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.

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.

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.

Background/Aims: This study assessed the efficacy and safety of adalimumab (ADA) and explored predictors of response in Korean patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). Methods: A prospective, observational, multicenter study was conducted over 56 weeks in adult patients with moderately to severely active UC who received ADA. Clinical response, remission, and mucosal healing were assessed using the Mayo score. Results: A total of 146 patients were enrolled from 17 academic hospitals. Clinical response rates were 52.1% and 37.7% and clinical remission rates were 24.0% and 22.0% at weeks 8 and 56, respectively. Mucosal healing rates were 39.0% and 30.1% at weeks 8 and 56, respectively. Prior use of anti-tumor necrosis factor-α (anti-TNF-α) did not affect clinical and endoscopic responses. The ADA drug level was significantly higher in patients with better outcomes at week 8 (P<0.05). In patients with lower endoscopic activity, higher body mass index, and higher serum albumin levels at baseline, the clinical response rate was higher at week 8. In patients with lower Mayo scores and C-reactive protein levels, clinical responses, and mucosal healing at week 8, the clinical response rate was higher at week 56. Serious adverse drug reactions were identified in 2.8% of patients. Conclusions ADA is effective and safe for induction and maintenance in Korean patients with UC, regardless of prior anti-TNF-α therapy. The ADA drug level is associated with the efficacy of induction therapy. Patients with better short-term outcomes were predictive of those with an improved long-term response.