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: 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.

In May 2023, the Committee of Clinical Practice Guidelines of the Korean Diabetes Association published the revised clinical practice guidelines for Korean adults with diabetes and prediabetes. We incorporated the latest clinical research findings through a comprehensive systematic literature review and applied them in a manner suitable for the Korean population. These guidelines are designed for all healthcare providers nationwide, including physicians, diabetes experts, and certified diabetes educators who manage patients with diabetes or individuals at risk of developing diabetes. Based on recent changes in international guidelines and the results of a Korean epidemiological study, the recommended age for diabetes screening has been lowered. In collaboration with the relevant Korean medical societies, recently revised guidelines for managing hypertension and dyslipidemia in patients with diabetes have been incorporated into this guideline. An abridgment containing practical information on patient education and systematic management in the clinic was published separately.

Objective: Dysphagia is a common clinical condition characterized by difficulty in swallowing. It is sub-classified into oropharyngeal dysphagia, which refers to problems in the mouth and pharynx, and esophageal dysphagia, which refers to problems in the esophageal body and esophagogastric junction. Dysphagia can have a significant negative impact one’s physical health and quality of life as its severity increases. Therefore, proper assessment and management of dysphagia are critical for improving swallowing function and preventing complications. Thus a guideline was developed to provide evidence-based recommendations for assessment and management in patients with dysphagia. Methods: Nineteen key questions on dysphagia were developed. These questions dealt with various aspects of problems related to dysphagia, including assessment, management, and complications. A literature search for relevant articles was conducted using Pubmed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and one domestic database of KoreaMed, until April 2021. The level of evidence and recommendation grade were established according to the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. Results: Early screening and assessment of videofluoroscopic swallowing were recommended for assessing the presence of dysphagia. Therapeutic methods, such as tongue and pharyngeal muscle strengthening exercises and neuromuscular electrical stimulation with swallowing therapy, were effective in improving swallowing function and quality of life in patients with dysphagia. Nutritional intervention and an oral care program were also recommended. Conclusion This guideline presents recommendations for the assessment and management of patients with oropharyngeal dysphagia, including rehabilitative strategies.

Background/Aims: Chronic hepatitis C is a major risk factor for liver cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, and hepatic failure. Although traditional practices, including acupuncture, tend to increase the risk of HCV infection, the association remains controversial. Therefore, the current meta-analytical study was undertaken to evaluate the risks of acupuncture and hepatitis C transmission. Methods: Two researchers independently screened studies from the databases encompassing the period from inception to May 12, 2022. Baseline demographics, HCV transmission OR, and 95% CIs were extracted, pooled, and analyzed using random-effect models.Subgroup analyses utilizing study design and ethnicity were performed. Heterogeneity and publication bias were analyzed using the Higgins I2 test and funnel plots, respectively. Results: In all, 28 studies with 194,826 participants (178,583 controls [91.7%] vs. 16,243 acupuncture users [8.3%]) were included in the final analysis. The pooled analysis showed that acupuncture users had a significantly higher HCV transmission rate than controls with heterogeneity (OR, 1.84 [1.46–2.32]; p<0.001; I2 =80%). In the subgroup analysis, both cross-sectional case-control (n=14; OR, 1.96 [1.47–2.61]; p<0.001; I2 =88%) and cross-sectional studies (n=12; OR, 1.85 [1.32–2.61]; p<0.001; I2 =0%) showed significantly higher HCV infection rates in the acupuncture group than in the control group. Both Asian and non-Asian acupuncture users showed a higher HCV transmission risk than the controls (all Ps <0.001). No significant publication bias was observed. Conclusions Our findings indicate that acupuncture increases the risk of HCV transmission. Due to HCV's contagiousness, unsafe medical and social practices (including acupuncture) should be performed with caution.