Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a newly emerged infectious disease that needs further clinical investigation. Characterizing the temporal pattern of combined infections in patients with COVID-19 may help clinicians understand the clinical nature of this disease and provide valuable diagnostic and therapeutic guidelines. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed COVID-19 patients isolated in four study hospitals in Korea for one year period from May 2021 to April 2022 when the delta and omicron variants were dominant. The temporal characteristics of combined infections based on specific diagnostic tests were analyzed. Results: A total of 16,967 COVID-19 patients were screened, 2,432 (14.3%) of whom underwent diagnostic microbiologic tests according to the clinical decision-making, 195 of whom had positive test results, and 0.55% (94/16,967) of whom were ultimately considered to have clinically meaningful combined infections. The median duration for the diagnosis of combined infections was 15 (interquartile range [IQR], 5–25) days after admission. The proportion of community-acquired coinfections (≤ 2 days after admission) was 11.7% (11/94), which included bacteremia (10/94, 10.63%) and tuberculosis (1/94, 1.06%). Combined infections after 2 days of admission were diagnosed at median 16 (IQR, 9–26) days, and included bacteremia (72.3%), fungemia (19.3%), cytomegalovirus (CMV) diseases (8.4%), Pneumocystis jerovecii pneumonia (PJP, 8.4%) and invasive pulmonary aspergillosis (IPA, 4.8%). Conclusion Among COVID-19 patients with risk factors for severe complications, 0.55% had laboratory-confirmed combined infections, which included community and nosocomial pathogens in addition to unusual pathogens such as CMV disease, PJP and IPA.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a newly emerged infectious disease that needs further clinical investigation. Characterizing the temporal pattern of combined infections in patients with COVID-19 may help clinicians understand the clinical nature of this disease and provide valuable diagnostic and therapeutic guidelines. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed COVID-19 patients isolated in four study hospitals in Korea for one year period from May 2021 to April 2022 when the delta and omicron variants were dominant. The temporal characteristics of combined infections based on specific diagnostic tests were analyzed. Results: A total of 16,967 COVID-19 patients were screened, 2,432 (14.3%) of whom underwent diagnostic microbiologic tests according to the clinical decision-making, 195 of whom had positive test results, and 0.55% (94/16,967) of whom were ultimately considered to have clinically meaningful combined infections. The median duration for the diagnosis of combined infections was 15 (interquartile range [IQR], 5–25) days after admission. The proportion of community-acquired coinfections (≤ 2 days after admission) was 11.7% (11/94), which included bacteremia (10/94, 10.63%) and tuberculosis (1/94, 1.06%). Combined infections after 2 days of admission were diagnosed at median 16 (IQR, 9–26) days, and included bacteremia (72.3%), fungemia (19.3%), cytomegalovirus (CMV) diseases (8.4%), Pneumocystis jerovecii pneumonia (PJP, 8.4%) and invasive pulmonary aspergillosis (IPA, 4.8%). Conclusion Among COVID-19 patients with risk factors for severe complications, 0.55% had laboratory-confirmed combined infections, which included community and nosocomial pathogens in addition to unusual pathogens such as CMV disease, PJP and IPA.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a newly emerged infectious disease that needs further clinical investigation. Characterizing the temporal pattern of combined infections in patients with COVID-19 may help clinicians understand the clinical nature of this disease and provide valuable diagnostic and therapeutic guidelines. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed COVID-19 patients isolated in four study hospitals in Korea for one year period from May 2021 to April 2022 when the delta and omicron variants were dominant. The temporal characteristics of combined infections based on specific diagnostic tests were analyzed. Results: A total of 16,967 COVID-19 patients were screened, 2,432 (14.3%) of whom underwent diagnostic microbiologic tests according to the clinical decision-making, 195 of whom had positive test results, and 0.55% (94/16,967) of whom were ultimately considered to have clinically meaningful combined infections. The median duration for the diagnosis of combined infections was 15 (interquartile range [IQR], 5–25) days after admission. The proportion of community-acquired coinfections (≤ 2 days after admission) was 11.7% (11/94), which included bacteremia (10/94, 10.63%) and tuberculosis (1/94, 1.06%). Combined infections after 2 days of admission were diagnosed at median 16 (IQR, 9–26) days, and included bacteremia (72.3%), fungemia (19.3%), cytomegalovirus (CMV) diseases (8.4%), Pneumocystis jerovecii pneumonia (PJP, 8.4%) and invasive pulmonary aspergillosis (IPA, 4.8%). Conclusion Among COVID-19 patients with risk factors for severe complications, 0.55% had laboratory-confirmed combined infections, which included community and nosocomial pathogens in addition to unusual pathogens such as CMV disease, PJP and IPA.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a newly emerged infectious disease that needs further clinical investigation. Characterizing the temporal pattern of combined infections in patients with COVID-19 may help clinicians understand the clinical nature of this disease and provide valuable diagnostic and therapeutic guidelines. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed COVID-19 patients isolated in four study hospitals in Korea for one year period from May 2021 to April 2022 when the delta and omicron variants were dominant. The temporal characteristics of combined infections based on specific diagnostic tests were analyzed. Results: A total of 16,967 COVID-19 patients were screened, 2,432 (14.3%) of whom underwent diagnostic microbiologic tests according to the clinical decision-making, 195 of whom had positive test results, and 0.55% (94/16,967) of whom were ultimately considered to have clinically meaningful combined infections. The median duration for the diagnosis of combined infections was 15 (interquartile range [IQR], 5–25) days after admission. The proportion of community-acquired coinfections (≤ 2 days after admission) was 11.7% (11/94), which included bacteremia (10/94, 10.63%) and tuberculosis (1/94, 1.06%). Combined infections after 2 days of admission were diagnosed at median 16 (IQR, 9–26) days, and included bacteremia (72.3%), fungemia (19.3%), cytomegalovirus (CMV) diseases (8.4%), Pneumocystis jerovecii pneumonia (PJP, 8.4%) and invasive pulmonary aspergillosis (IPA, 4.8%). Conclusion Among COVID-19 patients with risk factors for severe complications, 0.55% had laboratory-confirmed combined infections, which included community and nosocomial pathogens in addition to unusual pathogens such as CMV disease, PJP and IPA.

