Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

Diabetes mellitus is a major risk factor for the development of heart failure. Furthermore, the prognosis of heart failure is worse in patients with diabetes mellitus than in those without it. Therefore, early diagnosis and proper management of heart failure in patients with diabetes mellitus are important. This review discusses the current criteria for diagnosis and screening tools for heart failure and the currently recommended pharmacological therapies for heart failure. We also highlight the effects of anti-diabetic medications on heart failure.

Objectives: This study compares the labeling information on the sizes of interdental brushes marketed in Korea to their actual sizes. Moreover, it analyzes the relationship between the size of the passage hole diameter (PHD), brush diameter, stem diameter, and stem length. Methods: Among the commercially available interdental brushes in Korea, 171 interdental brushes, 3 in each size, were collected from 9 companies. The labels of the collected interdental brushes were researched, and the PHD was measured and compared. The correlation between the passage hole diameter, brush diameter, stem diameter, and stem length was analyzed. Multiple regression analysis was performed to verify the effect of brush diameter, stem diameter, and stem length on the determination of the PHD. Results: The sizes of the interdental brushes were expressed using the ISO labeling or the Small, Medium, Large (S, M, L) labeling and indicated in units of 0.1. The concordance rate of the measured PHD and named PHD was 39.7%. The measured brush diameter, stem diameter, and stem length increased as the interdental brush size increased. There was a significant correlation (P<0.01) between PHD, brush diameter, stem diameter, and stem length. The order of variables with the most to least significant influence on PHD was stem diameter (β=0.528), brush diameter (β=0.404), and stem length (β=0.074). Conclusions This study shows that the label and actual size of interdental brushes did not match, and the concordance rate between the measured and labeled PHDs was low. Therefore, the interdental brush size labels among manufacturers should be standardized. Moreover, these manufacturers must provide the correct size information for the interdental brushes.

Background: We assessed the myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and all-cause death risks during follow-up according to the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels among older adults. Methods: The Korean National Health Insurance Service datasets (2002 to 2020) were used for this population-based cohort study. The hazards of MI, stroke, and all-cause mortality during follow-up were analyzed according to LDL-C level in individuals aged ≥65 years without baseline cardiovascular diseases (n=1,391,616). Results: During a mean 7.55 years, 52,753 MIs developed; 84,224 strokes occurred over a mean 7.47 years. After a mean 8.50 years, 233,963 died. A decrease in LDL-C was associated with lower hazards of MI and stroke. The decreased hazard of stroke in lower LDL-C was more pronounced in statin users, and individuals with diabetes or obesity. The hazard of all-cause death during follow-up showed an inverted J-shaped pattern according to the LDL-C levels. However, the paradoxically increased hazard of mortality during follow-up in lower LDL-C was attenuated in statin users and individuals with diabetes, hypertension, or obesity. In statin users, lower LDL-C was associated with a decreased hazard of mortality during follow-up. Conclusion Among the elderly, lower LDL-C was associated with decreased risks of MI and stroke. Lower LDL-C achieved by statins in the elderly was associated with a decreased risk of all-cause death during follow-up, suggesting that LDL-C paradox for the premature death risk in the elderly should not be applied to statin users. Intensive statin therapy should not be hesitated for older adults with cardiovascular risk factors including diabetes.

Background: The detrimental effects of excessive thyroid hormone on glucose metabolism have been widely investigated. However, the risk of diabetes in patients with long-standing hyperthyroidism, especially according to treatment modality, remains uncertain, with few longitudinal studies. Methods: The risk of diabetes in patients with Graves’ disease treated with antithyroid drugs (ATDs) for longer than the conventional duration (≥2 years) was compared with that in age-and sex-matched controls. The risk was further compared according to subsequent treatment modalities after a 24-month course of ATD: continuation of ATD (ATD group) vs. radioactive iodine ablation (RIA) group. Results: A total of 4,593 patients were included. Diabetes was diagnosed in 751 (16.3%) patients over a follow-up of 7.3 years. The hazard ratio (HR) for diabetes, after adjusting for various known risk factors, was 1.18 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.10 to 1.28) in patients with hyperthyroidism. Among the treatment modality groups, the RIA group (n=102) had a higher risk of diabetes than the ATD group (n=4,491) with HR of 1.56 (95% CI, 1.01 to 2.42). Further, the risk of diabetes increased with an increase in the ATD treatment duration (P for trend=0.019). Conclusion The risk of diabetes was significantly higher in patients with long-standing Graves’ disease than in the general population, especially in patients who underwent RIA and prolonged ATD treatment. Special attention to hyperglycemia during follow-up along with effective control of hyperthyroidism may be necessary to reduce the risk of diabetes in these patients.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus is associated with an increased risk of dementia. We aimed to comprehensively analyze the incidence and risk factors for dementia and young-onset dementia (YOD) in diabetic patients in Korea using the National Health Insurance Service data. METHODS: Between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2012, a total of 1,917,702 participants with diabetes were included and followed until the date of dementia diagnosis or until December 31, 2015. We evaluated the incidence and risk factors for all dementia, Alzheimer's disease (AD), and vascular dementia (VaD) by Cox proportional hazards analyses. We also compared the impact of risk factors on the occurrence of YOD and late-onset dementia (LOD). RESULTS: During an average of 5.1 years of follow-up, the incidence of all types of dementia, AD, or VaD was 9.5, 6.8, and 1.3/1,000 person-years, respectively, in participants with diabetes. YOD comprised 4.8% of all dementia occurrence, and the ratio of AD/VaD was 2.1 for YOD compared with 5.5 for LOD. Current smokers and subjects with lower income, plasma glucose levels, body mass index (BMI), and subjects with hypertension, dyslipidemia, vascular complications, depression, and insulin treatment developed dementia more frequently. Vascular risk factors such as smoking, hypertension, and previous cardiovascular diseases were more strongly associated with the development of VaD than AD. Low BMI and a history of stroke or depression had a stronger influence on the development of YOD than LOD. CONCLUSION The optimal management of modifiable risk factors may be important for preventing dementia in subjects with diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular risk remains increased despite optimal low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level induced by intensive statin therapy. Therefore, recent guidelines recommend non-high density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) as a secondary target for preventing cardiovascular events. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of omega-3 fatty acids (OM3-FAs) in combination with atorvastatin compared to atorvastatin alone in patients with mixed dyslipidemia. METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, and phase III multicenter study included adults with fasting triglyceride (TG) levels ≥200 and <500 mg/dL and LDL-C levels <110 mg/dL. Eligible subjects were randomized to ATOMEGA (OM3-FAs 4,000 mg plus atorvastatin calcium 20 mg) or atorvastatin 20 mg plus placebo groups. The primary efficacy endpoints were the percent changes in TG and non-HDL-C levels from baseline at the end of treatment. RESULTS: After 8 weeks of treatment, the percent changes from baseline in TG (−29.8% vs. 3.6%, P<0.001) and non-HDL-C (−10.1% vs. 4.9%, P<0.001) levels were significantly greater in the ATOMEGA group (n=97) than in the atorvastatin group (n=103). Moreover, the proportion of total subjects reaching TG target of <200 mg/dL in the ATOMEGA group was significantly higher than that in the atorvastatin group (62.9% vs. 22.3%, P<0.001). The incidence of adverse events did not differ between the two groups. CONCLUSION The addition of OM3-FAs to atorvastatin improved TG and non-HDL-C levels to a significant extent compared to atorvastatin alone in subjects with residual hypertriglyceridemia.