Background: Prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) is crucial in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients undergoing coronary interventions. Previous studies suggest that high-dose statins may aid in CIN prevention, yet comparative studies among different statin types using cystatin C (cysC) as a biomarker for CIN are absent. This study evaluated the effectiveness of high-dose rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin in preventing cysC-based CIN (cysC-CIN) in AMI patients. Methods: This multicenter registry included 431 patients (rosuvastatin 20 mg: n = 231, atorvastatin 40 mg: n = 200). The primary endpoint was cysC-CIN incidence within 48 hours post contrast; the secondary endpoints were creatinine-based CIN (cr-CIN) incidence within 72 hours post contrast and post 30 days adverse events. Results: The incidences of cysC-CIN (12.1% vs. 7.5%, P = 0.103) and cr-CIN (6.2% vs. 3.5%, P = 0.103) were higher in the atorvastatin group without significant statistical differences.Multivariable regression analysis, which was adjusted for CIN risk factors and the variables with univariate association, showed no increased odds ratio (OR) (OR, 2.185; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.899, 5.315; P = 0.085) for cysC-CIN in the atorvastatin group compared to the rosuvastatin group. However, statin-naïve atorvastatin subgroup had significantly increased odds of cysC-CIN compared to the rosuvastatin group (OR, 2.977; 95% CI, 1.057, 8.378; P = 0.039). At post 30 days renal, cardiovascular, and mortality event rates were both low and similar between the two groups. Conclusion No significant difference in cysC-CIN incidence was found between the highdose rosuvastatin and atorvastatin groups in AMI patients and cysC was more sensitive to the early detection of CIN than creatinine.

Background: Prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) is crucial in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients undergoing coronary interventions. Previous studies suggest that high-dose statins may aid in CIN prevention, yet comparative studies among different statin types using cystatin C (cysC) as a biomarker for CIN are absent. This study evaluated the effectiveness of high-dose rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin in preventing cysC-based CIN (cysC-CIN) in AMI patients. Methods: This multicenter registry included 431 patients (rosuvastatin 20 mg: n = 231, atorvastatin 40 mg: n = 200). The primary endpoint was cysC-CIN incidence within 48 hours post contrast; the secondary endpoints were creatinine-based CIN (cr-CIN) incidence within 72 hours post contrast and post 30 days adverse events. Results: The incidences of cysC-CIN (12.1% vs. 7.5%, P = 0.103) and cr-CIN (6.2% vs. 3.5%, P = 0.103) were higher in the atorvastatin group without significant statistical differences.Multivariable regression analysis, which was adjusted for CIN risk factors and the variables with univariate association, showed no increased odds ratio (OR) (OR, 2.185; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.899, 5.315; P = 0.085) for cysC-CIN in the atorvastatin group compared to the rosuvastatin group. However, statin-naïve atorvastatin subgroup had significantly increased odds of cysC-CIN compared to the rosuvastatin group (OR, 2.977; 95% CI, 1.057, 8.378; P = 0.039). At post 30 days renal, cardiovascular, and mortality event rates were both low and similar between the two groups. Conclusion No significant difference in cysC-CIN incidence was found between the highdose rosuvastatin and atorvastatin groups in AMI patients and cysC was more sensitive to the early detection of CIN than creatinine.

Background: Prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) is crucial in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients undergoing coronary interventions. Previous studies suggest that high-dose statins may aid in CIN prevention, yet comparative studies among different statin types using cystatin C (cysC) as a biomarker for CIN are absent. This study evaluated the effectiveness of high-dose rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin in preventing cysC-based CIN (cysC-CIN) in AMI patients. Methods: This multicenter registry included 431 patients (rosuvastatin 20 mg: n = 231, atorvastatin 40 mg: n = 200). The primary endpoint was cysC-CIN incidence within 48 hours post contrast; the secondary endpoints were creatinine-based CIN (cr-CIN) incidence within 72 hours post contrast and post 30 days adverse events. Results: The incidences of cysC-CIN (12.1% vs. 7.5%, P = 0.103) and cr-CIN (6.2% vs. 3.5%, P = 0.103) were higher in the atorvastatin group without significant statistical differences.Multivariable regression analysis, which was adjusted for CIN risk factors and the variables with univariate association, showed no increased odds ratio (OR) (OR, 2.185; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.899, 5.315; P = 0.085) for cysC-CIN in the atorvastatin group compared to the rosuvastatin group. However, statin-naïve atorvastatin subgroup had significantly increased odds of cysC-CIN compared to the rosuvastatin group (OR, 2.977; 95% CI, 1.057, 8.378; P = 0.039). At post 30 days renal, cardiovascular, and mortality event rates were both low and similar between the two groups. Conclusion No significant difference in cysC-CIN incidence was found between the highdose rosuvastatin and atorvastatin groups in AMI patients and cysC was more sensitive to the early detection of CIN than creatinine.

