Background: Asthma remission has recently emerged as an aspirational treatment goal, yet its definition remains inconsistent across studies and expert groups. The absence of a standardized framework hampers its application in clinical practice and research, particularly in Korea where biologics use is rapidly increasing. This study aimed to establish a consensus definition of clinical remission in severe asthma among Korean experts. Methods: A two-round modified Delphi survey, followed by a focused third round, was conducted among 28 board-certified pulmonologists from the Korean Academy of Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases (KATRD). The questionnaire consisted of six domains and 27 items. Responses were analyzed using agreement rates, interquartile ranges, and content validity ratios to determine consensus levels. Results: Consensus was reached on defining clinical remission as a composite of no exacerbations, no systemic corticosteroid use, sustained symptom control (Asthma Control Test ≥20 on at least three occasions over 12 months), and stabilization and optimization of pulmonary function while on maintenance treatment. Experts agreed that pulmonary function should be assessed based on clinical judgment rather than absolute thresholds. Complete remission was additionally defined as fulfilling all clinical remission criteria with normalization of type 2 inflammation (blood eosinophils <300/μL and fractional exhaled nitric oxide <25 ppb). Conclusion This Delphi consensus provides a regionally relevant and pragmatic framework for defining remission in severe asthma. These statements may help guide clinical practice, inform guideline development, and support future research on remission as a treatment goal.

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: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) expressing eosinophilia experience slightly fewer episodes of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), than those without eosinophilia. However, the severity and burden of hospitalized pneumonia patients with COPD involving eosinophilia have not been assessed. Methods: We evaluated the differences in clinical characteristics between patients with CAP and COPD with or without eosinophilia by a post hoc analysis of a prospective, multi-center, cohort study data. Results: Of 349 CAP patients with COPD, 45 (12.9%) had eosinophilia (blood eosinophil ≥300 cells/μL). Patients with eosinophilia had a lower sputum culture percentile (8.1% vs. 23.4%, p<0.05), a lower percentile of neutrophils (70.3% vs. 80.2%, p<0.05), reduced C-reactive protein levels (30.6 mg/L vs. 86.6 mg/L, p<0.05), and a lower pneumonia severity index score (82.5 vs. 90.0, p<0.05), than those without eosinophilia. The duration of antibiotic treatment (8.0 days vs. 10.0 days, p<0.05) and hospitalization (7.0 days vs. 9.0 days, p<0.05) were shorter in eosinophilic patients. The cost of medical care per day (256.4 US$ vs. 291.0 US$, p<0.05), cost for the medication (276.4 US$ vs. 349.9 US$, p<0.05), and cost for examination (685.5 US$ vs. 958.1 US$, p<0.05) were lower in patients with eosinophilia than those without eosinophilia. Conclusion Eosinophilia serves as a favorable marker for the severity of pneumonia, health-care consumption, and cost of medical care in patients with CAP and COPD.

Background: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of empagliflozin in routine clinical settings, we collected and assessed the clinical profiles of Korean patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Methods: This was a post-marketing surveillance study of empagliflozin 10 and 25 mg. Information on adverse events and adverse drug reactions (ADRs) was collected as safety data sets. Available effectiveness outcomes, including glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level, fasting plasma glucose, body weight, and blood pressure, were assessed. Results: The incidence rate of ADRs was 5.14% in the safety dataset (n=3,231). Pollakiuria, pruritis genital, and weight loss were the most common ADRs. ADRs of special interest accounted for only 1.18%, and there were no serious events that led to mortality or hospitalization. In the effectiveness data set (n=2,567), empagliflozin significantly reduced the mean HbA1c level and body weight during the study period by –0.68%±1.39% and –1.91±3.37 kg (both P<0.0001), respectively. In addition, shorter disease duration, absence of dyslipidemia, and higher baseline HbA1c levels were identified as the clinical features characteristic of a “responder” to empagliflozin therapy. Conclusion Empagliflozin is a safe and potent glucose-lowering drug in routine use among Korean patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. It is expected to have better glycemic efficacy in Korean patients with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus.