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.

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: Sutureless valves are widely used in aortic valve replacement surgery, with Perceval valves and Intuity valves being particularly prominent. However, concerns have been raised about postoperative thrombocytopenia with Perceval valves (Corcym, UK). We conducted a comparative analysis with the Intuity valve (Edwards Lifesciences, USA), and assessed how thrombocytopenia affected patient and transfusion outcomes. Methods: Among 595 patients who underwent aortic valve replacement from June 2016 to March 2023, sutureless valves were used in 53 (Perceval: n=23; Intuity: n=30). Platelet counts were monitored during hospitalization and outpatient visits. Daily platelet count changes were compared between groups, and the results from patients who underwent procedures using Carpentier Edwards Perimount Magna valves were used as a reference group. Results: Compared to the Intuity group, the Perceval group showed a significantly higher amount of platelet transfusion (5.48±1.64 packs vs. 0.60±0.44 packs, p=0.008). During the postoperative period, severe thrombocytopenia (<50,000/μL) was significantly more prevalent in the Perceval group (56.5%, n=13) than in the Intuity group (6.7%, n=2). After initial postoperative depletion, daily platelet counts increased, with significant differences observed in the extent of improvement between the Perceval and Intuity groups (p<0.001).However, there was no significant difference in early mortality or the incidence of neurological complications between the 2 groups. Conclusion The severity of postoperative thrombocytopenia differed significantly between the Perceval and Intuity valves. The Perceval group showed a significantly higher prevalence of severe thrombocytopenia and higher platelet transfusion volumes. However, thrombocytopenia gradually recovered during the postoperative period in both groups, and the early outcomes were similar in both groups.

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.

The COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Research Committee (CoVaSC) was established in November 2021 to address the growing need for independent, in-depth scientific evidence on adverse events (AEs) following coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination. This initiative was requested by the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency and led by the National Academy of Medicine of Korea. In September 2022, the COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Research Center was established, strengthening CoVaSC’s initiatives. The center has conducted various studies on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. During CoVaSC’s second research year, from September 29, 2022 to July 19, 2023, the center was restructured into 4 departments: Epidemiological Research, Clinical Research, Communication & Education, and International Cooperation & Policy Research. Its main activities include (1) managing CoVaSC and the COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Research Center, (2) surveying domestic and international trends in AE causality investigation, (3) assessing AEs following COVID-19 vaccination, (4) fostering international collaboration and policy research, and (5) organizing regular fora and training sessions for the public and clinicians. Causality assessments have been conducted for 27 diseases, and independent research has been conducted after organizing ad hoc committees comprising both epidemiologists and clinical experts on each AE of interest. The research process included protocol development, data analysis, interpretation of results, and causality assessment. These research outcomes have been shared transparently with the public and healthcare experts through various fora. The COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Research Center plans to continue strengthening and expanding its research activities to provide reliable, high-quality safety information to the public.

Objective: This study was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lurasidone (160 mg/day) compared to quetiapine XR (QXR; 600 mg/day) in the treatment of acutely psychotic patients with schizophrenia. Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to 6 weeks of double-blind treatment with lurasidone 160 mg/day (n=105) or QXR 600 mg/day (n=105). Primary efficacy measure was the change from baseline to week 6 in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score and Clinical Global Impressions severity (CGI-S) score. Adverse events, body measurements, and laboratory parameters were assessed. Results: Lurasidone demonstrated non-inferiority to QXR on the PANSS total score. Adjusted mean±standard error change at week 6 on the PANSS total score was -26.42±2.02 and -27.33±2.01 in the lurasidone and QXR group, respectively. The mean difference score was -0.91 (95% confidence interval -6.35–4.53). The lurasidone group showed a greater reduction in PANSS total and negative subscale on week 1 and a greater reduction in end-point CGI-S score compared to the QXR group. Body weight, body mass index, and waist circumference in the lurasidone group were reduced, with significantly lower mean change compared to QXR. Endpoint changes in glucose, cholesterol, triglycerides, and low-density lipoprotein levels were also significantly lower. The most common adverse drug reactions with lurasidone were akathisia and nausea. Conclusion Lurasidone 160 mg/day was found to be non-inferior to QXR 600 mg/day in the treatment of schizophrenia with comparable efficacy and tolerability. Adverse effects of lurasidone were generally tolerable, and beneficial effects on metabolic parameters can be expected.

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.