Objective: We conducted this study to assess the efficacy and safety of taltirelin hydrate (TH) in patients with ataxia due to spinocerebellar degeneration (SCD). Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to either the taltirelin group (5 mg orally, twice daily) or the control group. The primary endpoint was the change in the Korean version of the Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia (K-SARA) score at 24 weeks. The secondary endpoints included changes in the K-SARA score at 4 and 12 weeks as well as the Clinical Global Impression Scale, the five-level version of the EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire, the Tinetti balance test, and gait analysis at 4, 12, and 24 weeks. Results: A total of 149 patients (hereditary:nonhereditary=86:63) were enrolled. There were significant differences in the change in the K-SARA score at 24 weeks from baseline between the taltirelin group and the control group (-0.51±2.79 versus 0.36±2.62, respectively; p=0.0321). For the K-SARA items, the taltirelin group had significantly lower “Stance” and “Speech disturbance” subscores than the control group (-0.04±0.89 versus 0.23±0.79 and -0.07±0.74 versus 0.18±0.67; p=0.0270 and 0.0130, respectively). However, there were no significant differences in changes in other secondary efficacy outcome measures at 24 weeks from baseline between the two treatment arms (p>0.05). Conclusion Clinicians might consider the use of TH in the treatment of patients with ataxia due to SCD.

Objective: We conducted this study to assess the efficacy and safety of taltirelin hydrate (TH) in patients with ataxia due to spinocerebellar degeneration (SCD). Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to either the taltirelin group (5 mg orally, twice daily) or the control group. The primary endpoint was the change in the Korean version of the Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia (K-SARA) score at 24 weeks. The secondary endpoints included changes in the K-SARA score at 4 and 12 weeks as well as the Clinical Global Impression Scale, the five-level version of the EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire, the Tinetti balance test, and gait analysis at 4, 12, and 24 weeks. Results: A total of 149 patients (hereditary:nonhereditary=86:63) were enrolled. There were significant differences in the change in the K-SARA score at 24 weeks from baseline between the taltirelin group and the control group (-0.51±2.79 versus 0.36±2.62, respectively; p=0.0321). For the K-SARA items, the taltirelin group had significantly lower “Stance” and “Speech disturbance” subscores than the control group (-0.04±0.89 versus 0.23±0.79 and -0.07±0.74 versus 0.18±0.67; p=0.0270 and 0.0130, respectively). However, there were no significant differences in changes in other secondary efficacy outcome measures at 24 weeks from baseline between the two treatment arms (p>0.05). Conclusion Clinicians might consider the use of TH in the treatment of patients with ataxia due to SCD.

Objective: We conducted this study to assess the efficacy and safety of taltirelin hydrate (TH) in patients with ataxia due to spinocerebellar degeneration (SCD). Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to either the taltirelin group (5 mg orally, twice daily) or the control group. The primary endpoint was the change in the Korean version of the Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia (K-SARA) score at 24 weeks. The secondary endpoints included changes in the K-SARA score at 4 and 12 weeks as well as the Clinical Global Impression Scale, the five-level version of the EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire, the Tinetti balance test, and gait analysis at 4, 12, and 24 weeks. Results: A total of 149 patients (hereditary:nonhereditary=86:63) were enrolled. There were significant differences in the change in the K-SARA score at 24 weeks from baseline between the taltirelin group and the control group (-0.51±2.79 versus 0.36±2.62, respectively; p=0.0321). For the K-SARA items, the taltirelin group had significantly lower “Stance” and “Speech disturbance” subscores than the control group (-0.04±0.89 versus 0.23±0.79 and -0.07±0.74 versus 0.18±0.67; p=0.0270 and 0.0130, respectively). However, there were no significant differences in changes in other secondary efficacy outcome measures at 24 weeks from baseline between the two treatment arms (p>0.05). Conclusion Clinicians might consider the use of TH in the treatment of patients with ataxia due to SCD.

