1.Virtual Reality-Based Cognitive Behavior Therapy for Major Depressive Disorder: An Alternative to Pharmacotherapy for Reducing Suicidality
Miwoo LEE ; Sooah JANG ; Hyun Kyung SHIN ; Sun-Woo CHOI ; Hyung Taek KIM ; Jihee OH ; Ji Hye KWON ; Youngjun CHOI ; Suzi KANG ; In-Seong BACK ; Jae-Ki KIM ; San LEE ; Jeong-Ho SEOK
Yonsei Medical Journal 2025;66(1):25-36
Purpose:
Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) has long been recognized as an effective treatment for depression and suicidality.Virtual reality (VR) technology is widely used for cognitive training for conditions such as anxiety disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder, but little research has considered VR-based CBT for depressive symptoms and suicidality. We tested the effectiveness and safety of a VR-based CBT program for depressive disorders.
Materials and Methods:
We recruited 57 participants from May 2022 through February 2023 using online advertisements. This multi-center, assessor-blinded, randomized, controlled exploratory trial used two groups: VR treatment group and treat as usual (TAU) group. VR treatment group received a VR mental health training/education program. TAU group received standard pharmacotherapy. Assessments were conducted at baseline, immediately after the 6-week treatment period, and 4 weeks after the end of the treatment period in each group.
Results:
Depression scores decreased significantly over time in both VR treatment and TAU groups, with no differences between the two groups. The suicidality score decreased significantly only in VR group. No group differences were found in the remission or response rate for depression, perceived stress, or clinical severity. No adverse events or motion sickness occurred during the VR treatment program.
Conclusion
VR CBT treatment for major depressive disorder has the potential to be equivalent to the gold-standard pharmacotherapy in reducing depressive symptoms, suicidality, and related clinical symptoms, with no difference in improvement found in this study. Thus, VR-based CBT might be an effective alternative to pharmacotherapy for depressive disorders.
2.Eligibility for Lecanemab Treatment in the Republic of Korea:Real-World Data From Memory Clinics
Sung Hoon KANG ; Jee Hyang JEONG ; Jung-Min PYUN ; Geon Ha KIM ; Young Ho PARK ; YongSoo SHIM ; Seong-Ho KOH ; Chi-Hun KIM ; Young Chul YOUN ; Dong Won YANG ; Hyuk-je LEE ; Han LEE ; Dain KIM ; Kyunghwa SUN ; So Young MOON ; Kee Hyung PARK ; Seong Hye CHOI
Journal of Clinical Neurology 2025;21(3):182-189
Background:
and Purpose We aimed to determine the proportion of Korean patients with early Alzheimer’s disease (AD) who are eligible to receive lecanemab based on the United States Appropriate Use Recommendations (US AUR), and also identify the barriers to this treatment.
Methods:
We retrospectively enrolled 6,132 patients with amnestic mild cognitive impairment or mild amnestic dementia at 13 hospitals from June 2023 to May 2024. Among them, 2,058 patients underwent amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) and 1,199 (58.3%) of these patients were amyloid-positive on PET. We excluded 732 patients who did not undergo brain magnetic resonance imaging between June 2023 and May 2024. Finally, 467 patients were included in the present study.
Results:
When applying the criteria of the US AUR, approximately 50% of patients with early AD were eligible to receive lecanemab treatment. Among the 467 included patients, 36.8% did not meet the inclusion criterion of a Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score of ≥22.
Conclusions
Eligibility for lecanemab treatment was not restricted to Korean patients with early AD except for those with an MMSE score of ≥22. The MMSE criteria should therefore be reconsidered in areas with a higher proportion of older people, who tend to have lower levels of education.
