Background: Skin rejuvenation has become an increasingly popular noninvasive approach to address age-related changes such as sagging, wrinkles, and skin laxity. Energy-based devices (EBDs) and injectables are widely used, but their application requires careful customization based on individual patient characteristics to optimize outcomes and minimize potential adverse effects. Objective: This study aimed to explore clinical practice patterns among board-certified dermatologists in South Korea, focusing on their strategies for tailoring skin rejuvenation treatments to individual patients, including the integration of EBDs, injectables, and senotherapeutics. Methods: A structured survey comprising 10 questions was administered to 13 experienced dermatologists specializing in skin rejuvenation. The survey covered treatment strategies for patients with varying facial fat volumes, pain management approaches, and the use of EBDs, injectables and senotherapeutics. Results: High-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) and radiofrequency (RF) were the most employed EBDs, often combined with injectables for enhanced outcomes. For patients with higher facial fat, HIFU and deoxycholic acid injections were preferred for contouring and tightening. For those with lower facial fat, biostimulatory agents such as poly-D, L-lactic acid and microneedle RF were favored to restore volume and elasticity. Pain management strategies included topical anesthetics and stepwise protocols. Although less commonly used, senotherapeutics were occasionally prescribed for specific conditions, such as melasma and extensive photoaging. Conclusion Dermatologists in South Korea employ a variety of patient-specific strategies for skin rejuvenation, combining various EBDs, injectables, and senotherapeutics. These findings highlight the importance of personalized treatment protocols and the need for further research to optimize treatment efficacy and safety.

Children face the excitement of a changing world but also encounter environmental threats to their health that were neither known nor suspected several decades ago. Children are at particular risk of exposure to pollutants that are widely dispersed in the air, water, and food. Children and adolescents are exposed to chemical, physical, and biological risks at home, in school, and elsewhere. Actions are needed to reduce these risks for children exposed to a series of environmental hazards. Exposure to a number of persistent environmental pollutants including air pollutants, endocrine disruptors, noise, electromagnetic waves (EMWs), tobacco and other noxious substances, heavy metals, and microplastics, is linked to damage to the nervous and immune systems and affects reproductive function and development. Exposure to environmental hazards is responsible for several acute and chronic diseases that have replaced infectious diseases as the principal cause of illnesses and death during childhood. Children are disproportionately exposed to environmental toxicities. Children drink more water, eat more food, and breathe more frequently than adults. As a result, children have a substantially heavier exposure to toxins present in water, food, or air than adults. In addition, their hand-to-mouth behaviors and the fact that they live and play close to the ground make them more vulnerable than adults. Children undergo rapid growth and development processes that are easily disrupted. These systems are very delicate and cannot adequately repair thetional development in children’s environmental health was the Declaration of the Environment Leaders of the Eight on Children’s Environmental Health by the Group of Eight. In 2002, the World Health Organization launched an initiative to improve children’s environmental protection effort. Here, we review major environmental pollutants and related hazards among children and adolescents.

Children face the excitement of a changing world but also encounter environmental threats to their health that were neither known nor suspected several decades ago. Children are at particular risk of exposure to pollutants that are widely dispersed in the air, water, and food. Children and adolescents are exposed to chemical, physical, and biological risks at home, in school, and elsewhere. Actions are needed to reduce these risks for children exposed to a series of environmental hazards. Exposure to a number of persistent environmental pollutants including air pollutants, endocrine disruptors, noise, electromagnetic waves (EMWs), tobacco and other noxious substances, heavy metals, and microplastics, is linked to damage to the nervous and immune systems and affects reproductive function and development. Exposure to environmental hazards is responsible for several acute and chronic diseases that have replaced infectious diseases as the principal cause of illnesses and death during childhood. Children are disproportionately exposed to environmental toxicities. Children drink more water, eat more food, and breathe more frequently than adults. As a result, children have a substantially heavier exposure to toxins present in water, food, or air than adults. In addition, their hand-to-mouth behaviors and the fact that they live and play close to the ground make them more vulnerable than adults. Children undergo rapid growth and development processes that are easily disrupted. These systems are very delicate and cannot adequately repair thetional development in children’s environmental health was the Declaration of the Environment Leaders of the Eight on Children’s Environmental Health by the Group of Eight. In 2002, the World Health Organization launched an initiative to improve children’s environmental protection effort. Here, we review major environmental pollutants and related hazards among children and adolescents.