Background: Prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) is crucial in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients undergoing coronary interventions. Previous studies suggest that high-dose statins may aid in CIN prevention, yet comparative studies among different statin types using cystatin C (cysC) as a biomarker for CIN are absent. This study evaluated the effectiveness of high-dose rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin in preventing cysC-based CIN (cysC-CIN) in AMI patients. Methods: This multicenter registry included 431 patients (rosuvastatin 20 mg: n = 231, atorvastatin 40 mg: n = 200). The primary endpoint was cysC-CIN incidence within 48 hours post contrast; the secondary endpoints were creatinine-based CIN (cr-CIN) incidence within 72 hours post contrast and post 30 days adverse events. Results: The incidences of cysC-CIN (12.1% vs. 7.5%, P = 0.103) and cr-CIN (6.2% vs. 3.5%, P = 0.103) were higher in the atorvastatin group without significant statistical differences.Multivariable regression analysis, which was adjusted for CIN risk factors and the variables with univariate association, showed no increased odds ratio (OR) (OR, 2.185; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.899, 5.315; P = 0.085) for cysC-CIN in the atorvastatin group compared to the rosuvastatin group. However, statin-naïve atorvastatin subgroup had significantly increased odds of cysC-CIN compared to the rosuvastatin group (OR, 2.977; 95% CI, 1.057, 8.378; P = 0.039). At post 30 days renal, cardiovascular, and mortality event rates were both low and similar between the two groups. Conclusion No significant difference in cysC-CIN incidence was found between the highdose rosuvastatin and atorvastatin groups in AMI patients and cysC was more sensitive to the early detection of CIN than creatinine.

Purpose: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the most frequent cancer with limited therapeutic achievements. Recently, adoptive cellular immunotherapy has been developed as an antitumor therapy. However, its efficacy has not been tested in CRC. This study investigated the ability of an immune cell cocktail of dendritic cells (DCs), T cells, and natural killer (NK) cells to overcome immunological hurdles and improve the therapeutic efficacy of cell therapy for CRC. Methods: CRC lysate-pulsed monocyte-derived DCs (Mo-DCs), CRC antigen-specifically expanded T cells (CTL), and in vitro-expanded NK cells were cultured from patient peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC). The ability of the combined immune cells to kill autologous tumor cells was investigated by co-culturing the combined immune cells with patient-derived tumor cells. Results: The Mo-DCs produced expressed T cell co-stimulating molecules like CD80, CD86, human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-DR and HLA-ABC, at high levels and were capable of activating naive T cells. The expanded T cells were predominantly CD8 T cells with high levels of CD8 effector memory cells and low levels of regulatory T cells. The NK cells expressed high levels of activating receptors and were capable of killing other cancer cell lines (K562 and HT29). The immune cell cocktail demonstrated a higher ability to kill autologous tumor cells than single types. An in vivo preclinical study confirmed the safety of the combined immune cell adaptive therapy showing no therapy-related death or general toxicity symptoms. Conclusion The results suggested that combined immune cell adaptive therapy could overcome the limited efficacy of cell immunotherapy.

Background: There is a dearth of research on the factors linked with adverse events (AEs) associated with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NMVr) and molnupiravir (MOL), particularly in the elderly. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate self-reported AEs and identify factors associated with the occurrence of AEs following NMVr or MOL treatment among survey participants aged 60 years or older in South Korea. Methods: This nationwide survey was conducted through in-person interviews using structured questionnaires, from July 24 to August 31, 2023. Eligible participants included individuals aged 60 years or older who had been diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and received NMVr or MOL. The study outcomes included self-reported demographic, lifestyle, and health characteristics associated with the occurrence of AEs.Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to estimate the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of each characteristic in participants with and without AEs. Results: Of the 520 participants, 123 (23.7%) experienced at least one AE with oral COVID-19 treatment: 21.0% (96/458) for NMVr and 43.5% (27/62) for MOL. None of the participants reported any serious AEs. Increased odds of AE occurrence were observed in participants treated with MOL compared to those treated with NMVr (aOR, 3.05; 95% CI, 1.67–5.57), a history of two or more compared to one COVID-19 diagnosis (1.93; 1.03–3.62), and selfreported health status as “Unhealthy” compared to “Healthy” (2.65; 1.31–5.36). Conclusion No AEs required further evaluation to change treatment strategies in elderly patients on NMVr or MOL. Several factors, including the use of MOL, history of COVID-19, and reported health status, were associated with an increased incidence of AEs. Both treatments may still be useful choices for patients with non-severe COVID-19 aged 60 years or older. However, close monitoring of unidentified potential harm and further investigation of the factors associated with the occurrence of AEs are needed.

