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.

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, conclusively evaluating possible associations between COVID-19 vaccines and potential adverse events was of critical importance. The National Academy of Medicine of Korea established the COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Research Center (CoVaSC) with support from the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency to investigate the scientific relationship between COVID-19 vaccines and suspected adverse events. Although determining whether the COVID-19 vaccine was responsible for any suspected adverse event necessitated a systematic approach, traditional causal inference theories, such as Hill's criteria, encountered certain limitations and criticisms. To facilitate a systematic and evidence-based evaluation, the United States Institute of Medicine, at the request of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, offered a detailed causality assessment framework in 2012, which was updated in the recent report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) in 2024.This framework, based on a weight-of-evidence approach, allows the independent evaluation of both epidemiological and mechanistic evidence, culminating in a comprehensive conclusion about causality. Epidemiological evidence derived from population studies is categorized into four levels—high, moderate, limited, or insufficient—while mechanistic evidence, primarily from biological and clinical studies in animals and individuals, is classified as strong, intermediate, weak, or lacking. The committee then synthesizes these two types of evidence to draw a conclusion about the causal relationship, which can be described as “convincingly supports” (“evidence established” in the 2024 NASEM report), “favors acceptance,” “favors rejection,” or “inadequate to accept or reject.” The CoVaSC has established an independent committee to conduct causality assessments using the weightof-evidence framework, specifically for evaluating the causality of adverse events associated with COVID-19 vaccines. The aim of this study is to provide an overview of the weight-ofevidence framework and to detail the considerations involved in its practical application in the CoVaSC.

Purpose: For the treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC), research on primary lesions with mesorectal fascia (MRF) involvement is lacking. This study analyzed the clinical outcomes and efficacy of dose-escalated neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) to patients with LARC involving MRF. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 301 patients who were diagnosed with LARC involving MRF and underwent NCRT followed by total mesorectal excision (TME). Patients who received radiotherapy (RT) doses of ≤50.4 Gy were defined as the non-boost group, while ≥54.0 Gy as the boost group. Pathological tumor response and survival outcomes, including intrapelvic recurrence-free survival (IPRFS), distant metastases-free survival (DMFS) and overall survival (OS), were analyzed. Results: A total of 269 patients (89.4%) achieved a negative pathological circumferential resection margin and 104 (34.6%) had good pathological tumor regression grades. With a median follow-up of 32.4 months, IPRFS, DMFS, and OS rates at 5-years were 88.6%, 78.0%, and 91.2%, respectively. In the subgroup analysis by RT dose, the boost group included more advanced clinical stages of patients. For the non-boost group and boost group, 5-year IPRFS rates were 90.3% and 87.0% (p = 0.242), 5-year DMFS rates were 82.0% and 71.3% (p = 0.105), and 5-year OS rates were 93.0% and 80.6% (p = 0.439), respectively. Treatment related toxicity was comparable between the two groups (p = 0.211). Conclusion Although this retrospective study failed to confirm the efficacy of dose-escalated NCRT, favorable IPRFS and pathological complete response was achieved with NCRT followed by TME. Further studies combining patient customized RT dose with systemic therapies are needed.