3.Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer 2024: An Evidence-based, Multidisciplinary Approach (Update of 2022 Guideline)
In-Ho KIM ; Seung Joo KANG ; Wonyoung CHOI ; An Na SEO ; Bang Wool EOM ; Beodeul KANG ; Bum Jun KIM ; Byung-Hoon MIN ; Chung Hyun TAE ; Chang In CHOI ; Choong-kun LEE ; Ho Jung AN ; Hwa Kyung BYUN ; Hyeon-Su IM ; Hyung-Don KIM ; Jang Ho CHO ; Kyoungjune PAK ; Jae-Joon KIM ; Jae Seok BAE ; Jeong Il YU ; Jeong Won LEE ; Jungyoon CHOI ; Jwa Hoon KIM ; Miyoung CHOI ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Nieun SEO ; Sang Soo EOM ; Soomin AHN ; Soo Jin KIM ; Sung Hak LEE ; Sung Hee LIM ; Tae-Han KIM ; Hye Sook HAN ; On behalf of The Development Working Group for the Korean Practice Guideline for Gastric Cancer 2024
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(1):5-114
Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in both Korea and worldwide. Since 2004, the Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer have been regularly updated, with the 4th edition published in 2022. The 4th edition was the result of a collaborative work by an interdisciplinary team, including experts in gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and guideline development methodology. The current guideline is the 5th version, an updated version of the 4th edition. In this guideline, 6 key questions (KQs) were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group, and 7 statements were developed, or revised, or discussed based on a systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed database. Over the past 2 years, there have been significant changes in systemic treatment, leading to major updates and revisions focused on this area.Additionally, minor modifications have been made in other sections, incorporating recent research findings. The level of evidence and grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Key factors for recommendation included the level of evidence, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability. The working group reviewed and discussed the recommendations to reach a consensus. The structure of this guideline remains similar to the 2022 version.Earlier sections cover general considerations, such as screening, diagnosis, and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. In the latter sections, statements are provided for each KQ based on clinical evidence, with flowcharts supporting these statements through meta-analysis and references. This multidisciplinary, evidence-based gastric cancer guideline aims to support clinicians in providing optimal care for gastric cancer patients.
4.Comparative Efficacy of High-Dose Rosuvastatin and Atorvastatin in Preventing Cystatin C-Oriented Contrast-Induced Nephropathy in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction: RACCOON-AMI Registry
Ji Hye KIM ; Hyunah KIM ; Seung-Hyuk CHOI ; Woo Jeong CHUN ; Joon Hyung DOH ; Jong-Young LEE ; Seung-Jae LEE ; Byung Jin KIM
Journal of Korean Medical Science 2025;40(14):e50-
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.
5.Fasting is not always good: perioperative fasting leads to pronounced ketone body production in patients treated with SGLT2 inhibitors: a case report
Jae Chan CHOI ; Yo Nam JANG ; Jong Hoon LEE ; Sang Wook PARK ; Jeong A PARK ; Hye Sook KIM ; Jae Won CHOI ; Joo Hyung LEE ; Yong Jae LEE
Korean Journal of Family Medicine 2025;46(3):204-209
Ketone bodies produced by sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors can be advantageous, providing an efficient and stable energy source for the brain and muscles. However, in patients with diabetes, ketogenesis induced by SGLT2 inhibitors may be harmful, potentially resulting in severe diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). During fasting, ketone body production serves as an alternative and efficient energy source for the brain by utilizing stored fat, promoting mental clarity, and reducing dependence on glucose. The concurrent use of SGLT2 inhibitors during perioperative fasting may further elevate the risk of euglycemic DKA. We describe a case of DKA that occurred during perioperative fasting in a patient receiving empagliflozin, an SGLT2 inhibitor. This case underscores the importance of recognizing the potential risk of DKA in patients with diabetes using SGLT2 inhibitors during perioperative fasting.
6.Permanent Congenital Hypothyroidism in Very Low Birth Weight Infants: A Single Center’s Experience
Joo Hyung ROH ; Tae-Gyeong KIM ; Keon Hee SEOL ; Chae Young KIM ; Soo Hyun KIM ; Ji Yoon JEONG ; Ja Hye KIM ; Euiseok JUNG ; Jin-Ho CHOI ; Byong Sop LEE
Neonatal Medicine 2025;32(1):30-38
Purpose:
Congenital hypothyroidism (CH) is a major preventable cause of intellectual disability, particularly in very low birth weight (VLBW) infants, who are at increased risk due to hypothalamic-pituitary-thyroid axis immaturity. Early differentiation between transient CH (TCH) and permanent CH (PCH) is crucial to optimize L-thyroxine (LT4) treatment duration. This study aimed to determine the incidence of PCH among Korean VLBW infants and to identify clinical factors that may aid in distinguishing TCH from PCH.
