Background: Oral sulfate tablets (OSTs) are bowel preparation agents that combine oral sulfate solution and simethicone. This study compared the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of OST compared to 2 L-polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (2 L-PEG/ASC). Methods: This prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blinded, multicenter, noninferiority trial enrolled 211 healthy adults who underwent colonoscopy between May 2020 and September 2022 at 13 university hospitals. The bowel cleansing rate was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS), and the preparation agents were administered in split regimens. Results: The total BBPS score (8.2 ± 1.5 vs. 7.8 ± 1.4, p = 0.040) and the high-quality bowel cleansing rates in the right colon (73.2% vs. 50.5), transverse colon (80.6% vs. 68.0%), and left colon (81.5% vs. 67.0%) on the BBPS were significantly higher in the OST group than in the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. However, the rates of successful cleansing according to BBPS (90.7% vs. 91.2%) and HCS (96.3% vs. 94.2%) did not significantly differ between the two groups.The taste, ease, and amount of consumption of the preparation agent; and willingness to repeat colonoscopy with the same agent (89.8% vs. 78.6%, P = 0.026) were significantly better in the OST group compared to the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. Adverse events and clinically significant laboratory changes were not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusion The OST was not inferior to 2 L-PEG/ASC in terms of bowel cleansing efficacy and showed better tolerability when used for bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Background: Islet transplantation holds promise for treating selected type 1 diabetes mellitus patients, yet the scarcity of human donor organs impedes widespread adoption. Porcine islets, deemed a viable alternative, recently demonstrated successful longterm survival without zoonotic risks in a clinically relevant pig-to-non-human primate islet transplantation model. This success prompted the development of a clinical trial protocol for porcine islet xenotransplantation in humans. Methods: A single-center, open-label clinical trial initiated by the sponsor will assess the safety and efficacy of porcine islet transplantation for diabetes patients at Gachon Hospital. The protocol received approval from the Gachon Hospital Institutional Review Board (IRB) and the Korean Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS) under the Investigational New Drug (IND) process. Two diabetic patients, experiencing inadequate glycemic control despite intensive insulin treatment and frequent hypoglycemic unawareness, will be enrolled. Participants and their family members will engage in deliberation before xenotransplantation during the screening period. Each patient will receive islets isolated from designated pathogen-free pigs. Immunosuppressants and systemic infection prophylaxis will follow the program schedule. The primary endpoint is to confirm the safety of porcine islets in patients, and the secondary endpoint is to assess whether porcine islets can reduce insulin dose and the frequency of hypoglycemic unawareness. Conclusion A clinical trial protocol adhering to global consensus guidelines for porcine islet xenotransplantation is presented, facilitating streamlined implementation of comparable human trials worldwide.

