Background: and Purpose: This clinical practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for treatment of dementia, focusing on cholinesterase inhibitors and N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and other types of dementia. Methods: Using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes (PICO) framework, we developed key clinical questions and conducted systematic literature reviews. A multidisciplinary panel of experts, organized by the Korean Dementia Association, evaluated randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Recommendations were graded for evidence quality and strength using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Results: Three main recommendations are presented: (1) For AD, cholinesterase inhibitors (donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine) are strongly recommended for improving cognition and daily function based on moderate evidence; (2) Cholinesterase inhibitors are conditionally recommended for vascular dementia and Parkinson’s disease dementia, with a strong recommendation for Lewy body dementia; (3) For moderate to severe AD, NMDA receptor antagonist (memantine) is strongly recommended, demonstrating significant cognitive and functional improvements. Both drug classes showed favorable safety profiles with manageable side effects. Conclusions This guideline offers standardized, evidence-based pharmacologic recommendations for dementia management, with specific guidance on cholinesterase inhibitors and NMDA receptor antagonists. It aims to support clinical decision-making and improve patient outcomes in dementia care. Further updates will address emerging treatments, including amyloid-targeting therapies, to reflect advances in dementia management.

Purpose: Treatment options for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) vary according to known guidelines among liver resection (LR), liver transplantation (LT), radiofrequency ablation (RFA), and transarterial chemoembolization (TACE). This study aimed to compare the outcomes of initial treatment for patients with resectable HCC within Milan criteria (MC) via nationwide data. Methods: Patients with resectable HCC (Child-Pugh class A; platelet count, ≥100,000/μL) within MC from the Korean Liver Cancer Association databank were analyzed, retrospectively. Outcomes according to initial treatment and subgroups according to tumor size and number were analyzed. Overall survival (OS) rates after initial treatment were compared. Results: A total of 3,241 patients who underwent LR (n = 1,371), LT (n = 12), RFA (n = 679), or TACE (n = 1,179) were included. The 5-year OS rates differed significantly between the groups (P < 0.05), except for LT (LR, 84.9%; LT, 82.5%;RFA, 76.2%; and TACE, 59.9%). For patients with a single tumor of any size, the 5-year OS rates of the LR group were significantly higher than RFA and TACE groups. For patients with multiple tumors, the 5-year OS rates were 78.2%, 100%, 74.3%, and 53.0% for the LR, LT, RFA, and TACE groups, respectively, but without significant difference between LR and RFA (P = 0.86). Conclusion For resectable HCC within MC, the LR had the highest OS rate for a single tumor of any size. LR and RFA showed no significant differences in OS rate for multiple tumors. LR has a much more optimistic outlook for HCC within MC.

Background: This study aimed to determine whether a shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen is non-inferior to the standard 6-month tuberculosis regimen. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial enrolled participants with respiratory specimen positivity by Xpert MTB/RIF assay or Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture without rifampicin-resistance. Participants were randomized at 1:1 to the investigational or control group. The investigational group received high-dose rifampicin (30 mg/kg/day), isoniazid, and pyrazinamide until culture conversion, followed by high-dose rifampicin and isoniazid for 12 weeks. The control group received the standard 6-month regimen. The primary outcome was the rate of unfavorable outcomes at 18 months post-randomization. The non-inferiority margin was set at <6% difference in unfavorable outcomes rates. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04485156) Results: Between 4 November 2020 and 3 January 2022, 76 participants were enrolled. Of these, 58 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Unfavorable outcomes occurred in 10 (31.3%) of 32 in the control group and 10 (38.5%) of 26 in the investigational group. The difference was 7.2% (95% confidence interval, ∞ to 31.9%), failing to prove non-inferiority. Serious adverse events and grade 3 or higher adverse events did not differ between the groups. Conclusion The shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen failed to demonstrate non-inferiority but had an acceptable safety profile.

Background: This study aimed to determine whether a shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen is non-inferior to the standard 6-month tuberculosis regimen. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial enrolled participants with respiratory specimen positivity by Xpert MTB/RIF assay or Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture without rifampicin-resistance. Participants were randomized at 1:1 to the investigational or control group. The investigational group received high-dose rifampicin (30 mg/kg/day), isoniazid, and pyrazinamide until culture conversion, followed by high-dose rifampicin and isoniazid for 12 weeks. The control group received the standard 6-month regimen. The primary outcome was the rate of unfavorable outcomes at 18 months post-randomization. The non-inferiority margin was set at <6% difference in unfavorable outcomes rates. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04485156) Results: Between 4 November 2020 and 3 January 2022, 76 participants were enrolled. Of these, 58 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Unfavorable outcomes occurred in 10 (31.3%) of 32 in the control group and 10 (38.5%) of 26 in the investigational group. The difference was 7.2% (95% confidence interval, ∞ to 31.9%), failing to prove non-inferiority. Serious adverse events and grade 3 or higher adverse events did not differ between the groups. Conclusion The shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen failed to demonstrate non-inferiority but had an acceptable safety profile.

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.

Objective: It has been 1 year since the start of the worldwide coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic. This study analyzed the indirect effects of COVID-19 on treating patients with non-infectious diseases by comparing the incidence of complicated appendicitis before and after the pandemic. Methods: The target group included patients aged at least 16 years diagnosed with acute appendicitis between February 23 and July 31, 2020. Patients diagnosed during the same period in 2019 were selected as the control group. The differences in the incidence of complicated appendicitis before and after COVID-19 were investigated, and the association with various variables was analyzed using the odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: The study included 120 subjects in 2019 (pre-COVID group) and 119 cases in 2020 (post-COVID group). The pre-COVID group included 25 cases (20.8%) of complicated appendicitis, while the post-COVID group included 48 cases (40.3%). The median time from symptom onset to visit (pre-hospital time) increased from 15 to 22 hours, and the median time from the visit to surgery (in-hospital time) increased from 7 to 11 hours. Multivariate regression analysis of the three variables revealed odds ratios (95% CIs) of pre-hospital time, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and inclusion in the post-COVID group of 1.02 (1.01-1.02), 2.07 (1.11-3.86), and 2.15 (1.12-4.11), respectively. Conclusion The incidence of complicated appendicitis increased after the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, a healthcare system that can minimize the delay in treating non-infectious emergency patients is needed.

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: This study evaluated the postoperative quality of life (QoL) after various types of gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Materials and Methods: A multicenter prospective observational study was conducted in Korea using the Korean Quality of Life in Stomach Cancer Patients Study (KOQUSS)-40, a new QoL assessment tool focusing on postgastrectomy syndrome. Overall, 496 patients with gastric cancer were enrolled, and QoL was assessed at 5 time points: preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Results: Distal gastrectomy (DG) and pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (PPG) showed significantly better outcomes than total gastrectomy (TG) and proximal gastrectomy (PG) with regard to total score, indigestion, and dysphagia. DG, PPG, and TG also showed significantly better outcomes than PG in terms of dumping syndrome and worry about cancer. Postoperative QoL did not differ significantly according to anastomosis type in DG, except for Billroth I anastomosis, which achieved better bowel habit change scores than the others. No domains differed significantly when comparing double tract reconstruction and esophagogastrostomy after PG. The total QoL score correlated significantly with postoperative body weight loss (more than 10%) and extent of resection (P<0.05 for both).Reflux as assessed by KOQUSS-40 did not correlate significantly with reflux observed on gastroscopy 1 year postoperatively (P=0.064). Conclusions Our prospective observation using KOQUSS-40 revealed that DG and PPG lead to better QoL than TG and PG. Further study is needed to compare postoperative QoL according to anastomosis type in DG and PG.

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.