The prevalence of obesity in children and adolescents has been gradually increasing in recent years and has become a major health problem. Childhood obesity can readily progress to adult obesity. It is associated with obesity-related comorbidities, such as type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension, obstructive sleep apnea, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, and the risk factor for cardiovascular disease. It is important to make an accurate assessment of overweight and obesity in children and adolescents with consideration of growth and development. Childhood obesity can then be prevented and treated using an appropriate treatment goal and safe and effective treatment strategies. This article summarizes the clinical practice guidelines for obesity in children and adolescents that are included in the 8th edition of the Clinical Practice Guidelines for Obesity of the Korean Society for the Study of Obesity.

Background: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Omicron variant (B.1.1.529) is dominating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) worldwide. The waning protective effect of available vaccines against the Omicron variant is a critical public health issue. This study aimed to assess the impact of the third COVID-19 vaccination on immunity against the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 strain in older individuals. Materials and Methods: Adults aged ≥60 years who had completed two doses of the homologous COVID-19 vaccine with either BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech, New York, NY, USA, BNT) or ChAdOx1 nCoV (SK bioscience, Andong-si, Gyeongsangbuk-do, Korea, ChAd) were registered to receive the third vaccination. Participants chose either BNT or mRNA-1273 (Moderna, Norwood, MA, USA, m1273) mRNA vaccine for the third dose and were categorized into four groups: ChAd/ChAd/BNT, ChAd/ChAd/m1273, BNT/BNT/BNT, and BNT/BNT/m1273. Four serum specimens were obtained from each participant at 0, 4, 12, and 24 weeks after the third dose (V1, V2, V3, and V4, respectively).Serum-neutralizing antibody (NAb) activity against BetaCoV/Korea/KCDC03/2020 (NCCP43326, ancestral strain) and B.1.1.529 (NCCP43411, Omicron BA.1 variant) was measured using plaque reduction neutralization tests. A 50% neutralizing dilution (ND 50 ) >10 was considered indicative of protective NAb titers. Results: In total, 186 participants were enrolled between November 24, 2021, and June 30, 2022. The respective groups received the third dose at a median (interquartile range [IQR]) of 132 (125 - 191), 123 (122 - 126), 186 (166 -193), and 182 (175 - 198) days after the second dose. Overall, ND 50 was lower at V1 against Omicron BA.1 than against the ancestral strain. NAb titers against the ancestral strain and Omicron BA.1 variant at V2 were increased at least 30-fold (median [IQR], 1235.35 [1021.45 - 2374.65)] and 129.8 [65.3 - 250.7], respectively). ND 50 titers against the ancestral strain and Omicron variant did not differ significantly among the four groups (P= 0.57). NAb titers were significantly lower against the Omicron variant than against the ancestral strain at V3 (median [IQR], 36.4 (17.55 - 75.09) vs. 325.9 [276.07 - 686.97]; P = 0.012). NAb titers against Omicron at V4 were 16 times lower than that at V3. Most sera exhibited a protective level (ND 50 >10) at V4 (75.0% [24/32], 73.0% [27/37], 73.3% [22/30], and 70.6% [12/17] in the ChAd/ChAd/BNT, ChAd/ChAd/m1273, BNT/BNT/BNT, and BNT/BNT/m1273 groups, respectively), with no significant differences among groups (P = 0.99). Conclusion A third COVID-19 mRNA vaccine dose restored waning NAb titers against Omicron BA.1. Our findings support a third-dose vaccination program to prevent the waning of humoral immunity to SARS-CoV-2.

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.