Children face the excitement of a changing world but also encounter environmental threats to their health that were neither known nor suspected several decades ago. Children are at particular risk of exposure to pollutants that are widely dispersed in the air, water, and food. Children and adolescents are exposed to chemical, physical, and biological risks at home, in school, and elsewhere. Actions are needed to reduce these risks for children exposed to a series of environmental hazards. Exposure to a number of persistent environmental pollutants including air pollutants, endocrine disruptors, noise, electromagnetic waves (EMWs), tobacco and other noxious substances, heavy metals, and microplastics, is linked to damage to the nervous and immune systems and affects reproductive function and development. Exposure to environmental hazards is responsible for several acute and chronic diseases that have replaced infectious diseases as the principal cause of illnesses and death during childhood. Children are disproportionately exposed to environmental toxicities. Children drink more water, eat more food, and breathe more frequently than adults. As a result, children have a substantially heavier exposure to toxins present in water, food, or air than adults. In addition, their hand-to-mouth behaviors and the fact that they live and play close to the ground make them more vulnerable than adults. Children undergo rapid growth and development processes that are easily disrupted. These systems are very delicate and cannot adequately repair thetional development in children’s environmental health was the Declaration of the Environment Leaders of the Eight on Children’s Environmental Health by the Group of Eight. In 2002, the World Health Organization launched an initiative to improve children’s environmental protection effort. Here, we review major environmental pollutants and related hazards among children and adolescents.

Children face the excitement of a changing world but also encounter environmental threats to their health that were neither known nor suspected several decades ago. Children are at particular risk of exposure to pollutants that are widely dispersed in the air, water, and food. Children and adolescents are exposed to chemical, physical, and biological risks at home, in school, and elsewhere. Actions are needed to reduce these risks for children exposed to a series of environmental hazards. Exposure to a number of persistent environmental pollutants including air pollutants, endocrine disruptors, noise, electromagnetic waves (EMWs), tobacco and other noxious substances, heavy metals, and microplastics, is linked to damage to the nervous and immune systems and affects reproductive function and development. Exposure to environmental hazards is responsible for several acute and chronic diseases that have replaced infectious diseases as the principal cause of illnesses and death during childhood. Children are disproportionately exposed to environmental toxicities. Children drink more water, eat more food, and breathe more frequently than adults. As a result, children have a substantially heavier exposure to toxins present in water, food, or air than adults. In addition, their hand-to-mouth behaviors and the fact that they live and play close to the ground make them more vulnerable than adults. Children undergo rapid growth and development processes that are easily disrupted. These systems are very delicate and cannot adequately repair thetional development in children’s environmental health was the Declaration of the Environment Leaders of the Eight on Children’s Environmental Health by the Group of Eight. In 2002, the World Health Organization launched an initiative to improve children’s environmental protection effort. Here, we review major environmental pollutants and related hazards among children and adolescents.