Methods:
This retrospective cohort study included VLBW infants diagnosed with CH and treated with LT4 at a single tertiary neonatal intensive care unit between 2011 and 2020. Infants requiring LT4 beyond 3 years were classified as PCH, while those who discontinued earlier were considered TCH. Clinical characteristics, neonatal morbidities, and thyroid-related parameters were compared between the groups.
Results:
Among 1,292 VLBW infants, 122 (9.4%) were diagnosed with CH. After excluding deaths and those lost to follow-up, 73 infants were included in the final analysis (TCH, n=50; PCH, n=23). The PCH group had a significantly higher mean gestational age and greater LT4 requirements at both 12 and 36 months of age. Major anomalies were more frequently observed in PCH infants, including congenital heart defects. In multivariate analysis, higher gestational age, the presence of major anomalies, screening thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) >10 μIU/mL, and higher LT4 dose at 36 months were significantly associated with PCH.
Conclusion
The incidence of PCH in Korean VLBW infants was relatively higher than that reported in previous studies studies. Screening TSH level and LT4 dose requirements may support individualized follow-up and help distinguish PCH from TCH.
7.Permanent Congenital Hypothyroidism in Very Low Birth Weight Infants: A Single Center’s Experience
Joo Hyung ROH ; Tae-Gyeong KIM ; Keon Hee SEOL ; Chae Young KIM ; Soo Hyun KIM ; Ji Yoon JEONG ; Ja Hye KIM ; Euiseok JUNG ; Jin-Ho CHOI ; Byong Sop LEE
Neonatal Medicine 2025;32(1):30-38
Purpose:
Congenital hypothyroidism (CH) is a major preventable cause of intellectual disability, particularly in very low birth weight (VLBW) infants, who are at increased risk due to hypothalamic-pituitary-thyroid axis immaturity. Early differentiation between transient CH (TCH) and permanent CH (PCH) is crucial to optimize L-thyroxine (LT4) treatment duration. This study aimed to determine the incidence of PCH among Korean VLBW infants and to identify clinical factors that may aid in distinguishing TCH from PCH.
Methods:
This retrospective cohort study included VLBW infants diagnosed with CH and treated with LT4 at a single tertiary neonatal intensive care unit between 2011 and 2020. Infants requiring LT4 beyond 3 years were classified as PCH, while those who discontinued earlier were considered TCH. Clinical characteristics, neonatal morbidities, and thyroid-related parameters were compared between the groups.
Results:
Among 1,292 VLBW infants, 122 (9.4%) were diagnosed with CH. After excluding deaths and those lost to follow-up, 73 infants were included in the final analysis (TCH, n=50; PCH, n=23). The PCH group had a significantly higher mean gestational age and greater LT4 requirements at both 12 and 36 months of age. Major anomalies were more frequently observed in PCH infants, including congenital heart defects. In multivariate analysis, higher gestational age, the presence of major anomalies, screening thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) >10 μIU/mL, and higher LT4 dose at 36 months were significantly associated with PCH.
Conclusion
The incidence of PCH in Korean VLBW infants was relatively higher than that reported in previous studies studies. Screening TSH level and LT4 dose requirements may support individualized follow-up and help distinguish PCH from TCH.
8.Eligibility for Lecanemab Treatment in the Republic of Korea:Real-World Data From Memory Clinics
Sung Hoon KANG ; Jee Hyang JEONG ; Jung-Min PYUN ; Geon Ha KIM ; Young Ho PARK ; YongSoo SHIM ; Seong-Ho KOH ; Chi-Hun KIM ; Young Chul YOUN ; Dong Won YANG ; Hyuk-je LEE ; Han LEE ; Dain KIM ; Kyunghwa SUN ; So Young MOON ; Kee Hyung PARK ; Seong Hye CHOI
Journal of Clinical Neurology 2025;21(3):182-189
Background:
and Purpose We aimed to determine the proportion of Korean patients with early Alzheimer’s disease (AD) who are eligible to receive lecanemab based on the United States Appropriate Use Recommendations (US AUR), and also identify the barriers to this treatment.
