Cochlear schwannomas, which are categorized into intracochlear and intravestibulocochlear schwannomas (ICs and IVCs, respectively) are rare and may cause hearing loss (HL). The affected region is invariably correlated with tumor location, which can be detected on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). We describe the cochleovestibular manifestations of ICs and IVCs. Subjects and Methods: The study included 31 patients with ICs or IVCs. Tumor extent and exact locations were delineated using MRI. Types of HL were subcategorized into the low-to-mid frequency (250 Hz to 1 kHz), mid-to-high frequency (>1 kHz), and all-frequency (universal) HL groups. Results: The tumors involved the entire cochlear turn (two ICs) or extended beyond the cochleae (nine IVCs) in 11 patients, and 20 ICs were located in specific locations as follows: 14 in the basal, 3 in the middle, and 3 in the middle and apical turns. No patient showed tumor invasion of the internal auditory canal or middle ear. The pattern of HL usually reflects the location or extent of a tumor. We observed HL at all frequencies, at low-to-mid frequencies, and at mid-to-high frequencies in 13, 4, and 14 patients, respectively. Dizziness or tinnitus was observed in >50% of patients. Surgical tumor removal was performed in 10 patients, and the remaining patients are undergoing annual monitoring. Conclusions: Cochlear schwannomas may be associated with HL, which may worsen over time and reflect tumor location. Therefore, these lesions should be considered in the differential diagnosis in patients who present with idiopathic, fluctuating, progressive or sudden HL.

Background and Objectives: This retrospective study, conducted at a single tertiary medical center, aimed to investigate the correlation between the severity of allergic rhinitis (AR) based on subjective symptoms and the severity assessed through laboratory data. Methods: In total, 584 patients who were diagnosed with AR by a multiple-allergen simultaneous test were included. Patients were classified into four groups according to the Allergic Rhinitis and its Impact on Asthma (ARIA) classification guideline. The visual analog scale (VAS) score for overall discomfort and laboratory parameters, including the serum total immunoglobulin E (IgE) level and peripheral blood eosinophil count, were evaluated in all patients. An analysis was conducted to examine the differences in VAS scores and laboratory findings among the four groups. Additionally, the correlations between the laboratory findings and VAS score were analyzed. Results: The serum total IgE level and the percentage and count of peripheral blood eosinophils showed no significant differences among the groups. However, the VAS score for overall discomfort exhibited notable between-group differences. The average VAS score was 6.14 (95% confidence interval 5.94–6.34) in the overall group. The mean scores of each group showed a noticeable increasing trend from the mild intermittent group to the mild persistent, moderate to severe intermittent, and moderate to severe persistent groups (p<0.001), although there was no clear correlation between the increase in VAS scores and laboratory parameters. Conclusion Neither the symptom-based ARIA guideline nor the VAS score correlated with the AR laboratory test measurements. The current laboratory data alone may not be sufficient to reflect the severity of AR based on subjective symptoms.

Background: To validate the treatment target of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level according to the cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk which was recommended by Korean dyslipidemia guideline. Methods: We used the Korean National Health Insurance Service database which included 3,958,048 people aged 20 to 89 years who underwent regular health screening. The primary outcome was incident CVD, defined as a composite of myocardial infarction and stroke during the follow-up period from 2009 to 2018. Results: The risk of CVD increased from LDL-C level of 70 mg/dL in very high-risk and high-risk groups and from 130 mg/dL in moderate-risk and low-risk groups. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) of LDL-C ranges 70–99, 100–129, 130–159, 160–189, and ≥190 mg/dL were 1.20 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08–1.33), 1.27 (1.15–1.42), 1.39 (1.23–1.56), 1.69 (1.45–1.96), and 1.84 (1.49– 2.27) in very high-risk group, and 1.07 (1.02–1.13), 1.16 (1.10–1.21), 1.29 (1.22–1.36), 1.45 (1.36–1.55), and 1.73 (1.58–1.90) in high-risk group. Adjusted HRs (95% CI) of LDL-C ranges 130–159, 160–189, and ≥190 mg/dL were 1.15 (1.11–1.20), 1.28 (1.22– 1.34), and 1.45 (1.36–1.54) in moderate-risk group and 1.07 (1.02–1.13), 1.20 (1.13–1.26), and 1.47 (1.37–1.57) in low-risk group. Conclusion We confirmed the incidence of CVD was increased in higher LDL-C range. The risk of CVD increased from ≥70 mg/dL of LDL-C in very high-risk and high-risk groups, and from ≥130 mg/dL of LDL-C in moderate-risk and low-risk groups in Korean adults.

