Background: This study aimed to compare the intraoperative stability and early clinical outcomes of 40-mm diameter dual mobility (DM)-total hip arthroplasty (THA) with 36-mm ceramic head (large head) THA in active elderly patients with hip fractures. Methods: A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted from May 2022 to December 2022. Inclusion criteria were as follows: age ≥ 60 years, displaced femoral neck fracture, Koval grade 1 or 2, planned 54-mm acetabular component, and over 1-year follow-up. Intraoperative stability tests were performed on all patients (internal rotation at 45°, 60°, and 90° of hip fracture). Functional outcomes (Harris Hip Score and University of California, Los Angeles [UCLA] Score) were evaluated at 6 weeks and 3 months postoperatively. Gait analysis using artificial intelligence (AI) techniques was conducted at 3 months postoperatively. Results: The study included 36 DM-THA patients (mean age, 69.6 ± 2.2 years; 44% women) and 37 large head THA patients (mean age, 69.6 ± 1.2 years; 64% women). No statistically significant differences were observed in functional outcomes and hip range of motion between the 2 groups. However, there was a significant difference in the gait speed and stance-swing phase of the large head THA group and the DM-THA group: the DM-THA group demonstrated superior gait speed (2.85 ± 0.83 kph vs. 2.04 ± 1.04 kph, p = 0.003) and higher stance phase ratios (operated side: 63.57% ± 3.82% vs. 48.19% ± 5.50%, p < 0.001; opposite side: 62.77% ± 2.27% vs. 49.93% ± 6.94%, p < 0.001). In the stability test at 90° of hip flexion, the DM-THA group had a measurement of 48.40° ± 5.17°, while the large head THA group had a measurement of 30.94° ± 2.98° (p = 0.012). Despite the lack of statistical significance, the intraoperative stability test showed the dislocation angle was notably different between the groups in the hip flexion position of 60° (51.60° ± 6.09° in the DM-THA group and 40.00° ± 2.80° in the large head THA group, p = 0.072). Conclusions Superior results were observed in the intraoperative stability test and early recovery of gait after DM-THA compared to large head THA. We believe that DM-THA can be a useful surgical option for THA in elderly patients with hip fractures.

Background: This study aimed to compare the intraoperative stability and early clinical outcomes of 40-mm diameter dual mobility (DM)-total hip arthroplasty (THA) with 36-mm ceramic head (large head) THA in active elderly patients with hip fractures. Methods: A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted from May 2022 to December 2022. Inclusion criteria were as follows: age ≥ 60 years, displaced femoral neck fracture, Koval grade 1 or 2, planned 54-mm acetabular component, and over 1-year follow-up. Intraoperative stability tests were performed on all patients (internal rotation at 45°, 60°, and 90° of hip fracture). Functional outcomes (Harris Hip Score and University of California, Los Angeles [UCLA] Score) were evaluated at 6 weeks and 3 months postoperatively. Gait analysis using artificial intelligence (AI) techniques was conducted at 3 months postoperatively. Results: The study included 36 DM-THA patients (mean age, 69.6 ± 2.2 years; 44% women) and 37 large head THA patients (mean age, 69.6 ± 1.2 years; 64% women). No statistically significant differences were observed in functional outcomes and hip range of motion between the 2 groups. However, there was a significant difference in the gait speed and stance-swing phase of the large head THA group and the DM-THA group: the DM-THA group demonstrated superior gait speed (2.85 ± 0.83 kph vs. 2.04 ± 1.04 kph, p = 0.003) and higher stance phase ratios (operated side: 63.57% ± 3.82% vs. 48.19% ± 5.50%, p < 0.001; opposite side: 62.77% ± 2.27% vs. 49.93% ± 6.94%, p < 0.001). In the stability test at 90° of hip flexion, the DM-THA group had a measurement of 48.40° ± 5.17°, while the large head THA group had a measurement of 30.94° ± 2.98° (p = 0.012). Despite the lack of statistical significance, the intraoperative stability test showed the dislocation angle was notably different between the groups in the hip flexion position of 60° (51.60° ± 6.09° in the DM-THA group and 40.00° ± 2.80° in the large head THA group, p = 0.072). Conclusions Superior results were observed in the intraoperative stability test and early recovery of gait after DM-THA compared to large head THA. We believe that DM-THA can be a useful surgical option for THA in elderly patients with hip fractures.