Methods:
We retrospectively enrolled 6,132 patients with amnestic mild cognitive impairment or mild amnestic dementia at 13 hospitals from June 2023 to May 2024. Among them, 2,058 patients underwent amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) and 1,199 (58.3%) of these patients were amyloid-positive on PET. We excluded 732 patients who did not undergo brain magnetic resonance imaging between June 2023 and May 2024. Finally, 467 patients were included in the present study.
Results:
When applying the criteria of the US AUR, approximately 50% of patients with early AD were eligible to receive lecanemab treatment. Among the 467 included patients, 36.8% did not meet the inclusion criterion of a Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score of ≥22.
Conclusions
Eligibility for lecanemab treatment was not restricted to Korean patients with early AD except for those with an MMSE score of ≥22. The MMSE criteria should therefore be reconsidered in areas with a higher proportion of older people, who tend to have lower levels of education.
9.Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer 2024: An Evidence-based, Multidisciplinary Approach (Update of 2022 Guideline)
In-Ho KIM ; Seung Joo KANG ; Wonyoung CHOI ; An Na SEO ; Bang Wool EOM ; Beodeul KANG ; Bum Jun KIM ; Byung-Hoon MIN ; Chung Hyun TAE ; Chang In CHOI ; Choong-kun LEE ; Ho Jung AN ; Hwa Kyung BYUN ; Hyeon-Su IM ; Hyung-Don KIM ; Jang Ho CHO ; Kyoungjune PAK ; Jae-Joon KIM ; Jae Seok BAE ; Jeong Il YU ; Jeong Won LEE ; Jungyoon CHOI ; Jwa Hoon KIM ; Miyoung CHOI ; Mi Ran JUNG ; Nieun SEO ; Sang Soo EOM ; Soomin AHN ; Soo Jin KIM ; Sung Hak LEE ; Sung Hee LIM ; Tae-Han KIM ; Hye Sook HAN ; On behalf of The Development Working Group for the Korean Practice Guideline for Gastric Cancer 2024
Journal of Gastric Cancer 2025;25(1):5-114
Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in both Korea and worldwide. Since 2004, the Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer have been regularly updated, with the 4th edition published in 2022. The 4th edition was the result of a collaborative work by an interdisciplinary team, including experts in gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and guideline development methodology. The current guideline is the 5th version, an updated version of the 4th edition. In this guideline, 6 key questions (KQs) were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group, and 7 statements were developed, or revised, or discussed based on a systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed database. Over the past 2 years, there have been significant changes in systemic treatment, leading to major updates and revisions focused on this area.Additionally, minor modifications have been made in other sections, incorporating recent research findings. The level of evidence and grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Key factors for recommendation included the level of evidence, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability. The working group reviewed and discussed the recommendations to reach a consensus. The structure of this guideline remains similar to the 2022 version.Earlier sections cover general considerations, such as screening, diagnosis, and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. In the latter sections, statements are provided for each KQ based on clinical evidence, with flowcharts supporting these statements through meta-analysis and references. This multidisciplinary, evidence-based gastric cancer guideline aims to support clinicians in providing optimal care for gastric cancer patients.
10.Comparative Efficacy of High-Dose Rosuvastatin and Atorvastatin in Preventing Cystatin C-Oriented Contrast-Induced Nephropathy in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction: RACCOON-AMI Registry
Ji Hye KIM ; Hyunah KIM ; Seung-Hyuk CHOI ; Woo Jeong CHUN ; Joon Hyung DOH ; Jong-Young LEE ; Seung-Jae LEE ; Byung Jin KIM
Journal of Korean Medical Science 2025;40(14):e50-
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.

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail