Background: Seborrheic dermatitis (SD) is a chronic inflammatory scalp disorder associated with Malassezia dysbiosis and increased sebum production. AMPamide has been suggested to have anti-inflammatory and sebum-regulating effects, but its clinical efficacy and microbiome-modulating effects in SD remain unclear. Objective: To evaluate the clinical efficacy and scalp microbiome changes following 4 weeks of use of an AMPamide-containing shampoo in patients with SD. Methods: In this observational study, 30 patients with SD applied an AMPamide-containing shampoo for 4 consecutive weeks. Clinical outcomes, including sebum levels and overall severity scores, were assessed. Scalp bacterial and fungal communities were analyzed to evaluate α- and β-diversity and changes in Malassezia composition. Results: Treatment resulted in significant reductions in sebum levels and clinical severity scores, particularly in erythema, dandruff, and pruritus. Bacterial community composition remained largely stable, while fungal α-diversity increased, and β-diversity analysis revealed a decrease in the ratio of Malassezia restricta to Malassezia globosa. Conclusion AMPamide-containing shampoo was associated with improved clinical symptoms and a shift toward a more balanced fungal community composition in patients with SD, supporting its potential as a non-steroidal therapeutic option for SD.

Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors are an important treatment option for ulcerative colitis, providing rapid onset of action, oral administration, and efficacy even after biologic failure. The 3 approved agents—tofacitinib, filgotinib, and upadacitinib—differ in JAK isoform selectivity, leading to clinically meaningful differences in efficacy and safety. Evidence from network meta-analyses, clinical trials, and real-world studies consistently shows that upadacitinib provides the highest efficacy for induction and maintenance of remission, whereas filgotinib demonstrates the most favorable safety profile. The strong efficacy of upadacitinib and tofacitinib is particularly relevant in patients with severe disease, including acute severe ulcerative colitis, and upadacitinib maintains high efficacy regardless of prior advanced therapy exposure. JAK inhibitors also benefit extraintestinal manifestations. Although risks such as herpes zoster, serious infection, thromboembolism, and major cardiovascular events differ among agents, long-term data suggest generally acceptable safety when used appropriately. Intraclass JAK-to-JAK cycling is feasible, with about half of patients achieving steroid-free clinical remission in retrospective cohorts. Based on mechanistic, clinical, and real-world evidence, filgotinib may be a first-line option for patients with lower disease activity or when safety is a priority, whereas upadacitinib or tofacitinib may be preferred in higher disease activity. Strategically selecting agents may improve durability and outcomes.

Background: This study aimed to determine whether a shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen is non-inferior to the standard 6-month tuberculosis regimen. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial enrolled participants with respiratory specimen positivity by Xpert MTB/RIF assay or Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture without rifampicin-resistance. Participants were randomized at 1:1 to the investigational or control group. The investigational group received high-dose rifampicin (30 mg/kg/day), isoniazid, and pyrazinamide until culture conversion, followed by high-dose rifampicin and isoniazid for 12 weeks. The control group received the standard 6-month regimen. The primary outcome was the rate of unfavorable outcomes at 18 months post-randomization. The non-inferiority margin was set at <6% difference in unfavorable outcomes rates. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04485156) Results: Between 4 November 2020 and 3 January 2022, 76 participants were enrolled. Of these, 58 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Unfavorable outcomes occurred in 10 (31.3%) of 32 in the control group and 10 (38.5%) of 26 in the investigational group. The difference was 7.2% (95% confidence interval, ∞ to 31.9%), failing to prove non-inferiority. Serious adverse events and grade 3 or higher adverse events did not differ between the groups. Conclusion The shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen failed to demonstrate non-inferiority but had an acceptable safety profile.

Background: This study aimed to determine whether a shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen is non-inferior to the standard 6-month tuberculosis regimen. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial enrolled participants with respiratory specimen positivity by Xpert MTB/RIF assay or Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture without rifampicin-resistance. Participants were randomized at 1:1 to the investigational or control group. The investigational group received high-dose rifampicin (30 mg/kg/day), isoniazid, and pyrazinamide until culture conversion, followed by high-dose rifampicin and isoniazid for 12 weeks. The control group received the standard 6-month regimen. The primary outcome was the rate of unfavorable outcomes at 18 months post-randomization. The non-inferiority margin was set at <6% difference in unfavorable outcomes rates. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04485156) Results: Between 4 November 2020 and 3 January 2022, 76 participants were enrolled. Of these, 58 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Unfavorable outcomes occurred in 10 (31.3%) of 32 in the control group and 10 (38.5%) of 26 in the investigational group. The difference was 7.2% (95% confidence interval, ∞ to 31.9%), failing to prove non-inferiority. Serious adverse events and grade 3 or higher adverse events did not differ between the groups. Conclusion The shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen failed to demonstrate non-inferiority but had an acceptable safety profile.

Background: This study aimed to determine whether a shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen is non-inferior to the standard 6-month tuberculosis regimen. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial enrolled participants with respiratory specimen positivity by Xpert MTB/RIF assay or Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture without rifampicin-resistance. Participants were randomized at 1:1 to the investigational or control group. The investigational group received high-dose rifampicin (30 mg/kg/day), isoniazid, and pyrazinamide until culture conversion, followed by high-dose rifampicin and isoniazid for 12 weeks. The control group received the standard 6-month regimen. The primary outcome was the rate of unfavorable outcomes at 18 months post-randomization. The non-inferiority margin was set at <6% difference in unfavorable outcomes rates. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04485156) Results: Between 4 November 2020 and 3 January 2022, 76 participants were enrolled. Of these, 58 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Unfavorable outcomes occurred in 10 (31.3%) of 32 in the control group and 10 (38.5%) of 26 in the investigational group. The difference was 7.2% (95% confidence interval, ∞ to 31.9%), failing to prove non-inferiority. Serious adverse events and grade 3 or higher adverse events did not differ between the groups. Conclusion The shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen failed to demonstrate non-inferiority but had an acceptable safety profile.