Background: There are no clear data to support the cardiovascular (CV) risk categories and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) treatment goals in Korean people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We evaluated the incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) according to comorbidities and suggested LDL-C treatment goals in Korean people with T2DM in nationwide cohort data. Methods: Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, 248,002 people aged 30 to 90 years with T2DM who underwent routine health check-ups during 2009 were included. Subjects with previous CVD were excluded from the study. The primary outcome was incident CVD, defined as a composite of myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke during the follow-up period from 2009 to 2018. Results: The mean age of the study participants was 59.6±10.9 years, and median follow-up period was 9.3 years. CVD incidence increased in the order of DM duration of 5 years or more (12.04/1,000 person-years), hypertension (HT) (12.27/1,000 personyears), three or more CV risk factors (14.10/1,000 person-years), and chronic kidney disease (18.28/1,000 person-years). The risk of incident CVD increased linearly from an LDL-C level of ≥70 mg/dL in most patients with T2DM. In T2DM patients without HT or with a DM duration of less than 5 years, the CVD incidence increased from LDL-C level of ≥100 mg/dL. Conclusion For primary prevention of CVD in Korean adults with T2DM, it can be helpful to lower LDL-C targets when there are chronic kidney disease, HT, a long duration of diabetes mellitus, or three or more CV risk factors.

Purpose: This study explored the potential feasibility of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) in monitoring treatment response through the measurement of chromosomal instabilities using I-scores in the context of radiation therapy (RT) for other solid tumors. Materials and Methods: This study enrolled 23 patients treated with RT for lung, esophageal, and head and neck cancer. Serial cfDNA monitoring was performed before RT, 1 week after RT, and 1 month after RT. Low-depth whole-genome sequencing was done using Nano kit and NextSeq 500 (Illumina Inc.). To measure the extent of genome-wide copy number instability, I-score was calculated. Results: Pretreatment I-score was elevated to more than 5.09 in 17 patients (73.9%). There was a significant positive correlation between the gross tumor volume and the baseline I-score (Spearman rho = 0.419, p = 0.047). The median I-scores at baseline, post-RT 1 week (P1W), and post-RT 1 month (P1M) were 5.27, 5.13, and 4.79, respectively. The I-score at P1M was significantly lower than that at baseline (p = 0.002), while the difference between baseline and P1W was not significant (p = 0.244). Conclusion We have shown the feasibility of cfDNA I-score to detect minimal residual disease after RT in patients with lung cancer, esophageal cancer, and head and neck cancer. Additional studies are ongoing to optimize the measurement and analysis of I-scores to predict the radiation response in cancer patients.

OBJECTIVES: We estimated the population prevalence of antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), including unreported infections, through a Korea Seroprevalence Study of Monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Retention and Transmission (K-SEROSMART) in 258 communities throughout Korea. METHODS: In August 2022, a survey was conducted among 10,000 household members aged 5 years and older, in households selected through two stage probability random sampling. During face-to-face household interviews, participants self-reported their health status, COVID-19 diagnosis and vaccination history, and general characteristics. Subsequently, participants visited a community health center or medical clinic for blood sampling. Blood samples were analyzed for the presence of antibodies to spike proteins (anti-S) and antibodies to nucleocapsid proteins (anti-N) SARS-CoV-2 proteins using an electrochemiluminescence immunoassay. To estimate the population prevalence, the PROC SURVEYMEANS statistical procedure was employed, with weighting to reflect demographic data from July 2022. RESULTS: In total, 9,945 individuals from 5,041 households were surveyed across 258 communities, representing all basic local governments in Korea. The overall population-adjusted prevalence rates of anti-S and anti-N were 97.6% and 57.1%, respectively. Since the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency has reported a cumulative incidence of confirmed cases of 37.8% through July 31, 2022, the proportion of unreported infections among all COVID-19 infection was suggested to be 33.9%. CONCLUSIONS The K-SEROSMART represents the first nationwide, community-based seroepidemiologic survey of COVID-19, confirming that most individuals possess antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 and that a significant number of unreported cases existed. Furthermore, this study lays the foundation for a surveillance system to continuously monitor transmission at the community level and the response to COVID-19.