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, conclusively evaluating possible associations between COVID-19 vaccines and potential adverse events was of critical importance. The National Academy of Medicine of Korea established the COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Research Center (CoVaSC) with support from the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency to investigate the scientific relationship between COVID-19 vaccines and suspected adverse events. Although determining whether the COVID-19 vaccine was responsible for any suspected adverse event necessitated a systematic approach, traditional causal inference theories, such as Hill's criteria, encountered certain limitations and criticisms. To facilitate a systematic and evidence-based evaluation, the United States Institute of Medicine, at the request of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, offered a detailed causality assessment framework in 2012, which was updated in the recent report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) in 2024.This framework, based on a weight-of-evidence approach, allows the independent evaluation of both epidemiological and mechanistic evidence, culminating in a comprehensive conclusion about causality. Epidemiological evidence derived from population studies is categorized into four levels—high, moderate, limited, or insufficient—while mechanistic evidence, primarily from biological and clinical studies in animals and individuals, is classified as strong, intermediate, weak, or lacking. The committee then synthesizes these two types of evidence to draw a conclusion about the causal relationship, which can be described as “convincingly supports” (“evidence established” in the 2024 NASEM report), “favors acceptance,” “favors rejection,” or “inadequate to accept or reject.” The CoVaSC has established an independent committee to conduct causality assessments using the weightof-evidence framework, specifically for evaluating the causality of adverse events associated with COVID-19 vaccines. The aim of this study is to provide an overview of the weight-ofevidence framework and to detail the considerations involved in its practical application in the CoVaSC.

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.

Purpose: Smoking cessation intervention is one of the key components of successful lung cancer screening program. We investigated the effectiveness and related factors of smoking cessation services provided to the participants in a population-based lung cancer screening trial. Materials and Methods: The Korean Lung Cancer Screening Project (K-LUCAS) is a nationwide, multi-center lung cancer screening trial that evaluates the feasibility of implementing population-based lung cancer screening. All 5,144 current smokers who participated in the K-LUCAS received a mandatory smoking cessation counseling. Changes in smoking status were followed up using a telephone survey in 6 months after lung cancer screening participation. The lung cancer screening’s impact on smoking cessation is analyzed by variations in the smoking cessation interventions provided in screening units. Results: Among 4,136 survey responders, participant’s motivation to quit smoking increased by 9.4% on average after lung cancer screening. After 6 months from the initial screening, 24.3% of participants stopped smoking, and 10.6% of participants had not smoked continuously for at least 6 months after screening. Over 80% of quitters stated that participation in lung cancer screening motivated them to quit smoking. Low-cost public smoking cessation program combined with lung cancer screening increased the abstinence rates. The smokers were three times more likely to quit smoking when the smoking cessation counseling was provided simultaneously with low-dose computed tomography screening results than when provided separately. Conclusion A mandatory smoking cessation intervention integrated with screening result counselling by a physician after participation in lung cancer screening could be effective for increasing smoking cessation attempts.

Purpose: This subgroup analysis of the Korean subset of patients in the phase 3 LASER301 trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of lazertinib versus gefitinib as first-line therapy for epidermal growth factor receptor mutated (EGFRm) non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Materials and Methods: Patients with locally advanced or metastatic EGFRm NSCLC were randomized 1:1 to lazertinib (240 mg/day) or gefitinib (250 mg/day). The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Results: In total, 172 Korean patients were enrolled (lazertinib, n=87; gefitinib, n=85). Baseline characteristics were balanced between the treatment groups. One-third of patients had brain metastases (BM) at baseline. Median PFS was 20.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 16.7 to 26.1) for lazertinib and 9.6 months (95% CI, 8.2 to 12.3) for gefitinib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.41; 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.60). This was supported by PFS analysis based on blinded independent central review. Significant PFS benefit with lazertinib was consistently observed across predefined subgroups, including patients with BM (HR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.15 to 0.53) and those with L858R mutations (HR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.63). Lazertinib safety data were consistent with its previously reported safety profile. Common adverse events (AEs) in both groups included rash, pruritus, and diarrhoea. Numerically fewer severe AEs and severe treatment–related AEs occurred with lazertinib than gefitinib. Conclusion Consistent with results for the overall LASER301 population, this analysis showed significant PFS benefit with lazertinib versus gefitinib with comparable safety in Korean patients with untreated EGFRm NSCLC, supporting lazertinib as a new potential treatment option for this patient population.