Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

Background: Antithyroid drug (ATD) treatment is the preferred initial treatment for Graves’ disease (GD) in South Korea, despite higher treatment failure rates than radioactive iodine (RAI) therapy or thyroidectomy. This study aimed to evaluate the incidence of treatment failure associated with the primary modalities for GD treatment in real-world practice. Methods: We included 452,001 patients diagnosed with GD between 2004 and 2020 from the Korean National Health Insurance Service-National Health Information Database. Treatment failure was defined as switching from ATD, RAI, or thyroidectomy treatments, and for ATD specifically, inability to discontinue medication for over 2 years. Results: Mean age was 46.2 years, with females constituting 70.8%. Initial treatments for GD included ATDs (98.0%), thyroidectomy (1.3%), and RAI (0.7%), with a noted increment in ATD application from 96.2% in 2004 to 98.8% in 2020. During a median follow- up of 8.5 years, the treatment failure rates were 58.5% for ATDs, 21.3% for RAI, and 2.1% for thyroidectomy. Multivariate analysis indicated that the hazard ratio for treatment failure with ATD was 2.81 times higher than RAI. RAI treatments ≥10 mCi had 37% lower failure rates than doses <10 mCi. Conclusion ATDs are the most commonly used for GD in South Korea, followed by thyroidectomy and RAI. Although the risk of treatment failure for ATD is higher than that of RAI therapy, initial RAI treatment in South Korea is relatively limited compared to that in Western countries. Further studies are required to evaluate the cause of low initial RAI treatment rates in South Korea.

Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

Background: Antithyroid drug (ATD) treatment is the preferred initial treatment for Graves’ disease (GD) in South Korea, despite higher treatment failure rates than radioactive iodine (RAI) therapy or thyroidectomy. This study aimed to evaluate the incidence of treatment failure associated with the primary modalities for GD treatment in real-world practice. Methods: We included 452,001 patients diagnosed with GD between 2004 and 2020 from the Korean National Health Insurance Service-National Health Information Database. Treatment failure was defined as switching from ATD, RAI, or thyroidectomy treatments, and for ATD specifically, inability to discontinue medication for over 2 years. Results: Mean age was 46.2 years, with females constituting 70.8%. Initial treatments for GD included ATDs (98.0%), thyroidectomy (1.3%), and RAI (0.7%), with a noted increment in ATD application from 96.2% in 2004 to 98.8% in 2020. During a median follow- up of 8.5 years, the treatment failure rates were 58.5% for ATDs, 21.3% for RAI, and 2.1% for thyroidectomy. Multivariate analysis indicated that the hazard ratio for treatment failure with ATD was 2.81 times higher than RAI. RAI treatments ≥10 mCi had 37% lower failure rates than doses <10 mCi. Conclusion ATDs are the most commonly used for GD in South Korea, followed by thyroidectomy and RAI. Although the risk of treatment failure for ATD is higher than that of RAI therapy, initial RAI treatment in South Korea is relatively limited compared to that in Western countries. Further studies are required to evaluate the cause of low initial RAI treatment rates in South Korea.

Background: and Purpose The National Brain Biobank of Korea (NBBK) is a brain bank consortium supported by the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency and the Korea National Institute of Health, and was launched in 2015 to support research into neurodegenerative disease dementia (NDD). This study aimed to introduce the NBBK and describes clinicopathological correlations based on analyses of data collected from the NBBK. Methods: Four hospital-based brain banks have been established in South Korea: Samsung Medical Center Brain Bank (SMCBB), Seoul National University Hospital Brain Bank (SNUHBB), Pusan National University Hospital Brain Bank (PNUHBB), and Myongji Hospital Brain Bank (MJHBB). Clinical and pathological data were collected from these brain banks using standardized protocols. The prevalence rates of clinical and pathological diagnoses were analyzed in order to characterize the clinicopathological correlations. Results: Between August 2016 and December 2023, 185 brain specimens were collected and pathologically evaluated (SNUHBB: 117; PNUHBB: 27; SMCBB: 34; MJHBB: 7). The age at consent was 70.8±12.6 years, and the age at autopsy was 71.7±12.4 years. The four-most-common clinical diagnoses were Alzheimer’s disease (AD) dementia (20.0%), idiopathic Parkinson’s disease (15.1%), unspecified dementia (11.9%), and cognitively unimpaired (CU) (11.4%).Most cases of unspecified dementia had a pathological diagnosis of central nervous system (CNS) vasculopathy (31.8%) or AD (31.8%). Remarkably, only 14.2% of CU cases had normal pathological findings. The three-most-common pathological diagnoses were AD (26.5%), CNS vasculopathy (14.1%), and Lewy body disease (13.5%). Conclusions These clinical and neuropathological findings provide a deeper understanding of the mechanisms underlying NDD in South Korea.

Purpose: This study evaluated the postoperative quality of life (QoL) after various types of gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Materials and Methods: A multicenter prospective observational study was conducted in Korea using the Korean Quality of Life in Stomach Cancer Patients Study (KOQUSS)-40, a new QoL assessment tool focusing on postgastrectomy syndrome. Overall, 496 patients with gastric cancer were enrolled, and QoL was assessed at 5 time points: preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Results: Distal gastrectomy (DG) and pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (PPG) showed significantly better outcomes than total gastrectomy (TG) and proximal gastrectomy (PG) with regard to total score, indigestion, and dysphagia. DG, PPG, and TG also showed significantly better outcomes than PG in terms of dumping syndrome and worry about cancer. Postoperative QoL did not differ significantly according to anastomosis type in DG, except for Billroth I anastomosis, which achieved better bowel habit change scores than the others. No domains differed significantly when comparing double tract reconstruction and esophagogastrostomy after PG. The total QoL score correlated significantly with postoperative body weight loss (more than 10%) and extent of resection (P<0.05 for both).Reflux as assessed by KOQUSS-40 did not correlate significantly with reflux observed on gastroscopy 1 year postoperatively (P=0.064). Conclusions Our prospective observation using KOQUSS-40 revealed that DG and PPG lead to better QoL than TG and PG. Further study is needed to compare postoperative QoL according to anastomosis type in DG and PG.