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused the death of thousands of patients worldwide. Although age is known to be a risk factor for morbidity and mortality in COVID-19 patients, critical illness or death is occurring even in the younger age group as the epidemic spreads. In early 2022, omicron became the dominant variant of the COVID-19 virus in South Korea, and the epidemic proceeded on a large scale. Accordingly, this study aimed to determine whether young adults (aged ≤ 50 years) with critical COVID-19 infection during the omicron period had different characteristics from older patients and to determine the risk factors for mortality in this specific age group. Methods: We evaluated 213 critical adult patients (high flow nasal cannula or higher respiratory support) hospitalized for polymerase chain reaction-confirmed COVID-19 in nine hospitals in South Korea between February 1, 2022 and April 30, 2022. Demographic characteristics, including body mass index (BMI) and vaccination status; underlying diseases; clinical features and laboratory findings; clinical course; treatment received; and outcomes were collected from electronic medical records (EMRs) and analyzed according to age and mortality. Results: Overall, 71 critically ill patients aged ≤ 50 years were enrolled, and 142 critically ill patients aged over 50 years were selected through 1:2 matching based on the date of diagnosis. The most frequent underlying diseases among those aged ≤ 50 years were diabetes and hypertension, and all 14 patients who died had either a BMI ≥ 25 kg/m 2 or an underlying disease. The total case fatality rate among severe patients (S-CFR) was 31.0%, and the S-CFR differed according to age and was higher than that during the delta period. The S-CFR was 19.7% for those aged ≤ 50 years, 36.6% for those aged > 50 years, and 38.1% for those aged ≥ 65 years. In multivariate analysis, age (odds ratio [OR], 1.084; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.043–1.127), initial low-density lipoprotein > 600 IU/L (OR, 4.782; 95% CI, 1.584–14.434), initial C-reactive protein > 8 mg/dL (OR, 2.940; 95% CI, 1.042–8.293), highest aspartate aminotransferase > 200 IU/L (OR, 12.931; 95% CI, 1.691–98.908), and mechanical ventilation implementation (OR, 3.671; 95% CI, 1.294–10.420) were significant independent predictors of mortality in critical COVID-19 patients during the omicron wave. A similar pattern was shown when analyzing the data by age group, but most had no statistical significance owing to the small number of deaths in the young critical group. Although the vaccination completion rate of all the patients (31.0%) was higher than that in the delta wave period (13.6%), it was still lower than that of the general population. Further, only 15 (21.1%) critically ill patients aged ≤ 50 years were fully vaccinated. Overall, the severity of hospitalized critical patients was significantly higher than that in the delta period, indicating that it was difficult to find common risk factors in the two periods only with a simple comparison. Conclusion Overall, the S-CFR of critically ill COVID-19 patients in the omicron period was higher than that in the delta period, especially in those aged ≤ 50 years. All of the patients who died had an underlying disease or obesity. In the same population, the vaccination rate was very low compared to that in the delta wave, indicating that non-vaccination significantly affected the progression to critical illness. Notably, there was a lack of prescription for Paxlovid for these patients although they satisfied the prescription criteria. Early diagnosis and active initial treatment was necessary, along with the proven methods of vaccination and personal hygiene. Further studies are needed to determine how each variant affects critically ill patients.

