Collective actions by physicians have occurred frequently worldwide, including in Korea.The literature primarily focuses on justifying industrial actions or assessing their impact on clinical outcomes. However, few studies have examined physicians’ actions in response to government health policies. A comprehensive review of this literature could provide valuable insights into how physicians can effectively address and resolve conflicts with governments.This study aimed to investigate the existing literature on physicians’ collective actions against government health policies and identify research gaps. A scoping review was conducted based on the methodology proposed by Arksey and O’Malley. We searched for terms related to physicians (e.g., doctors, trainees) and strikes (e.g., protests, walkouts) in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, KMbase, and RISS on March 25, 2024. A total of 5,248 articles published between 1974 and 2023 were screened, and 26 articles were selected for analysis. The authors of these studies were predominantly from the fields of social sciences, history, jurisprudence, and public health administration. Physician collective actions were documented in 16 countries across various levels of development. Physicians engaged in collective action for five main reasons: 1) Opposition to socialized medicine policies, 2) Opposition to healthcare privatization policies, 3) Dissatisfaction with poor or stagnant public healthcare systems and infrastructure, 4) Resistance to unreasonable medical reforms, and 5) Protests against inequitable health workforce policies. Government responses to physician strikes followed four main strategies: 1) Unilateral policy enforcement, 2) Instigation of conflicts, 3) Suppression of physicians through unwarranted use of governmental power, and 4) Use of mediators to negotiate resolutions. These strategies were employed regardless of whether the government was authoritarian or democratic. Physicians’ strategies against government policies were categorized as 1) Strengthening physician organizations, 2) Improving public relations, 3) Disrupting government policy implementation, and 4) Reducing the available medical workforce. In conclusion, this study highlights the need for more theory-based research and greater integration of social sciences into physicians’ education. We recommend that Korean physicians reflect on the strategies used by both governments and physicians in other countries and prepare for potential conflicts.

Background and Objectives: The Fractional Flow Reserve and Intravascular UltrasoundGuided Intervention Strategy for Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Intermediate Stenosis (FLAVOUR) trial demonstrated non-inferiority of fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared with intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-guided PCI. We sought to investigate the cost-effectiveness of FFR-guided PCI compared to IVUS-guided PCI in Korea. Methods: A 2-part cost-effectiveness model, composed of a short-term decision tree model and a long-term Markov model, was developed for patients who underwent PCI to treat intermediate stenosis (40% to 70% stenosis by visual estimation on coronary angiography).The lifetime healthcare costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated from the healthcare system perspective. Transition probabilities were mainly referred from the FLAVOUR trial, and healthcare costs were mainly obtained through analysis of Korean National Health Insurance claims data. Health utilities were mainly obtained from the Seattle Angina Questionnaire responses of FLAVOUR trial participants mapped to EQ-5D. Results: From the Korean healthcare system perspective, the base-case analysis showed that FFR-guided PCI was 2,451 U.S. dollar lower in lifetime healthcare costs and 0.178 higher in QALYs compared to IVUS-guided PCI. FFR-guided PCI remained more likely to be cost-effective over a wide range of willingness-to-pay thresholds in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Conclusions Based on the results from the FLAVOUR trial, FFR-guided PCI is projected to decrease lifetime healthcare costs and increase QALYs compared with IVUS-guided PCI in intermediate coronary lesion, and it is a dominant strategy in Korea.

Background and Objectives: The Fractional Flow Reserve and Intravascular UltrasoundGuided Intervention Strategy for Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Intermediate Stenosis (FLAVOUR) trial demonstrated non-inferiority of fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared with intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-guided PCI. We sought to investigate the cost-effectiveness of FFR-guided PCI compared to IVUS-guided PCI in Korea. Methods: A 2-part cost-effectiveness model, composed of a short-term decision tree model and a long-term Markov model, was developed for patients who underwent PCI to treat intermediate stenosis (40% to 70% stenosis by visual estimation on coronary angiography).The lifetime healthcare costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated from the healthcare system perspective. Transition probabilities were mainly referred from the FLAVOUR trial, and healthcare costs were mainly obtained through analysis of Korean National Health Insurance claims data. Health utilities were mainly obtained from the Seattle Angina Questionnaire responses of FLAVOUR trial participants mapped to EQ-5D. Results: From the Korean healthcare system perspective, the base-case analysis showed that FFR-guided PCI was 2,451 U.S. dollar lower in lifetime healthcare costs and 0.178 higher in QALYs compared to IVUS-guided PCI. FFR-guided PCI remained more likely to be cost-effective over a wide range of willingness-to-pay thresholds in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Conclusions Based on the results from the FLAVOUR trial, FFR-guided PCI is projected to decrease lifetime healthcare costs and increase QALYs compared with IVUS-guided PCI in intermediate coronary lesion, and it is a dominant strategy in Korea.

