Objectives: Allergic rhinitis (AR) is a chronic inflammation of the nasal mucosa triggered by environmental allergens. Although its pathophysiology has been extensively investigated, the influence of environmental aggravating factors—particularly combined pollutant exposure—remains insufficiently characterized. This study aimed to assess the impact of coexposure to PM2.5, formaldehyde, and Zn on allergic inflammation in a murine AR model and to delineate the associated immunological and histopathological responses. Methods: Female BALB/c mice were sensitized with ovalbumin (OVA) and challenged intranasally to induce AR. On days 21–24, the mice were exposed to PM2.5, formaldehyde, and Zn, either individually or in combination with OVA. Allergic symptoms were evaluated through behavioral observation, while immune responses were assessed by analyzing nasal and bronchoalveolar lavage fluids (NALF and BALF), serum immunoglobulin levels, nasal histopathology, and cytokine profiles. Results: Combined exposure to PM2.5, formaldehyde, and Zn significantly intensified allergic inflammation compared with single exposures. Coexposure to PM2.5 and Zn led to synergistic increases in total and OVA-specific immunoglobulin E levels, eosinophilic infiltration, nasal rubbing, sneezing, and Th2/Th17 cytokine levels in NALF and BALF. Histological analysis demonstrated epithelial thickening and goblet cell hyperplasia after combined exposure. Other combinations, including PM2.5 with formaldehyde, also produced additive or modestly amplified inflammatory responses. Conclusions Coexposure to PM2.5, formaldehyde, and Zn aggravated allergic inflammation in an OVA-induced murine model, with PM2.5+Zn yielding the strongest synergistic effects. These findings emphasize the role of pollutant–pollutant interactions in allergic airway diseases and highlight the need for further research to clarify long-term health effects and relevance to human disease.

Purpose: Asthma is characterized by chronic type 2/eosinophilic inflammation in the airway mucosa. This study aimed to explore the clinical value of 2 cutoffs of blood eosinophil counts (≥ 300/μL and ≥ 150/μL) in eosinophilic asthma, with relation to eosinophilderived neurotoxin (EDN), a surrogate marker of eosinophilic activity. Methods: To compare clinical features and eosinophil-related mediators according to 2 cutoffs of peripheral blood eosinophil counts (≥ 300/μL and ≥ 150/μL), 137 adult asthmatics who had maintained antiasthmatic medications, including inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting beta 2 agonist, without biologics, were enrolled. EDN levels in serum, urine and sputum were measured by enzymelinked immunosorbent assay. Results: Patients with asthma and higher blood eosinophil counts ( ≥ 300/μL) had a higher prevalence of severe asthma, chronic rhinosinusitis, partly controlled/uncontrolled status, and higher levels of sputum eosinophils and EDN in serum/sputum than those with lower blood eosinophil counts (< 300/μL). When compared between patients with asthma having higher blood eosinophils ( ≥ 150/μL) and those with lower eosinophils ( < 150/μL), there were no differences in symptom severity, control status or lung function parameters. Conclusion These findings suggest that blood eosinophil count ≥ 300/μL may identify asthma patients at higher risk for severity and heightened eosinophil activity, supporting its utility as a biomarker in a real clinical setting.

Purpose: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has become a standard minimally invasive treatment for selected patients with early gastric cancer (EGC). This study presents the first nationwide survey of patients with EGC treated with ESD in 2023, conducted by the Korean College of Helicobacter and Upper Gastrointestinal Research. Materials and Methods: Data were retrospectively collected from participating referral centers across Korea using a standardized case report form covering patient characteristics, tumor features, procedural details, histopathological findings, and clinical outcomes.Descriptive and comparative analyses were conducted to summarize nationwide ESD practice patterns and outcomes. Results: Data from 5,460 ESD cases from 5,250 patients across 27 institutions were analyzed. The mean age was 67.4 years, with 74.1% males. Multiple synchronous lesions were identified in 3.7%. Most lesions were located in the lower third of the stomach (64.0%), and differentiated-type adenocarcinomas accounted for 87.8%. The en bloc and complete resection rates were 99.2% and 91.4%, respectively. Curative resection was achieved in 80.5%, whereas local non-curative resection (L-NCR) and surgical non-curative resection (S-NCR) were identified in 2.8% and 16.7%, respectively. Additional surgery was performed more frequently in patients with S-NCR than in those with L-NCR (59.3% vs. 24.7%). The bleeding and perforation rates were 3.6% and 0.9%, respectively, and were mostly managed conservatively or endoscopically. The median length of hospitalization was 4.0 days. Conclusions This first nationwide survey provides a comprehensive overview of the current practice of EGC treatment using ESD in Korea, demonstrating high technical success and safety, and establishing a baseline dataset for future longitudinal research.

suggest that some reproductive factors associated with BC differ across ethnicities and time trends, perhaps due to the prevalence of reproductive factors and the baseline hazard of BC.

Objectives: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has become a standard minimally invasive treatment for selected patients with early gastric cancer (EGC). This study presents the first nationwide survey of patients with EGC treated with ESD in 2023, conducted by the Korean College of Helicobacter and Upper Gastrointestinal Research. Methods: Data were retrospectively collected from participating referral centers across Korea using a standardized case report form covering patient characteristics, tumor features, procedural details, histopathological findings, and clinical outcomes. Descriptive and comparative analyses were conducted to summarize nationwide ESD practice patterns and outcomes. Results: Data from 5460 ESD cases from 5250 patients across 27 institutions were analyzed. The mean age was 67.4 years, with 74.1% males. Multiple synchronous lesions were identified in 3.7%. Most lesions were located in the lower third of the stomach (64.0%), and differentiated-type adenocarcinomas accounted for 87.8%. The en bloc and complete resection rates were 99.2% and 91.4%, respectively. Curative resection was achieved in 80.5%, whereas local non-curative resection (L-NCR) and surgical non-curative resection (S-NCR) were identified in 2.8% and 16.7%, respectively. Additional surgery was performed more frequently in patients with S-NCR than in those with L-NCR (59.3% vs. 24.7%). The bleeding and perforation rates were 3.6% and 0.9%, respectively, and were mostly managed conservatively or endoscopically. The median length of hospitalization was 4.0 days. Conclusions This first nationwide survey provides a comprehensive overview of the current practice of EGC treatment using ESD in Korea, demonstrating high technical success and safety, and establishing a baseline dataset for future longitudinal research.

Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.