Gout is the most common form of arthritis, with the prevalence increasing worldwide. The present treatment guidelines provide recommendations for the appropriate treatment of acute gout, management during the inter-critical period, and prevention of chronic complications. The guidelines were developed based on evidence-based medicine and draft recommendations finalized after expert consensus. These guidelines are designed to provide clinicians with clinical evidence to enable efficient treatment of gout.

Gout is the most common form of arthritis, with the prevalence increasing worldwide. The present treatment guidelines provide recommendations for the appropriate treatment of acute gout, management during the inter-critical period, and prevention of chronic complications. The guidelines were developed based on evidence-based medicine and draft recommendations finalized after expert consensus. These guidelines are designed to provide clinicians with clinical evidence to enable efficient treatment of gout.

Background: Numerous patients around the globe are dying from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). While age is a known risk factor, risk analysis in the young generation is lacking. The present study aimed to evaluate the clinical features and mortality risk factors in younger patients (≤ 50 years) with a critical case of COVID-19 in comparison with those among older patients (> 50 years) in Korea. Methods: We analyzed the data of adult patients only in critical condition (requiring high flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy or higher respiratory support) hospitalized with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 at 11 hospitals in Korea from July 1, 2021 to November 30, 2021 when the delta variant was a dominant strain. Patients’ electronic medical records were reviewed to identify clinical characteristics. Results: During the study period, 448 patients were enrolled. One hundred and forty-two were aged 50 years or younger (the younger group), while 306 were above 50 years of age (the older group). The most common pre-existing conditions in the younger group were diabetes mellitus and hypertension, and 69.7% of the patients had a body mass index (BMI) > 25 kg/m 2 .Of 142 younger patients, 31 of 142 patients (21.8%, 19 women) did not have these pre-existing conditions. The overall case fatality rate among severity cases was 21.0%, and it differed according to age: 5.6% (n = 8/142) in the younger group, 28.1% in the older group, and 38% in the ≥ 65 years group. Age (odds ratio [OR], 7.902; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.754–18.181), mechanical ventilation therapy (OR, 17.233; 95% CI, 8.439–35.192), highest creatinine > 1.5 mg/dL (OR, 17.631; 95% CI, 8.321–37.357), and combined blood stream infection (OR, 7.092;95% CI, 1.061–18.181) were identified as independent predictors of mortality in total patients.Similar patterns were observed in age-specific analyses, but most results were statistically insignificant in multivariate analysis due to the low number of deaths in the younger group.The full vaccination rate was very low among study population (13.6%), and only three patients were fully vaccinated, with none of the patients who died having been fully vaccinated in the younger group. Seven of eight patients who died had a pre-existing condition or were obese (BMI > 25 kg/m 2 ), and the one remaining patient died from a secondary infection. Conclusion About 22% of the patients in the young critical group did not have an underlying disease or obesity, but the rate of obesity (BMI > 25 kg/m2 ) was high, with a fatality rate of 5.6%. The full vaccination rate was extremely low compared to the general population of the same age group, showing that non-vaccination has a grave impact on the progression of COVID-19 to a critical condition. The findings of this study highlight the need for measures to prevent critical progression of COVID-19, such as vaccinations and targeting young adults especially having risk factors.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is often accompanied by secondary infections, such as invasive aspergillosis. In this study, risk factors for developing COVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA) and their clinical outcomes were evaluated. Methods: This multicenter retrospective cohort study included critically ill COVID-19 patients from July 2020 through March 2021. Critically ill patients were defined as patients requiring high-flow respiratory support or mechanical ventilation. CAPA was defined based on the 2020 European Confederation of Medical Mycology and the International Society for Human and Animal Mycology consensus criteria. Factors associated with CAPA were analyzed, and their clinical outcomes were adjusted by a propensity score-matched model. Results: Among 187 eligible patients, 17 (9.1%) developed CAPA, which is equal to 33.10 per 10,000 patient-days. Sixteen patients received voriconazole-based antifungal treatment. In addition, 82.4% and 53.5% of patients with CAPA and without CAPA, respectively, received early high-dose corticosteroids (P = 0.022). In multivariable analysis, initial 10-day cumulative steroid dose > 60 mg of dexamethasone or dexamethasone equivalent dose) (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 3.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03–13.79) and chronic pulmonary disease (adjusted OR, 4.20; 95% CI, 1.26–14.02) were independently associated with CAPA. Tendencies of higher 90-day overall mortality (54.3% vs. 35.2%, P= 0.346) and lower respiratory support-free rate were observed in patients with CAPA (76.3% vs. 54.9%, P = 0.089). Conclusion Our study showed that the dose of corticosteroid use might be a risk factor for CAPA development and the possibility of CAPA contributing to adverse outcomes in critically ill COVID-19 patients.

Despite the global effort to mitigate the spread, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a pandemic that took more than 2 million lives. There are numerous ongoing clinical studies aiming to find treatment options and many are being published daily. Some effective treatment options, albeit of variable efficacy, have been discovered. Therefore, it is necessary to develop an evidence-based methodology, to continuously check for new evidence, and to update recommendations accordingly. Here we provide guidelines on pharmaceutical treatment for COVID-19 based on the latest evidence.

Despite the global effort to mitigate the spread, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a pandemic that took more than 2 million lives. There are numerous ongoing clinical studies aiming to find treatment options and many are being published daily. Some effective treatment options, albeit of variable efficacy, have been discovered. Therefore, it is necessary to develop an evidence-based methodology, to continuously check for new evidence, and to update recommendations accordingly. Here we provide guidelines on pharmaceutical treatment for COVID-19 based on the latest evidence.