Collective actions by physicians have occurred frequently worldwide, including in Korea.The literature primarily focuses on justifying industrial actions or assessing their impact on clinical outcomes. However, few studies have examined physicians’ actions in response to government health policies. A comprehensive review of this literature could provide valuable insights into how physicians can effectively address and resolve conflicts with governments.This study aimed to investigate the existing literature on physicians’ collective actions against government health policies and identify research gaps. A scoping review was conducted based on the methodology proposed by Arksey and O’Malley. We searched for terms related to physicians (e.g., doctors, trainees) and strikes (e.g., protests, walkouts) in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, KMbase, and RISS on March 25, 2024. A total of 5,248 articles published between 1974 and 2023 were screened, and 26 articles were selected for analysis. The authors of these studies were predominantly from the fields of social sciences, history, jurisprudence, and public health administration. Physician collective actions were documented in 16 countries across various levels of development. Physicians engaged in collective action for five main reasons: 1) Opposition to socialized medicine policies, 2) Opposition to healthcare privatization policies, 3) Dissatisfaction with poor or stagnant public healthcare systems and infrastructure, 4) Resistance to unreasonable medical reforms, and 5) Protests against inequitable health workforce policies. Government responses to physician strikes followed four main strategies: 1) Unilateral policy enforcement, 2) Instigation of conflicts, 3) Suppression of physicians through unwarranted use of governmental power, and 4) Use of mediators to negotiate resolutions. These strategies were employed regardless of whether the government was authoritarian or democratic. Physicians’ strategies against government policies were categorized as 1) Strengthening physician organizations, 2) Improving public relations, 3) Disrupting government policy implementation, and 4) Reducing the available medical workforce. In conclusion, this study highlights the need for more theory-based research and greater integration of social sciences into physicians’ education. We recommend that Korean physicians reflect on the strategies used by both governments and physicians in other countries and prepare for potential conflicts.

Collective actions by physicians have occurred frequently worldwide, including in Korea.The literature primarily focuses on justifying industrial actions or assessing their impact on clinical outcomes. However, few studies have examined physicians’ actions in response to government health policies. A comprehensive review of this literature could provide valuable insights into how physicians can effectively address and resolve conflicts with governments.This study aimed to investigate the existing literature on physicians’ collective actions against government health policies and identify research gaps. A scoping review was conducted based on the methodology proposed by Arksey and O’Malley. We searched for terms related to physicians (e.g., doctors, trainees) and strikes (e.g., protests, walkouts) in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, KMbase, and RISS on March 25, 2024. A total of 5,248 articles published between 1974 and 2023 were screened, and 26 articles were selected for analysis. The authors of these studies were predominantly from the fields of social sciences, history, jurisprudence, and public health administration. Physician collective actions were documented in 16 countries across various levels of development. Physicians engaged in collective action for five main reasons: 1) Opposition to socialized medicine policies, 2) Opposition to healthcare privatization policies, 3) Dissatisfaction with poor or stagnant public healthcare systems and infrastructure, 4) Resistance to unreasonable medical reforms, and 5) Protests against inequitable health workforce policies. Government responses to physician strikes followed four main strategies: 1) Unilateral policy enforcement, 2) Instigation of conflicts, 3) Suppression of physicians through unwarranted use of governmental power, and 4) Use of mediators to negotiate resolutions. These strategies were employed regardless of whether the government was authoritarian or democratic. Physicians’ strategies against government policies were categorized as 1) Strengthening physician organizations, 2) Improving public relations, 3) Disrupting government policy implementation, and 4) Reducing the available medical workforce. In conclusion, this study highlights the need for more theory-based research and greater integration of social sciences into physicians’ education. We recommend that Korean physicians reflect on the strategies used by both governments and physicians in other countries and prepare for potential conflicts.

