Background: We investigated osteoporosis management strategies and clinical outcomes following the occurrence of medicationrelated osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ). Methods: We retrospectively studied individuals diagnosed with MRONJ during osteoporosis treatment who were managed in the Osteoporosis Center or the Oral Maxillofacial Surgery & Dental Unit at Queen Mary Hospital in Hong Kong between 2010 and 2022. We examined subsequent osteoporosis management plans, fracture events, and bone mineral density (BMD). Results: Thirty-six individuals were included (mean age, 78.5 years; 94.4% women). The estimated prevalence of MRONJ was 0.26%. All patients had been exposed to bisphosphonates, and seven had also received denosumab before MRONJ. Following MRONJ, only 14 individuals continued anti-osteoporosis treatment, a decision influenced by a higher fracture probability at MRONJ onset. The most common regimen was a teriparatide-raloxifene sequence (n=8): three patients achieved stable BMD, four achieved improving BMD, and one exhibited a mixed response. The patient with a mixed BMD response had also been treated with denosumab. Six patients sustained incident fractures after MRONJ, and these patients had lower BMD T-scores than their counterparts. Two patients experienced MRONJ recurrence, which was associated with the resumption of bisphosphonate or denosumab therapy after MRONJ. These patients had higher BMD T-scores than those who did not experience MRONJ recurrence. Conclusion MRONJ is challenging because high fracture risk necessitates discontinuation of antiresorptive agents. Teriparatide followed by raloxifene may be a reasonable regimen. Individualised decisions in osteoporosis management after MRONJ are required to balance fracture risk reduction with minimising MRONJ recurrence.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) on clinical outcomes among high-risk patients. Methods: This retrospective study involved 1,368 patients and the same number of cycles, including 520 cycles with PGT-A and 848 cycles without PGT-A. The study participants comprised women of advanced maternal age (AMA) and those affected by recurrent implantation failure (RIF), recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL), or severe male factor infertility (SMF). Results: PGT-A was associated with significant improvements in the implantation rate (IR) and the ongoing pregnancy rate/live birth rate (OPR/LBR) per embryo transfer cycle in the AMA (39.3% vs. 16.2% [p<0.001] and 42.0% vs. 21.8% [p<0.001], respectively), RIF (41.7% vs. 22.0% [p<0.001] and 47.0% vs. 28.6% [p<0.001], respectively), and RPL (45.6% vs. 19.5% [p<0.001] and 49.1% vs. 24.2% [p<0.001], respectively) groups, as well as the IR in the SMF group (43.3% vs. 26.5%, p=0.011). Additionally, PGT-A was associated with lower overall incidence rates of early pregnancy loss in the AMA (16.7% vs. 34.3%, p=0.001) and RPL (16.7% vs. 50.0%, p<0.001) groups. However, the OPR/LBR per total cycle across all PGT-A groups did not significantly exceed that for the non-PGT-A groups. Conclusion PGT-A demonstrated beneficial effects in high-risk patients. However, our findings indicate that these benefits are more pronounced in carefully selected candidates than in the entire high-risk patient population.

Background: We evaluated changes in glycemic status, over 1 year, of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) survivors with dysglycemia in acute COVID-19. Methods: COVID-19 survivors who had dysglycemia (defined by glycosylated hemoglobin [HbA1c] 5.7% to 6.4% or random glucose ≥10.0 mmol/L) in acute COVID-19 were recruited from a major COVID-19 treatment center from September to October 2020. Matched non-COVID controls were recruited from community. The 75-g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) were performed at baseline (6 weeks after acute COVID-19) and 1 year after acute COVID-19, with HbA1c, insulin and C-peptide measurements. Progression in glycemic status was defined by progression from normoglycemia to prediabetes/diabetes, or prediabetes to diabetes. Results: Fifty-two COVID-19 survivors were recruited. Compared with non-COVID controls, they had higher C-peptide (P< 0.001) and trend towards higher homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (P=0.065). Forty-three COVID-19 survivors attended 1-year reassessment. HbA1c increased from 5.5%±0.3% to 5.7%±0.2% (P<0.001), with increases in glucose on OGTT at fasting (P=0.089), 30-minute (P=0.126), 1-hour (P=0.014), and 2-hour (P=0.165). At baseline, 19 subjects had normoglycemia, 23 had prediabetes, and one had diabetes. Over 1 year, 10 subjects (23.8%; of 42 non-diabetes subjects at baseline) had progression in glycemic status. C-peptide levels remained unchanged (P=0.835). Matsuda index decreased (P=0.007) and there was a trend of body mass index increase from 24.4±2.7 kg/m2 to 25.6±5.2 (P=0.083). Subjects with progression in glycemic status had more severe COVID-19 illness than non-progressors (P=0.030). Reassessment was not performed in the control group. Conclusion Subjects who had dysglycemia in acute COVID-19 were characterized by insulin resistance. Over 1 year, a quarter had progression in glycemic status, especially those with more severe COVID-19. Importantly, there was no significant deterioration in insulin secretory capacity.

Background: Atherogenic dyslipidemia, which is frequently associated with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and insulin resistance, contributes to the development of vascular complications. Statin therapy is the primary approach to dyslipidemia management in T2D, however, the role of non-statin therapy remains unclear. Ezetimibe reduces cholesterol burden by inhibiting intestinal cholesterol absorption. Fibrates lower triglyceride levels and increase high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels via peroxisome proliferator- activated receptor alpha agonism. Therefore, when combined, these drugs effectively lower non-HDL-C levels. Despite this, few clinical trials have specifically targeted non-HDL-C, and the efficacy of triple combination therapies, including statins, ezetimibe, and fibrates, has yet to be determined. Methods: This is a multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label, active-comparator controlled trial involving 3,958 eligible participants with T2D, cardiovascular risk factors, and elevated non-HDL-C (≥100 mg/dL). Participants, already on moderate-intensity statins, will be randomly assigned to either Ezefeno (ezetimibe/fenofibrate) addition or statin dose-escalation. The primary end point is the development of a composite of major adverse cardiovascular and diabetic microvascular events over 48 months. Conclusion This trial aims to assess whether combining statins, ezetimibe, and fenofibrate is as effective as, or possibly superior to, statin monotherapy intensification in lowering cardiovascular and microvascular disease risk for patients with T2D. This could propose a novel therapeutic approach for managing dyslipidemia in T2D.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

OBJECTIVES: Proteinuria is widely used to predict cardiovascular risk. However, there is insufficient evidence to predict how changes in proteinuria may affect the incidence of cardiovascular disease. METHODS: The study included 265,236 Korean adults who underwent health checkups in 2003-2004 and 2007-2008. They were categorized into 4 groups based on changes in proteinuria (negative: negative → negative; resolved: proteinuria ≥1+ → negative; incident: negative → proteinuria ≥1+; persistent: proteinuria ≥1+ → proteinuria ≥1+). We conducted 6 years of follow-up to identify the risks of developing ischemic heart disease (IHD), acute myocardial infarction (AMI), and angina pectoris according to changes in proteinuria. A multivariate Cox proportional-hazards model was used to calculate adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for incident IHD, AMI, and angina pectoris. RESULTS: The IHD risk (expressed as HR [95% CI]) was the highest for persistent proteinuria, followed in descending order by incident and resolved proteinuria, compared with negative proteinuria (negative: reference, resolved: 1.211 [95% CI, 1.104 to 1.329], incident: 1.288 [95% CI, 1.184 to 1.400], and persistent: 1.578 [95% CI, 1.324 to 1.881]). The same pattern was associated with AMI (negative: reference, resolved: 1.401 [95% CI, 1.048 to 1.872], incident: 1.606 [95% CI, 1.268 to 2.035], and persistent: 2.069 [95% CI, 1.281 to 3.342]) and angina pectoris (negative: reference, resolved: 1.184 [95% CI, 1.065 to 1.316], incident: 1.275 [95% CI, 1.160 to 1.401], and persistent: 1.554 [95% CI, 1.272 to 1.899]). CONCLUSIONS Experiencing proteinuria increased the risks of IHD, AMI, and angina pectoris even after proteinuria resolved.

Methods: A total of 90 patients underwent APCT within 48 hours of surgery. Medical records were reviewed to determine each patient’s age, sex, body mass index, medical and surgical histories, characteristics of LLIF procedures, and subjective symptoms and abnormal findings in the physical examination related to acute abdomen after surgery. Various parameters were compared between patients with and without pneumoperitoneum. Results: Bowel injuries were identified in the first two patients and five patients (5.5%) were diagnosed with pneumoperitoneum only on APCT. We found that the greater the number of fused segments, the higher the incidence of postoperative bowel injury and/or pneumoperitoneum. The incidence was significantly high when the L2–3 level was included in the LLIF surgery. Conclusions Pneumoperitoneum after LLIF indicates damage to the peritoneum and the presence of bowel injury that may lead to peritonitis. However, it is difficult to distinguish pneumoperitoneum and/or bowel injury from general abdominal pain after surgery because patients may present with a wide range of symptoms. We recommend that APCT be routinely performed after LLIF surgery in order to promptly identify pneumoperitoneum and bowel injury.