Background: This study aimed to compare the intraoperative stability and early clinical outcomes of 40-mm diameter dual mobility (DM)-total hip arthroplasty (THA) with 36-mm ceramic head (large head) THA in active elderly patients with hip fractures. Methods: A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted from May 2022 to December 2022. Inclusion criteria were as follows: age ≥ 60 years, displaced femoral neck fracture, Koval grade 1 or 2, planned 54-mm acetabular component, and over 1-year follow-up. Intraoperative stability tests were performed on all patients (internal rotation at 45°, 60°, and 90° of hip fracture). Functional outcomes (Harris Hip Score and University of California, Los Angeles [UCLA] Score) were evaluated at 6 weeks and 3 months postoperatively. Gait analysis using artificial intelligence (AI) techniques was conducted at 3 months postoperatively. Results: The study included 36 DM-THA patients (mean age, 69.6 ± 2.2 years; 44% women) and 37 large head THA patients (mean age, 69.6 ± 1.2 years; 64% women). No statistically significant differences were observed in functional outcomes and hip range of motion between the 2 groups. However, there was a significant difference in the gait speed and stance-swing phase of the large head THA group and the DM-THA group: the DM-THA group demonstrated superior gait speed (2.85 ± 0.83 kph vs. 2.04 ± 1.04 kph, p = 0.003) and higher stance phase ratios (operated side: 63.57% ± 3.82% vs. 48.19% ± 5.50%, p < 0.001; opposite side: 62.77% ± 2.27% vs. 49.93% ± 6.94%, p < 0.001). In the stability test at 90° of hip flexion, the DM-THA group had a measurement of 48.40° ± 5.17°, while the large head THA group had a measurement of 30.94° ± 2.98° (p = 0.012). Despite the lack of statistical significance, the intraoperative stability test showed the dislocation angle was notably different between the groups in the hip flexion position of 60° (51.60° ± 6.09° in the DM-THA group and 40.00° ± 2.80° in the large head THA group, p = 0.072). Conclusions Superior results were observed in the intraoperative stability test and early recovery of gait after DM-THA compared to large head THA. We believe that DM-THA can be a useful surgical option for THA in elderly patients with hip fractures.

Background: This study aimed to compare the intraoperative stability and early clinical outcomes of 40-mm diameter dual mobility (DM)-total hip arthroplasty (THA) with 36-mm ceramic head (large head) THA in active elderly patients with hip fractures. Methods: A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted from May 2022 to December 2022. Inclusion criteria were as follows: age ≥ 60 years, displaced femoral neck fracture, Koval grade 1 or 2, planned 54-mm acetabular component, and over 1-year follow-up. Intraoperative stability tests were performed on all patients (internal rotation at 45°, 60°, and 90° of hip fracture). Functional outcomes (Harris Hip Score and University of California, Los Angeles [UCLA] Score) were evaluated at 6 weeks and 3 months postoperatively. Gait analysis using artificial intelligence (AI) techniques was conducted at 3 months postoperatively. Results: The study included 36 DM-THA patients (mean age, 69.6 ± 2.2 years; 44% women) and 37 large head THA patients (mean age, 69.6 ± 1.2 years; 64% women). No statistically significant differences were observed in functional outcomes and hip range of motion between the 2 groups. However, there was a significant difference in the gait speed and stance-swing phase of the large head THA group and the DM-THA group: the DM-THA group demonstrated superior gait speed (2.85 ± 0.83 kph vs. 2.04 ± 1.04 kph, p = 0.003) and higher stance phase ratios (operated side: 63.57% ± 3.82% vs. 48.19% ± 5.50%, p < 0.001; opposite side: 62.77% ± 2.27% vs. 49.93% ± 6.94%, p < 0.001). In the stability test at 90° of hip flexion, the DM-THA group had a measurement of 48.40° ± 5.17°, while the large head THA group had a measurement of 30.94° ± 2.98° (p = 0.012). Despite the lack of statistical significance, the intraoperative stability test showed the dislocation angle was notably different between the groups in the hip flexion position of 60° (51.60° ± 6.09° in the DM-THA group and 40.00° ± 2.80° in the large head THA group, p = 0.072). Conclusions Superior results were observed in the intraoperative stability test and early recovery of gait after DM-THA compared to large head THA. We believe that DM-THA can be a useful surgical option for THA in elderly patients with hip fractures.