Purpose: We aimed to compare the accuracy of the intraocular lens (IOL) calculation formula using the standard keratometry (K) and total K (TK) during the femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery (FLACS) with a monofocal IOL with enhanced intermediate function using currently used formulas. Methods: A retrospective review of 125 eyes from 125 patients who had undergone FLACS with implantation of monofocal IOL with enhanced intermediate function was conducted. The predicted refractive power was calculated using an optical biometer (IOLmaster 700) according to the K and TK in the Barrett Universal II, SRK/T, Haigis, and Holladay 2 formulas. Absolute prediction error (APE) obtained from the actual postoperative refractive outcomes and the refractive error predicted in each formula was compared one month after surgery. Results: Mean APE ranged between 0.29 and 0.39 diopters (D) regardless of the calculation formula and the method of measuring corneal curvature. Significant differences were observed in the APE from the four formulas and the two keratometric measurements (p = 0.014). In a total of 125 eyes from 125 patients, the mean APE was lowest with the Barrett Universal II formula. Across all formulas, both the mean APE and the median APE tended to be lower for K than for TK, although there was no significant difference. Approximately 70% to 80% of the patients were included within 0.5 D of the refractive error across all formulas. The percentage of eyes within 0.5 D of APE outcomes was not statistically different between the K and TK data when using each formula. Conclusions Keratometric measurements considering the poster corneal curvature did not show any additional advantages when implanting the monofocal IOL with enhanced intermediate function during the FLACS.

Objectives: The objective of this study was to develop and validate a multicenter-based, multi-model, time-series deep learning model for predicting drug-induced liver injury (DILI) in patients taking angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). The study leveraged a national-level multicenter approach, utilizing electronic health records (EHRs) from six hospitals in Korea. Methods: A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted using EHRs from six hospitals in Korea, comprising a total of 10,852 patients whose data were converted to the Common Data Model. The study assessed the incidence rate of DILI among patients taking ARBs and compared it to a control group. Temporal patterns of important variables were analyzed using an interpretable timeseries model. Results: The overall incidence rate of DILI among patients taking ARBs was found to be 1.09%. The incidence rates varied for each specific ARB drug and institution, with valsartan having the highest rate (1.24%) and olmesartan having the lowest rate (0.83%). The DILI prediction models showed varying performance, measured by the average area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, with telmisartan (0.93), losartan (0.92), and irbesartan (0.90) exhibiting higher classification performance. The aggregated attention scores from the models highlighted the importance of variables such as hematocrit, albumin, prothrombin time, and lymphocytes in predicting DILI. Conclusions Implementing a multicenter-based timeseries classification model provided evidence that could be valuable to clinicians regarding temporal patterns associated with DILI in ARB users. This information supports informed decisions regarding appropriate drug use and treatment strategies.

Background: It remains unclear whether a combination of glycemic variability and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) status leads to a higher incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD).Therefore, to investigate CVD risk according to the glucose control status during early diabetes, we examined visit-to-visit HbA1c variability among patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Methods: In this 9-year retrospective study, we measured HbA1c levels at each visit and tracked the change in HbA1c levels for 3 years after the first presentation (observation window) in newly diagnosed T2DM patients. We later assessed the occurrence of CVD in the last 3 years (target outcome window) of the study period after allowing a 3-year buffering window. The HbA1c variability score (HVS; divided into quartiles, HVS_Q1–4) was used to determine visit-to-visit HbA1c variability. Results: Among 4,817 enrolled T2DM patients, the mean HbA1c level was < 7% for the first 3 years. The group with the lowest HVS had the lowest rate of CVD (9.4%; 104/1,109 patients).The highest incidence of CVD of 26.7% (8/30 patients) was found in HVS [≥ 9.0%]_Q3, which was significantly higher than that in HVS [6.0–6.9%]_Q1 (P = 0.006), HVS [6.0–6.9%]_Q2 (P = 0.013), HVS [6.0–6.9%]_Q3 (P = 0.018), and HVS [7.0–7.9%]_Q3 (P = 0.040). Conclusion To our knowledge, this is the first long-term study to analyze the importance of both HbA1c change and visit-to-visit HbA1c variability during outpatient visits within the first 3 years. Lowering glucose levels during early diabetes may be more critical than reducing visit-to-visit HbA1c variability.