Background: Oral sulfate tablets (OSTs) are bowel preparation agents that combine oral sulfate solution and simethicone. This study compared the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of OST compared to 2 L-polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (2 L-PEG/ASC). Methods: This prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blinded, multicenter, noninferiority trial enrolled 211 healthy adults who underwent colonoscopy between May 2020 and September 2022 at 13 university hospitals. The bowel cleansing rate was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS), and the preparation agents were administered in split regimens. Results: The total BBPS score (8.2 ± 1.5 vs. 7.8 ± 1.4, p = 0.040) and the high-quality bowel cleansing rates in the right colon (73.2% vs. 50.5), transverse colon (80.6% vs. 68.0%), and left colon (81.5% vs. 67.0%) on the BBPS were significantly higher in the OST group than in the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. However, the rates of successful cleansing according to BBPS (90.7% vs. 91.2%) and HCS (96.3% vs. 94.2%) did not significantly differ between the two groups.The taste, ease, and amount of consumption of the preparation agent; and willingness to repeat colonoscopy with the same agent (89.8% vs. 78.6%, P = 0.026) were significantly better in the OST group compared to the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. Adverse events and clinically significant laboratory changes were not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusion The OST was not inferior to 2 L-PEG/ASC in terms of bowel cleansing efficacy and showed better tolerability when used for bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Background: Oral sulfate tablets (OSTs) are bowel preparation agents that combine oral sulfate solution and simethicone. This study compared the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of OST compared to 2 L-polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (2 L-PEG/ASC). Methods: This prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blinded, multicenter, noninferiority trial enrolled 211 healthy adults who underwent colonoscopy between May 2020 and September 2022 at 13 university hospitals. The bowel cleansing rate was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS), and the preparation agents were administered in split regimens. Results: The total BBPS score (8.2 ± 1.5 vs. 7.8 ± 1.4, p = 0.040) and the high-quality bowel cleansing rates in the right colon (73.2% vs. 50.5), transverse colon (80.6% vs. 68.0%), and left colon (81.5% vs. 67.0%) on the BBPS were significantly higher in the OST group than in the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. However, the rates of successful cleansing according to BBPS (90.7% vs. 91.2%) and HCS (96.3% vs. 94.2%) did not significantly differ between the two groups.The taste, ease, and amount of consumption of the preparation agent; and willingness to repeat colonoscopy with the same agent (89.8% vs. 78.6%, P = 0.026) were significantly better in the OST group compared to the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. Adverse events and clinically significant laboratory changes were not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusion The OST was not inferior to 2 L-PEG/ASC in terms of bowel cleansing efficacy and showed better tolerability when used for bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Background: Islet transplantation holds promise for treating selected type 1 diabetes mellitus patients, yet the scarcity of human donor organs impedes widespread adoption. Porcine islets, deemed a viable alternative, recently demonstrated successful longterm survival without zoonotic risks in a clinically relevant pig-to-non-human primate islet transplantation model. This success prompted the development of a clinical trial protocol for porcine islet xenotransplantation in humans. Methods: A single-center, open-label clinical trial initiated by the sponsor will assess the safety and efficacy of porcine islet transplantation for diabetes patients at Gachon Hospital. The protocol received approval from the Gachon Hospital Institutional Review Board (IRB) and the Korean Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS) under the Investigational New Drug (IND) process. Two diabetic patients, experiencing inadequate glycemic control despite intensive insulin treatment and frequent hypoglycemic unawareness, will be enrolled. Participants and their family members will engage in deliberation before xenotransplantation during the screening period. Each patient will receive islets isolated from designated pathogen-free pigs. Immunosuppressants and systemic infection prophylaxis will follow the program schedule. The primary endpoint is to confirm the safety of porcine islets in patients, and the secondary endpoint is to assess whether porcine islets can reduce insulin dose and the frequency of hypoglycemic unawareness. Conclusion A clinical trial protocol adhering to global consensus guidelines for porcine islet xenotransplantation is presented, facilitating streamlined implementation of comparable human trials worldwide.

Background: Islet transplantation holds promise for treating selected type 1 diabetes mellitus patients, yet the scarcity of human donor organs impedes widespread adoption. Porcine islets, deemed a viable alternative, recently demonstrated successful longterm survival without zoonotic risks in a clinically relevant pig-to-non-human primate islet transplantation model. This success prompted the development of a clinical trial protocol for porcine islet xenotransplantation in humans. Methods: A single-center, open-label clinical trial initiated by the sponsor will assess the safety and efficacy of porcine islet transplantation for diabetes patients at Gachon Hospital. The protocol received approval from the Gachon Hospital Institutional Review Board (IRB) and the Korean Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS) under the Investigational New Drug (IND) process. Two diabetic patients, experiencing inadequate glycemic control despite intensive insulin treatment and frequent hypoglycemic unawareness, will be enrolled. Participants and their family members will engage in deliberation before xenotransplantation during the screening period. Each patient will receive islets isolated from designated pathogen-free pigs. Immunosuppressants and systemic infection prophylaxis will follow the program schedule. The primary endpoint is to confirm the safety of porcine islets in patients, and the secondary endpoint is to assess whether porcine islets can reduce insulin dose and the frequency of hypoglycemic unawareness. Conclusion A clinical trial protocol adhering to global consensus guidelines for porcine islet xenotransplantation is presented, facilitating streamlined implementation of comparable human trials worldwide.

Objective: The 2020 Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) guidelines recommend the use of feedback devices during CPR training and do not limit their use in actual CPR. Although there have been various studies on metronome-assisted CPR that use a metronome as a feedback device, there are no research results to determine a specific metronome setting rate. We analyzed the quality of CPR and the effectiveness of the metronome feedback according to the metronome setting rate within the recommended chest compression rate range. Methods: Fifty healthcare providers who had received CPR training or had performed CPR in the previous 2 years participated, and all of them performed CPR at three rates (100/min, 110/min, and 120/min). The CPR was performed for 2 minutes with only chest compressions. The smartphone metronome (Metronome version 13.0 Android, KHTSXR, Seoul, Korea) application was used for the rate setting, and Resusci Anne QCPR Mk II (Laerdal Medical, Stavanger, Norway) was used to measure the CPR quality. The difference in the CPR quality according to the setting rate was analyzed. Results: There was no significant difference in the “average compression depth (mm),” “adequate compression depth ratio (%),” and “adequate release ratio (%)” at the three set rates. The “adequate compression rate ratio (%)” was 98.48±5.27% at 110/min, which was higher than that at 120/min or 100/min, and this was a statistically significant difference (P=0.000). There was no significant difference in the “adequate compression site ratio (%).” Conclusion When performing metronome-assisted CPR, setting the rate to 110/min can more appropriately maintain the recommended chest compression rate range and can result in high-quality CPR.