Background: It is well known that a large number of patients with diabetes also have dyslipidemia, which significantly increases the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of combination drugs consisting of metformin and atorvastatin, widely used as therapeutic agents for diabetes and dyslipidemia. Methods: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group and phase III multicenter study included adults with glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels >7.0% and <10.0%, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) >100 and <250 mg/dL. One hundred eighty-five eligible subjects were randomized to the combination group (metformin+atorvastatin), metformin group (metformin+atorvastatin placebo), and atorvastatin group (atorvastatin+metformin placebo). The primary efficacy endpoints were the percent changes in HbA1c and LDL-C levels from baseline at the end of the treatment. Results: After 16 weeks of treatment compared to baseline, HbA1c showed a significant difference of 0.94% compared to the atorvastatin group in the combination group (0.35% vs. −0.58%, respectively; P<0.0001), whereas the proportion of patients with increased HbA1c was also 62% and 15%, respectively, showing a significant difference (P<0.001). The combination group also showed a significant decrease in LDL-C levels compared to the metformin group (−55.20% vs. −7.69%, P<0.001) without previously unknown adverse drug events. Conclusion The addition of atorvastatin to metformin improved HbA1c and LDL-C levels to a significant extent compared to metformin or atorvastatin alone in diabetes and dyslipidemia patients. This study also suggested metformin’s preventive effect on the glucose-elevating potential of atorvastatin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and dyslipidemia, insufficiently controlled with exercise and diet. Metformin and atorvastatin combination might be an effective treatment in reducing the CVD risk in patients with both diabetes and dyslipidemia because of its lowering effect on LDL-C and glucose.

Background: Atherogenic dyslipidemia, which is frequently associated with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and insulin resistance, contributes to the development of vascular complications. Statin therapy is the primary approach to dyslipidemia management in T2D, however, the role of non-statin therapy remains unclear. Ezetimibe reduces cholesterol burden by inhibiting intestinal cholesterol absorption. Fibrates lower triglyceride levels and increase high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels via peroxisome proliferator- activated receptor alpha agonism. Therefore, when combined, these drugs effectively lower non-HDL-C levels. Despite this, few clinical trials have specifically targeted non-HDL-C, and the efficacy of triple combination therapies, including statins, ezetimibe, and fibrates, has yet to be determined. Methods: This is a multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label, active-comparator controlled trial involving 3,958 eligible participants with T2D, cardiovascular risk factors, and elevated non-HDL-C (≥100 mg/dL). Participants, already on moderate-intensity statins, will be randomly assigned to either Ezefeno (ezetimibe/fenofibrate) addition or statin dose-escalation. The primary end point is the development of a composite of major adverse cardiovascular and diabetic microvascular events over 48 months. Conclusion This trial aims to assess whether combining statins, ezetimibe, and fenofibrate is as effective as, or possibly superior to, statin monotherapy intensification in lowering cardiovascular and microvascular disease risk for patients with T2D. This could propose a novel therapeutic approach for managing dyslipidemia in T2D.

Background: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) approved empagliflozin for reducing cardiovascular mortality and heart failure (HF) hospitalization in patients with both HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). However, limited data are available on the generalizability of empagliflozin to clinical practice. Therefore, we evaluated real-world eligibility and potential cost-effectiveness based on a nationwide prospective HF registry. Methods: A total of 3,108 HFrEF and 2,070 HFpEF patients from the Korean Acute Heart Failure (KorAHF) registry were analyzed. Eligibility was estimated by inclusion and exclusion criteria of EMPagliflozin outcomE tRial in Patients With chrOnic heaRt Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction (EMPEROR-Reduced) and EMPagliflozin outcomE tRial in Patients With chrOnic heaRt Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction (EMPEROR-Preserved) trials and by FDA & EMA label criteria. The cost-utility analysis was done using a Markov model to project the lifetime medical cost and quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Results: Among the KorAHF patients, 91.4% met FDA & EMA label criteria, while 44.7% met the clinical trial criteria. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of empagliflozin was calculated at US$6,764 per QALY in the overall population, which is far below a threshold of US$18,182 per QALY. The cost-effectiveness benefit was more evident in patients with HFrEF (US$5,012 per QALY) than HFpEF (US$8,971 per QALY). Conclusion There is a large discrepancy in real-world eligibility for empagliflozin between FDA & EMA labels and clinical trial criteria. Empagliflozin is cost-effective in HF patients regardless of ejection fraction in South Korea health care setting. The efficacy and safety of empagliflozin in real-world HF patients should be further investigated for a broader range of clinical applications.