Background: This study aimed to determine whether a shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen is non-inferior to the standard 6-month tuberculosis regimen. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial enrolled participants with respiratory specimen positivity by Xpert MTB/RIF assay or Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture without rifampicin-resistance. Participants were randomized at 1:1 to the investigational or control group. The investigational group received high-dose rifampicin (30 mg/kg/day), isoniazid, and pyrazinamide until culture conversion, followed by high-dose rifampicin and isoniazid for 12 weeks. The control group received the standard 6-month regimen. The primary outcome was the rate of unfavorable outcomes at 18 months post-randomization. The non-inferiority margin was set at <6% difference in unfavorable outcomes rates. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04485156) Results: Between 4 November 2020 and 3 January 2022, 76 participants were enrolled. Of these, 58 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Unfavorable outcomes occurred in 10 (31.3%) of 32 in the control group and 10 (38.5%) of 26 in the investigational group. The difference was 7.2% (95% confidence interval, ∞ to 31.9%), failing to prove non-inferiority. Serious adverse events and grade 3 or higher adverse events did not differ between the groups. Conclusion The shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen failed to demonstrate non-inferiority but had an acceptable safety profile.

Background: An increased incidence of hair loss disorders has been noted among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and individuals vaccinated against COVID-19. However, research involving large populations on this topic is lacking. Objective: To investigate the risks associated with developing hair loss disorders in patients with COVID-19 and individuals vaccinated against COVID-19. Methods: This nationwide, population-based, cross-sectional study included patients diagnosed with COVID-19 and healthy individuals without a history of COVID-19 infection registered in the Korean National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) database between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2021. COVID-19 infection and vaccine databases were integrated using this NHIS database. The odds ratios of hair loss disorders were compared using multivariate logistic regression models. Results: COVID-19 infection was associated with an increased risk of total alopecia (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.076; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.002–1.156), although this association was not significant after propensity score matching. No significant associations were found between COVID-19 infection and alopecia areata or telogen effluvium. However, COVID-19 vaccination was positively correlated with total alopecia (aOR, 1.266; 95% CI, 1.191–1.346), alopecia areata (aOR, 1.243; 95% CI, 1.154–1.339), and telogen effluvium (aOR, 1.495; 95% CI, 1.133–1.974). Conclusion COVID-19 vaccination was positively correlated with hair loss disorders but not COVID-19 infection. However, given the advantages of vaccines in reducing COVID-19 mortality and morbidity, alopecia may be relatively reversible and less severe. Physicians need to understand the benefits and possible side effects of the COVID-19 vaccine.

Background: This study aimed to determine whether a shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen is non-inferior to the standard 6-month tuberculosis regimen. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial enrolled participants with respiratory specimen positivity by Xpert MTB/RIF assay or Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture without rifampicin-resistance. Participants were randomized at 1:1 to the investigational or control group. The investigational group received high-dose rifampicin (30 mg/kg/day), isoniazid, and pyrazinamide until culture conversion, followed by high-dose rifampicin and isoniazid for 12 weeks. The control group received the standard 6-month regimen. The primary outcome was the rate of unfavorable outcomes at 18 months post-randomization. The non-inferiority margin was set at <6% difference in unfavorable outcomes rates. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04485156) Results: Between 4 November 2020 and 3 January 2022, 76 participants were enrolled. Of these, 58 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Unfavorable outcomes occurred in 10 (31.3%) of 32 in the control group and 10 (38.5%) of 26 in the investigational group. The difference was 7.2% (95% confidence interval, ∞ to 31.9%), failing to prove non-inferiority. Serious adverse events and grade 3 or higher adverse events did not differ between the groups. Conclusion The shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen failed to demonstrate non-inferiority but had an acceptable safety profile.

Background: Nasolabial folds (NLFs) constitute a pivotal aspect of facial aesthetics and are the primary focal points in facial rejuvenation procedures. Collagen-stimulating fillers have gained popularity due to their long-lasting effects and biocompatibility. Objective: This study aimed to comprehensively evaluate the therapeutic efficacy and safety profiles of collagenstimulating fillers for NLF correction. Methods: A thorough search of the databases including PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane was performed. Randomized controlled trials published between 2000 and 2023 on the treatment outcomes of collagen-stimulating fillers for NLFs were included. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted using the Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS), Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS), and adverse events. Results: Among the 144 pertinent studies, nine met the inclusion criteria, including 299 participants for polycaprolactone (PCL), 291 for poly L-lactic acid (PLLA), and 382 for calcium hydroxylapatite (CaHA). PCL showed significantly higher improvement in GAIS (risk ratio [RR], 3.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.29∼4.30; p＜0.001) and WSRS (mean difference, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.36∼1.06; p＜0.001) at a 12-month interval compared with hyaluronic acid (HA). CaHA showed marked 12-month GAIS improvement versus HA (RR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.21∼1.88; p＜0.001). PLLA exhibited superior wrinkle improvement compared with HA at week 24, especially in individuals under 52 years of age. No severe complications occurred. Conclusion Collagen-stimulating fillers have the potential to be safe, effective, and long-lasting options for NLF correction. Nevertheless, due to the limited data and heterogeneity among the included studies, cautious interpretation is required. Further high-quality clinical trials are required to validate these findings.