Background: and Purpose: Tailored physical exercise interventions have the potential to promote cognitive health in older adults and offer significant advantages for those more vulnerable to decline. The specific relationship between physical fitness and cognition among the elderly has not been clearly established. The purpose of this investigation was to assess the relationship between physical fitness and cognitive function in older Korean adults. Methods: Eighty-four community-dwelling older adults (mean age: 70.7±5.3 years; 81.0% female) completed a standardized physical fitness battery assessing handgrip strength, sit-and-reach, 30-second sit-to-stand, 2-minute stationary march, 3-m sit-walk-and-return, figure-8-walk, and T-wall response time. Cognitive function was evaluated using the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS). Descriptive statistics, partial correlation analyses, and stepwise multiple linear regression were conducted. Results: Slower T-wall response time was significantly correlated with lower RBANS total index, immediate memory, and delayed memory scores. In regression models, slower T-wall response time was independently associated with lower RBANS total index (β=−0.234, p=0.026) and delayed memory scores (β=−0.295, p=0.029). The regression model for immediate memory was not statistically significant overall; therefore, no predictive conclusion was drawn for this domain. Higher education showed a significant positive association with cognitive performance. Conclusions Coordination, as measured by T-wall response time, emerged as the only physical fitness component consistently associated with cognitive performance in older adults. Coordination-related fitness may be an important correlate of cognitive function in older adults and a promising target for future exercise interventions.

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.

Objective: As the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been prolonged, the pre-hospital screening test performed in hospitals has changed from polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to rapid antigen test (RAT). RAT has lower sensitivity than PCR, but a lower cost and shorter test time. In the hospital where this study was conducted, the preadmission COVID-19 test was changed from PCR to RAT on February 24, 2023. This study compared the efficacy of PCR and RAT as the pre-admission COVID-19 test. Methods: This was a retrospective observational study comparing two periods, 90 days from November 25, 2022 to February 23, 2023, and 90 days from February 28, 2023 to May 29, 2023. Patients hospitalized from the emergency medical center during these two periods were included. Binomial logistic regression was used to compare the emergency department length of stay (ED LOS) between the two groups (PCR vs. RAT). Logistic regression was used to compare the mortality. Results: Four thousand seven hundred and thirty-eight patients were admitted through the emergency room: 2,202 patients in the PCR group and 2,443 patients in the RAT group. No statistically significant differences in the characteristics and severity were observed between the two groups. The mean ED LOS of PCR 5.07 hours (interquartile range, 3.80-6.75) was longer than RAT 3.65 hours (interquartile range, 2.83-4.68) (P<0.001). Mortality was higher in PCR 8.9% than RAT 6.6% (P=0.005). Conclusion The study showed that ED LOS and mortality were reduced when using RAT rather than PCR as a preadmission COVID-19 test.

Lecanemab (product name Leqembi ® ) is an anti-amyloid monoclonal antibody treatment approved for use in Korea for patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia due to Alzheimer's disease. The Korean Dementia Association has created recommendations for the appropriate use of lecanemab to assist clinicians. These recommendations include selecting patients for administration, necessary pre-administration tests and preparations,administration methods, monitoring for amyloid related imaging abnormalities (ARIA), and communication with patients and caregivers. Lecanemab is recommended for patients with MCI or mild dementia who confirmed positive amyloid biomarkers, and should not be administered to patients with severe hypersensitivity to lecanemab or those unable to undergo magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) evaluation. To predict the risk of ARIA before administration, apolipoprotein E genotyping is conducted, and regular brain MRI evaluations are recommended to monitor for ARIA during treatment. The most common adverse reactions are infusion-related reactions, which require appropriate management upon occurrence. Additional caution is needed when co-administering with anticoagulants or tissue plasminogen activator due to the risk of macrohemorrhage. Clinicians should consider the efficacy and necessary conditions for administration, as well as the safety of lecanemab, to make a comprehensive decision regarding its use.

Lecanemab (product name Leqembi ® ) is an anti-amyloid monoclonal antibody treatment approved for use in Korea for patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia due to Alzheimer's disease. The Korean Dementia Association has created recommendations for the appropriate use of lecanemab to assist clinicians. These recommendations include selecting patients for administration, necessary pre-administration tests and preparations,administration methods, monitoring for amyloid related imaging abnormalities (ARIA), and communication with patients and caregivers. Lecanemab is recommended for patients with MCI or mild dementia who confirmed positive amyloid biomarkers, and should not be administered to patients with severe hypersensitivity to lecanemab or those unable to undergo magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) evaluation. To predict the risk of ARIA before administration, apolipoprotein E genotyping is conducted, and regular brain MRI evaluations are recommended to monitor for ARIA during treatment. The most common adverse reactions are infusion-related reactions, which require appropriate management upon occurrence. Additional caution is needed when co-administering with anticoagulants or tissue plasminogen activator due to the risk of macrohemorrhage. Clinicians should consider the efficacy and necessary conditions for administration, as well as the safety of lecanemab, to make a comprehensive decision regarding its use.

Lecanemab (product name Leqembi ® ) is an anti-amyloid monoclonal antibody treatment approved for use in Korea for patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia due to Alzheimer's disease. The Korean Dementia Association has created recommendations for the appropriate use of lecanemab to assist clinicians. These recommendations include selecting patients for administration, necessary pre-administration tests and preparations,administration methods, monitoring for amyloid related imaging abnormalities (ARIA), and communication with patients and caregivers. Lecanemab is recommended for patients with MCI or mild dementia who confirmed positive amyloid biomarkers, and should not be administered to patients with severe hypersensitivity to lecanemab or those unable to undergo magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) evaluation. To predict the risk of ARIA before administration, apolipoprotein E genotyping is conducted, and regular brain MRI evaluations are recommended to monitor for ARIA during treatment. The most common adverse reactions are infusion-related reactions, which require appropriate management upon occurrence. Additional caution is needed when co-administering with anticoagulants or tissue plasminogen activator due to the risk of macrohemorrhage. Clinicians should consider the efficacy and necessary conditions for administration, as well as the safety of lecanemab, to make a comprehensive decision regarding its use.