Background: With a rapid decrease in tuberculosis (TB) incidence, the significance of latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) has been underscored in South Korea. Although South Korea does not have a high proportion of immigrants compared to other countries, there is a growing argument that it should actively embrace immigrants as a solution to address issues of low birth rates and population aging. This study aimed to assess TB incidence among immigrants who participated a pilot LTBI screening program in South Korea. Methods: Records of immigrants participated in a pilot LTBI screening program in South Korea between 2018 and 2019 were linked with Korean National TB Surveillance System to determine TB development. Participants underwent interferon-gamma release assay (IGRA) and chest X-rays. Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) stratified by age, country of origin’s TB burden was calculated with a reference group of general South Korean population. Results: Of a total of 9,517 participants, 14 TB cases were identified. Participants with positive IGRA results who did not initiate LTBI treatment showed TB incidence of 312.5 per 100,000 person-years, whereas those with negative results showed TB incidence of 34.4 per 100,000 person-years, resulting in an incidence rate ratio of 9.08 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.50–32.99). SIR of TB among total participants including those with negative IGRA results was 2.60 (95% CI, 1.54–4.38; P < 0.001), whereas SIR among those with positive IGRA results was 5.86 (95% CI, 3.15–10.89; P < 0.001). In the calculation of SIR among participants with positive IGRA results, those aged under 35 from high TB-burden countries or intermediate TBburden countries showed a high SIR (18.08; 95% CI, 2.55–128.37; P = 0.004), and 11.30 (95% CI, 2.82–45.16; P < 0.001), respectively). Contrary to previous reports that suggest the majority of elderly population with a positive IGRA result were due to remote infection and had a lower TB risk compared to younger ages, SIR among those aged 65 or over from intermediate TB-burden countries was 6.15 (95% CI, 0.87–43.69; P = 0.069), which was comparable to that in younger participants aged between 35 and 49 (SIR, 4.87; 95% CI, 1.22–19.49; P = 0.025) or those aged between 50 and 64 (SIR, 4.62; 95% CI, 1.73–12.31; P = 0.002). Conclusion Young immigrants with positive IGRA results from countries with high or intermediate TB burden showed a relatively high TB risk compared to a general South Korea population. In addition, unexpected high TB risk was observed among elderly immigrants with positive IGRA results. In establishing future policies for LTBI in immigrants in South Korea, screenings should primarily focus on younger age group (who aged under 35).Additionally, further research is needed on the high TB risk observed in elderly immigrants.

Objective: Dysphagia is a common clinical condition characterized by difficulty in swallowing. It is sub-classified into oropharyngeal dysphagia, which refers to problems in the mouth and pharynx, and esophageal dysphagia, which refers to problems in the esophageal body and esophagogastric junction. Dysphagia can have a significant negative impact one’s physical health and quality of life as its severity increases. Therefore, proper assessment and management of dysphagia are critical for improving swallowing function and preventing complications. Thus a guideline was developed to provide evidence-based recommendations for assessment and management in patients with dysphagia. Methods: Nineteen key questions on dysphagia were developed. These questions dealt with various aspects of problems related to dysphagia, including assessment, management, and complications. A literature search for relevant articles was conducted using Pubmed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and one domestic database of KoreaMed, until April 2021. The level of evidence and recommendation grade were established according to the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. Results: Early screening and assessment of videofluoroscopic swallowing were recommended for assessing the presence of dysphagia. Therapeutic methods, such as tongue and pharyngeal muscle strengthening exercises and neuromuscular electrical stimulation with swallowing therapy, were effective in improving swallowing function and quality of life in patients with dysphagia. Nutritional intervention and an oral care program were also recommended. Conclusion This guideline presents recommendations for the assessment and management of patients with oropharyngeal dysphagia, including rehabilitative strategies.

Background: This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of add-on gemigliptin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who had inadequate glycemic control with metformin and dapagliflozin. Methods: In this randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, double-blind, phase III study, 315 patients were randomized to receive either gemigliptin 50 mg (n=159) or placebo (n=156) with metformin and dapagliflozin for 24 weeks. After the 24-week treatment, patients who received the placebo were switched to gemigliptin, and all patients were treated with gemigliptin for an additional 28 weeks. Results: The baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups, except for body mass index. At week 24, the least squares mean difference (standard error) in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) changes was –0.66% (0.07) with a 95% confidence interval of –0.80% to –0.52%, demonstrating superior HbA1c reduction in the gemigliptin group. After week 24, the HbA1c level significantly decreased in the placebo group as gemigliptin was administered, whereas the efficacy of HbA1c reduction was maintained up to week 52 in the gemigliptin group. The safety profiles were similar: the incidence rates of treatment-emergent adverse events up to week 24 were 27.67% and 29.22% in the gemigliptin and placebo groups, respectively. The safety profiles after week 24 were similar to those up to week 24 in both groups, and no new safety findings, including hypoglycemia, were noted. Conclusion Add-on gemigliptin was well tolerated, providing comparable safety profiles and superior efficacy in glycemic control over placebo for long-term use in patients with T2DM who had poor glycemic control with metformin and dapagliflozin.