Background and Objectives: Lipid lowering therapy is essential to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events; however, limited evidence exists regarding the use of statin with ezetimibe as primary prevention strategy for middle-aged adults. We aimed to investigate the impact of single pill combination therapy on clinical outcomes in relatively healthy middleaged patients when compared with statin monotherapy. Methods: Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, a propensity score match analysis was performed for baseline characteristics of 92,156 patients categorized into combination therapy (n=46,078) and statin monotherapy (n=46,078) groups. Primary outcome was composite outcomes, including death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke. And secondary outcome was all-cause death. The mean follow-up duration was 2.9±0.3 years. Results: The 3-year composite outcomes of all-cause death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke demonstrated no significant difference between the 2 groups (10.3% vs.10.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.022; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.980–1.064; p=0.309).Meanwhile, the 3-year all-cause death rate was lower in the combination therapy group than in the statin monotherapy group (0.2% vs. 0.4%; p<0.001), with a significant HR of 0.595 (95% CI, 0.460–0.769; p<0.001). Single pill combination therapy exhibited consistently lower mortality rates across various subgroups. Conclusions Compared to the statin monotherapy, the combination therapy for primary prevention showed no difference in composite outcomes but may reduce mortality risk in relatively healthy middle-aged patients. However, since the study was observational, further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Background and Objectives: Lipid lowering therapy is essential to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events; however, limited evidence exists regarding the use of statin with ezetimibe as primary prevention strategy for middle-aged adults. We aimed to investigate the impact of single pill combination therapy on clinical outcomes in relatively healthy middleaged patients when compared with statin monotherapy. Methods: Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, a propensity score match analysis was performed for baseline characteristics of 92,156 patients categorized into combination therapy (n=46,078) and statin monotherapy (n=46,078) groups. Primary outcome was composite outcomes, including death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke. And secondary outcome was all-cause death. The mean follow-up duration was 2.9±0.3 years. Results: The 3-year composite outcomes of all-cause death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke demonstrated no significant difference between the 2 groups (10.3% vs.10.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.022; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.980–1.064; p=0.309).Meanwhile, the 3-year all-cause death rate was lower in the combination therapy group than in the statin monotherapy group (0.2% vs. 0.4%; p<0.001), with a significant HR of 0.595 (95% CI, 0.460–0.769; p<0.001). Single pill combination therapy exhibited consistently lower mortality rates across various subgroups. Conclusions Compared to the statin monotherapy, the combination therapy for primary prevention showed no difference in composite outcomes but may reduce mortality risk in relatively healthy middle-aged patients. However, since the study was observational, further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Background and Objectives: Lipid lowering therapy is essential to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events; however, limited evidence exists regarding the use of statin with ezetimibe as primary prevention strategy for middle-aged adults. We aimed to investigate the impact of single pill combination therapy on clinical outcomes in relatively healthy middleaged patients when compared with statin monotherapy. Methods: Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, a propensity score match analysis was performed for baseline characteristics of 92,156 patients categorized into combination therapy (n=46,078) and statin monotherapy (n=46,078) groups. Primary outcome was composite outcomes, including death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke. And secondary outcome was all-cause death. The mean follow-up duration was 2.9±0.3 years. Results: The 3-year composite outcomes of all-cause death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke demonstrated no significant difference between the 2 groups (10.3% vs.10.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.022; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.980–1.064; p=0.309).Meanwhile, the 3-year all-cause death rate was lower in the combination therapy group than in the statin monotherapy group (0.2% vs. 0.4%; p<0.001), with a significant HR of 0.595 (95% CI, 0.460–0.769; p<0.001). Single pill combination therapy exhibited consistently lower mortality rates across various subgroups. Conclusions Compared to the statin monotherapy, the combination therapy for primary prevention showed no difference in composite outcomes but may reduce mortality risk in relatively healthy middle-aged patients. However, since the study was observational, further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Background and Objectives: Lipid lowering therapy is essential to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events; however, limited evidence exists regarding the use of statin with ezetimibe as primary prevention strategy for middle-aged adults. We aimed to investigate the impact of single pill combination therapy on clinical outcomes in relatively healthy middleaged patients when compared with statin monotherapy. Methods: Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, a propensity score match analysis was performed for baseline characteristics of 92,156 patients categorized into combination therapy (n=46,078) and statin monotherapy (n=46,078) groups. Primary outcome was composite outcomes, including death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke. And secondary outcome was all-cause death. The mean follow-up duration was 2.9±0.3 years. Results: The 3-year composite outcomes of all-cause death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke demonstrated no significant difference between the 2 groups (10.3% vs.10.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.022; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.980–1.064; p=0.309).Meanwhile, the 3-year all-cause death rate was lower in the combination therapy group than in the statin monotherapy group (0.2% vs. 0.4%; p<0.001), with a significant HR of 0.595 (95% CI, 0.460–0.769; p<0.001). Single pill combination therapy exhibited consistently lower mortality rates across various subgroups. Conclusions Compared to the statin monotherapy, the combination therapy for primary prevention showed no difference in composite outcomes but may reduce mortality risk in relatively healthy middle-aged patients. However, since the study was observational, further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer in Korea and the third leading cause of death from cancer. Treatment outcomes for colon cancer are steadily improving due to national health screening programs with advances in diagnostic methods, surgical techniques, and therapeutic agents.. The Korea Colon Cancer Multidisciplinary (KCCM) Committee intends to provide professionals who treat colon cancer with the most up-to-date, evidence-based practice guidelines to improve outcomes and help them make decisions that reflect their patients’ values and preferences. These guidelines have been established by consensus reached by the KCCM Guideline Committee based on a systematic literature review and evidence synthesis and by considering the national health insurance system in real clinical practice settings. Each recommendation is presented with a recommendation strength and level of evidence based on the consensus of the committee.