Background and Objectives: The Fractional Flow Reserve and Intravascular UltrasoundGuided Intervention Strategy for Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Intermediate Stenosis (FLAVOUR) trial demonstrated non-inferiority of fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared with intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-guided PCI. We sought to investigate the cost-effectiveness of FFR-guided PCI compared to IVUS-guided PCI in Korea. Methods: A 2-part cost-effectiveness model, composed of a short-term decision tree model and a long-term Markov model, was developed for patients who underwent PCI to treat intermediate stenosis (40% to 70% stenosis by visual estimation on coronary angiography).The lifetime healthcare costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated from the healthcare system perspective. Transition probabilities were mainly referred from the FLAVOUR trial, and healthcare costs were mainly obtained through analysis of Korean National Health Insurance claims data. Health utilities were mainly obtained from the Seattle Angina Questionnaire responses of FLAVOUR trial participants mapped to EQ-5D. Results: From the Korean healthcare system perspective, the base-case analysis showed that FFR-guided PCI was 2,451 U.S. dollar lower in lifetime healthcare costs and 0.178 higher in QALYs compared to IVUS-guided PCI. FFR-guided PCI remained more likely to be cost-effective over a wide range of willingness-to-pay thresholds in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Conclusions Based on the results from the FLAVOUR trial, FFR-guided PCI is projected to decrease lifetime healthcare costs and increase QALYs compared with IVUS-guided PCI in intermediate coronary lesion, and it is a dominant strategy in Korea.

Collective actions by physicians have occurred frequently worldwide, including in Korea.The literature primarily focuses on justifying industrial actions or assessing their impact on clinical outcomes. However, few studies have examined physicians’ actions in response to government health policies. A comprehensive review of this literature could provide valuable insights into how physicians can effectively address and resolve conflicts with governments.This study aimed to investigate the existing literature on physicians’ collective actions against government health policies and identify research gaps. A scoping review was conducted based on the methodology proposed by Arksey and O’Malley. We searched for terms related to physicians (e.g., doctors, trainees) and strikes (e.g., protests, walkouts) in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, KMbase, and RISS on March 25, 2024. A total of 5,248 articles published between 1974 and 2023 were screened, and 26 articles were selected for analysis. The authors of these studies were predominantly from the fields of social sciences, history, jurisprudence, and public health administration. Physician collective actions were documented in 16 countries across various levels of development. Physicians engaged in collective action for five main reasons: 1) Opposition to socialized medicine policies, 2) Opposition to healthcare privatization policies, 3) Dissatisfaction with poor or stagnant public healthcare systems and infrastructure, 4) Resistance to unreasonable medical reforms, and 5) Protests against inequitable health workforce policies. Government responses to physician strikes followed four main strategies: 1) Unilateral policy enforcement, 2) Instigation of conflicts, 3) Suppression of physicians through unwarranted use of governmental power, and 4) Use of mediators to negotiate resolutions. These strategies were employed regardless of whether the government was authoritarian or democratic. Physicians’ strategies against government policies were categorized as 1) Strengthening physician organizations, 2) Improving public relations, 3) Disrupting government policy implementation, and 4) Reducing the available medical workforce. In conclusion, this study highlights the need for more theory-based research and greater integration of social sciences into physicians’ education. We recommend that Korean physicians reflect on the strategies used by both governments and physicians in other countries and prepare for potential conflicts.

