ML-CAD2 was 77.7%, while that for CAD1 and CAD2 was 74.8% and 75.2%, respectively. Conclusion ML-CAD2 and IJC-CAD showed superior performance compared to traditional existing models (CAD1 and CAD2)

Purpose: This study aimed to validate pivotal pre-test probability (PTP)-coronary artery disease (CAD) models (CAD consortium model and IJC-CAD model). Materials and Methods: Traditional PTP models-CAD consortium models: two traditional PTP models were used under the CAD consortium framework, namely CAD1 and CAD2. Machine learning (ML)-based PTP models: two ML-based PTP models were derived from CAD1 and CAD2, and used to enhance predictive capabilities [ML-CAD2 and ML-IJC (IJC-CAD)]. The primary endpoint was obstructive CAD. The performance evaluation of these PTP models was conducted using receiver-operating characteristic analysis. Results: The study included 238 participants, among whom 157 individuals (65.9% of the total sample) had CAD. The IJC-CAD model demonstrated the highest performance with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.860 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.812– 0.909]. Following this, the ML-CAD2 model exhibited an AUC of 0.814 (95% CI: 0.758–0.870), CAD1 showed an AUC of 0.767 (95% CI: 0.705–0.830), and CAD2 had an AUC of 0.785 (95% CI: 0.726–0.845). Each of the PTP models was adjusted to have a CAD score cutoff that classified cases with a sensitivity of over 95%. The respective cutoff values were as follows: CAD1 and CAD2 >12, MLCAD2 >0.380, and IJC-CAD >0.367. All PTP models achieved a CAD sensitivity of over 95%. Similar to the AUC performance, the accuracy of the PTP models was highest for IJC-CAD, reaching 80.3%. The accuracy of ML-CAD2 was 77.7%, while that for CAD1 and CAD2 was 74.8% and 75.2%, respectively. Conclusion ML-CAD2 and IJC-CAD showed superior performance compared to traditional existing models (CAD1 and CAD2)