Background/Aims: To compare the effects of abatacept and conventional synthetic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) on the progression and development of rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD). Methods: This multi-center retrospective study included RA patients receiving abatacept or csDMARDs who underwent at least two pulmonary function tests and/or chest high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT). We compared the following outcomes between the groups: progression of RA-ILD, development of new ILD in RA patients without ILD at baseline, 28-joint Disease Activity Score with the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28-ESR), and safety. Longitudinal changes were compared between the groups by using a generalized estimating equation. Results: The study included 123 patients who were treated with abatacept (n = 59) or csDMARDs (n = 64). Nineteen (32.2%) and 38 (59.4%) patients treated with abatacept and csDMARDs, respectively, presented with RA-ILD at baseline. Newly developed ILD occurred in one patient receiving triple csDMARDs for 32 months. Among patients with RA-ILD at baseline, ILD progressed in 21.1% of cases treated with abatacept and 34.2% of cases treated with csDMARDs during a median 21-month follow-up. Longitudinal changes in forced vital capacity and diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide were comparable between the two groups. However, the abatacept group showed a more significant decrease in DAS28-ESR and glucocorticoid doses than csDMARDs group during the follow-up. The safety of both regimens was comparable. Conclusions Abatacept and csDMARDs showed comparable effects on the development and stabilization of RA-ILD. Nevertheless, compared to csDMARDs, abatacept demonstrated a significant improvement in disease activity and led to reduced glucocorticoid use.

Background: Islet transplantation holds promise for treating selected type 1 diabetes mellitus patients, yet the scarcity of human donor organs impedes widespread adoption. Porcine islets, deemed a viable alternative, recently demonstrated successful longterm survival without zoonotic risks in a clinically relevant pig-to-non-human primate islet transplantation model. This success prompted the development of a clinical trial protocol for porcine islet xenotransplantation in humans. Methods: A single-center, open-label clinical trial initiated by the sponsor will assess the safety and efficacy of porcine islet transplantation for diabetes patients at Gachon Hospital. The protocol received approval from the Gachon Hospital Institutional Review Board (IRB) and the Korean Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS) under the Investigational New Drug (IND) process. Two diabetic patients, experiencing inadequate glycemic control despite intensive insulin treatment and frequent hypoglycemic unawareness, will be enrolled. Participants and their family members will engage in deliberation before xenotransplantation during the screening period. Each patient will receive islets isolated from designated pathogen-free pigs. Immunosuppressants and systemic infection prophylaxis will follow the program schedule. The primary endpoint is to confirm the safety of porcine islets in patients, and the secondary endpoint is to assess whether porcine islets can reduce insulin dose and the frequency of hypoglycemic unawareness. Conclusion A clinical trial protocol adhering to global consensus guidelines for porcine islet xenotransplantation is presented, facilitating streamlined implementation of comparable human trials worldwide.

Background: Oral sulfate tablets (OSTs) are bowel preparation agents that combine oral sulfate solution and simethicone. This study compared the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of OST compared to 2 L-polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (2 L-PEG/ASC). Methods: This prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blinded, multicenter, noninferiority trial enrolled 211 healthy adults who underwent colonoscopy between May 2020 and September 2022 at 13 university hospitals. The bowel cleansing rate was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS), and the preparation agents were administered in split regimens. Results: The total BBPS score (8.2 ± 1.5 vs. 7.8 ± 1.4, p = 0.040) and the high-quality bowel cleansing rates in the right colon (73.2% vs. 50.5), transverse colon (80.6% vs. 68.0%), and left colon (81.5% vs. 67.0%) on the BBPS were significantly higher in the OST group than in the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. However, the rates of successful cleansing according to BBPS (90.7% vs. 91.2%) and HCS (96.3% vs. 94.2%) did not significantly differ between the two groups.The taste, ease, and amount of consumption of the preparation agent; and willingness to repeat colonoscopy with the same agent (89.8% vs. 78.6%, P = 0.026) were significantly better in the OST group compared to the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. Adverse events and clinically significant laboratory changes were not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusion The OST was not inferior to 2 L-PEG/ASC in terms of bowel cleansing efficacy and showed better tolerability when used for bowel preparation for colonoscopy.