Background and Objectives: The Fractional Flow Reserve and Intravascular UltrasoundGuided Intervention Strategy for Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Intermediate Stenosis (FLAVOUR) trial demonstrated non-inferiority of fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared with intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-guided PCI. We sought to investigate the cost-effectiveness of FFR-guided PCI compared to IVUS-guided PCI in Korea. Methods: A 2-part cost-effectiveness model, composed of a short-term decision tree model and a long-term Markov model, was developed for patients who underwent PCI to treat intermediate stenosis (40% to 70% stenosis by visual estimation on coronary angiography).The lifetime healthcare costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated from the healthcare system perspective. Transition probabilities were mainly referred from the FLAVOUR trial, and healthcare costs were mainly obtained through analysis of Korean National Health Insurance claims data. Health utilities were mainly obtained from the Seattle Angina Questionnaire responses of FLAVOUR trial participants mapped to EQ-5D. Results: From the Korean healthcare system perspective, the base-case analysis showed that FFR-guided PCI was 2,451 U.S. dollar lower in lifetime healthcare costs and 0.178 higher in QALYs compared to IVUS-guided PCI. FFR-guided PCI remained more likely to be cost-effective over a wide range of willingness-to-pay thresholds in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Conclusions Based on the results from the FLAVOUR trial, FFR-guided PCI is projected to decrease lifetime healthcare costs and increase QALYs compared with IVUS-guided PCI in intermediate coronary lesion, and it is a dominant strategy in Korea.

Background/Aims: The prospective Crohn’s Disease Clinical Network and Cohort Study is a nationwide multicenter cohort study of patients with Crohn’s disease (CD) in Korea, aiming to prospectively investigate the clinical features and long-term prognosis associated with CD. Methods: Patients diagnosed with CD between January 2009 and September 2019 were prospectively enrolled. They were divided into two cohorts according to the year of diagnosis: cohort 1 (diagnosed between 2009 and 2011) versus cohort 2 (between 2012 and 2019). Results: A total of 1,175 patients were included, and the median follow-up duration was 68 months (interquartile range, 39.0 to 91.0 months). The treatment-free durations for thiopurines (p<0.001) and anti-tumor necrosis factor agents (p=0.018) of cohort 2 were shorter than those of cohort 1. Among 887 patients with B1 behavior at diagnosis, 149 patients (16.8%) progressed to either B2 or B3 behavior during follow-up. Early use of thiopurine was associated with a reduced risk of behavioral progression (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50 to 0.90), and family history of inflammatory bowel disease was associated with an increased risk of behavioral progression (aHR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.16 to 4.50). One hundred forty-one patients (12.0%) underwent intestinal resection, and the intestinal resection-free survival time was significantly longer in cohort 2 than in cohort 1 (p=0.003). The early use of thiopurines (aHR, 0.35;95% CI, 0.23 to 0.51) was independently associated with a reduced risk of intestinal resection. Conclusions The prognosis of CD in Korea appears to have improved over time, as evidenced by the decreasing intestinal resection rate. Early use of thiopurines was associated with an improved prognosis represented by a reduced risk of intestinal resection.

Purpose: Real-world experience with tocilizumab in combination with dexamethasone in patients with severe coronavirus disease (COVID-19) needs to be investigated. Materials and Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted to evaluate the effect of severity-adjusted dosing of dexamethasone in combination with tocilizumab for severe COVID-19 from August 2020 to August 2021. The primary endpoint was 30-day clinical recovery, which was defined as no oxygen requirement or referral after recovery. Results: A total of 66 patients were evaluated, including 33 patients in the dexamethasone (Dexa) group and 33 patients in the dexamethasone plus tocilizumab (DexaToci) group. The DexaToci group showed a statistically significant benefit in 30-day clinical recovery, compared to the Dexa group (p=0.024). In multivariable analyses, peak FiO2 within 3 days and tocilizumab combination were consistently significant for 30-day recovery (all p<0.05). The DexaToci group showed a significantly steeper decrease in FiO2 (-4.2±2.6) than the Dexa group (−2.7±2.6; p=0.021) by hospital day 15. The duration of oxygen requirement was significantly shorter in the DexaToci group than the Dexa group (median, 10.0 days vs. 17.0 days; p=0.006). Infectious complications and cellular and humoral immune responses against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in the convalescence stage were not different between the two groups. Conclusion A combination of severity-adjusted dexamethasone and tocilizumab for the treatment of severe COVID-19 improved clinical recovery without increasing infectious complications or hindering the immune response against SARS-CoV-2.