Background: The choice of an optimal oral hypoglycemic agent in the initial treatment periods for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients remains difficult and deliberate. We compared the efficacy and safety of glimepiride (GLIM), alogliptin (ALO), and alogliptin-pioglitazone (ALO-PIO) in poorly controlled T2DM patients with drug-naïve or metformin failure. Methods: In this three-arm, multicenter, open-label, randomized, controlled trial, poorly controlled T2DM patients were randomized to receive GLIM (n=35), ALO (n=31), or ALO-PIO (n=33) therapy for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was change in the mean glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels at week 24 from baseline. Secondary endpoints were changes in HbA1c level at week 12 from baseline, fasting plasma glucose (FPG) levels, lipid profiles at weeks 12 and 24, and parameters of glycemic variability, assessed by continuous glucose monitoring for 24 weeks. Results: At weeks 12 and 24, the ALO-PIO group showed significant reduction in HbA1c levels compared to the ALO group (–0.96%±0.17% vs. –0.37%±0.17% at week 12; –1.13%±0.19% vs. –0.18%±0.2% at week 24). The ALO-PIO therapy caused greater reduction in FPG levels and significant increase in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels at weeks 12 and 24 than the ALO therapy. Compared to low-dose GLIM therapy, ALO-PIO therapy showed greater improvement in glycemic variability. The adverse events were similar among the three arms. Conclusion ALO-PIO combination therapy during the early period exerts better glycemic control than ALO monotherapy and excellency in glycemic variability than low-dose sulfonylurea therapy in uncontrolled, drug-naïve or metformin failed T2DM patients.

The omicron variant of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is known to have high infectivity and is more likely to evade vaccine immunity. However, booster vaccination is expected to strengthen cross-reactive immunity, thereby increasing the vaccine effectiveness (VE). This study aimed to evaluate the relative VE of the 3-dose (booster) vaccination compared with the 2-dose primary series vaccination in healthcare workers during omicron variant-dominant periods. During the omicron-dominant period from February 1, 2022 to February 28, 2022, a 1:1 matched case-control study was conducted.Healthcare workers with positive SARS-CoV-2 test results were classified as positive cases, whereas those with negative results served as controls. Compared with the 2-dose primary series vaccination, booster vaccination with mRNA vaccine showed moderate VE (53.1%).However, in multivariate analysis including the time elapsed after vaccination, the significant VE disappeared, reflecting the impact of recent vaccination rather than the third dose itself.

Background: Since the supply of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines will be limited worldwide, it is essential to prioritize vaccination based on scientific evidence.Although several frameworks and studies on vaccine distribution have been published, no published systematic review has evaluated the prioritization of the COVID-19 vaccine. Materials and Methods: We searched 4 different databases, PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and EMBASE for articles published between January 2019 and December 31, 2020. Studies were included if they contained the primary search terms “vaccine”, “COVID-19”, and “prioritization”. In addition, we manually included reports from national and international websites. Results: Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria. In these studies, older adults were the most frequently mentioned group, and healthcare workers (HCWs) were mentioned as the 1st priority group. HCWs and patients with comorbidities were the 2nd and 3rd most frequently mentioned groups in the reviewed papers. Reducing severe COVID-19 was the most frequently mentioned goal. Conclusion Since vaccination programs have been initiated in several countries, scientific evidence on vaccination prioritization is needed to increase our knowledge of general vaccine prioritization and improve vaccine acceptance. Our results showed that HCWs and older adults were the most frequently valued in studies.

Background: Since the supply of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines will be limited worldwide, it is essential to prioritize vaccination based on scientific evidence.Although several frameworks and studies on vaccine distribution have been published, no published systematic review has evaluated the prioritization of the COVID-19 vaccine. Materials and Methods: We searched 4 different databases, PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and EMBASE for articles published between January 2019 and December 31, 2020. Studies were included if they contained the primary search terms “vaccine”, “COVID-19”, and “prioritization”. In addition, we manually included reports from national and international websites. Results: Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria. In these studies, older adults were the most frequently mentioned group, and healthcare workers (HCWs) were mentioned as the 1st priority group. HCWs and patients with comorbidities were the 2nd and 3rd most frequently mentioned groups in the reviewed papers. Reducing severe COVID-19 was the most frequently mentioned goal. Conclusion Since vaccination programs have been initiated in several countries, scientific evidence on vaccination prioritization is needed to increase our knowledge of general vaccine prioritization and improve vaccine acceptance. Our results showed that HCWs and older adults were the most frequently valued in studies.