Background: and Purpose: This clinical practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for treatment of dementia, focusing on cholinesterase inhibitors and N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and other types of dementia. Methods: Using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes (PICO) framework, we developed key clinical questions and conducted systematic literature reviews. A multidisciplinary panel of experts, organized by the Korean Dementia Association, evaluated randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Recommendations were graded for evidence quality and strength using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Results: Three main recommendations are presented: (1) For AD, cholinesterase inhibitors (donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine) are strongly recommended for improving cognition and daily function based on moderate evidence; (2) Cholinesterase inhibitors are conditionally recommended for vascular dementia and Parkinson’s disease dementia, with a strong recommendation for Lewy body dementia; (3) For moderate to severe AD, NMDA receptor antagonist (memantine) is strongly recommended, demonstrating significant cognitive and functional improvements. Both drug classes showed favorable safety profiles with manageable side effects. Conclusions This guideline offers standardized, evidence-based pharmacologic recommendations for dementia management, with specific guidance on cholinesterase inhibitors and NMDA receptor antagonists. It aims to support clinical decision-making and improve patient outcomes in dementia care. Further updates will address emerging treatments, including amyloid-targeting therapies, to reflect advances in dementia management.

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.

Background/Aims: Patients with acute exacerbation of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (AE-IPF) typically have a poor prognosis; however, no effective treatment is available. In recent years, several retrospective studies have suggested the clinical benefits of direct hemoperfusion with a polymyxin B–immobilized fiber column (PMX-DHP) in patients with AE-IPF. Herein, we aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of PMX-DHP treatment in patients with AE-IPF. Methods: Patients diagnosed with AE-IPF (n = 10) with a partial pressure of oxygen to fraction of inspiratory oxygen ratio (P/F ratio) > 100 were prospectively enrolled at a single center. PMX-DHP was performed twice for 6 hours (at 24-h intervals) at a flow rate of 80–100 mL/min, and steroid pulse therapy was concurrently administered (500 mg of methylprednisolone for 3 d). Results: The mean patient age was 67 years, and 80.0% were male. During the follow-up (median, 42.5 d; interquartile range, 16.0–174.0 d), seven (70.0%) patients died (including two who underwent transplantation); the in-hospital mortality rate was 70%, while the 30- and 90-day mortality rates were 50.0% and 70.0%, respectively. After 48 hours of PMX-DHP treatment, the P/F ratio improved (mean, 160.0 vs. 229.0; p = 0.054) and C-reactive protein level decreased (mean, 8.3 mg/dL vs. 3.5 mg/dL; p = 0.012). During hospitalization, no PMX-DHP–associated adverse events were observed. Conclusions Our results suggest that PMX-DHP treatment may be useful at improving oxygenation and reducing inflammation in patients with AE-IPF with acceptable safety profiles, however without affecting their prognosis.

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.

Background/Aims: Patients with acute exacerbation of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (AE-IPF) typically have a poor prognosis; however, no effective treatment is available. In recent years, several retrospective studies have suggested the clinical benefits of direct hemoperfusion with a polymyxin B–immobilized fiber column (PMX-DHP) in patients with AE-IPF. Herein, we aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of PMX-DHP treatment in patients with AE-IPF. Methods: Patients diagnosed with AE-IPF (n = 10) with a partial pressure of oxygen to fraction of inspiratory oxygen ratio (P/F ratio) > 100 were prospectively enrolled at a single center. PMX-DHP was performed twice for 6 hours (at 24-h intervals) at a flow rate of 80–100 mL/min, and steroid pulse therapy was concurrently administered (500 mg of methylprednisolone for 3 d). Results: The mean patient age was 67 years, and 80.0% were male. During the follow-up (median, 42.5 d; interquartile range, 16.0–174.0 d), seven (70.0%) patients died (including two who underwent transplantation); the in-hospital mortality rate was 70%, while the 30- and 90-day mortality rates were 50.0% and 70.0%, respectively. After 48 hours of PMX-DHP treatment, the P/F ratio improved (mean, 160.0 vs. 229.0; p = 0.054) and C-reactive protein level decreased (mean, 8.3 mg/dL vs. 3.5 mg/dL; p = 0.012). During hospitalization, no PMX-DHP–associated adverse events were observed. Conclusions Our results suggest that PMX-DHP treatment may be useful at improving oxygenation and reducing inflammation in patients with AE-IPF with acceptable safety profiles, however without affecting their prognosis.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

Background: Lung ultrasound (LUS) has proven valuable in the initial assessment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but its role in detecting pulmonary fibrosis following intensive care remains unclear. This study aims to assess the presence of pulmonary sequelae and fibrosis-like changes using LUS in survivors of severe COVID-19 pneumonia one month after discharge. Methods: We prospectively enrolled patients with severe COVID-19 who required mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit (ICU) and conducted LUS assessments from admission to the outpatient visit after discharge. We tracked changes in key LUS findings and applied our proprietary LUS scoring system. To evaluate LUS accuracy, we correlated measured LUS values with computed tomography scores. Results: We evaluated B-line presence, pleural thickness, and consolidation in 14 eligible patients. The LUS scores exhibited minimal changes, with values of 19.1, 19.2, and 17.5 at admission, discharge, and the outpatient visit, respectively. Notably, the number of B-lines decreased significantly, from 1.92 at admission to 0.56 at the outpatient visit (p<0.05), while pleural thickness increased significantly, from 2.05 at admission to 2.48 at the outpatient visit (p≤0.05). Conclusion This study demonstrates that LUS can track changes in lung abnormalities in severe COVID-19 patients from ICU admission through to outpatient follow-up. While pleural thickening and B-line patterns showed significant changes, no correlation was found between LUS and high-resolution computed tomography fibrosis scores. These findings suggest that LUS may serve as a supplementary tool for assessing pulmonary recovery in severe COVID-19 cases.

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.

Background/Aims: Patients with acute exacerbation of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (AE-IPF) typically have a poor prognosis; however, no effective treatment is available. In recent years, several retrospective studies have suggested the clinical benefits of direct hemoperfusion with a polymyxin B–immobilized fiber column (PMX-DHP) in patients with AE-IPF. Herein, we aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of PMX-DHP treatment in patients with AE-IPF. Methods: Patients diagnosed with AE-IPF (n = 10) with a partial pressure of oxygen to fraction of inspiratory oxygen ratio (P/F ratio) > 100 were prospectively enrolled at a single center. PMX-DHP was performed twice for 6 hours (at 24-h intervals) at a flow rate of 80–100 mL/min, and steroid pulse therapy was concurrently administered (500 mg of methylprednisolone for 3 d). Results: The mean patient age was 67 years, and 80.0% were male. During the follow-up (median, 42.5 d; interquartile range, 16.0–174.0 d), seven (70.0%) patients died (including two who underwent transplantation); the in-hospital mortality rate was 70%, while the 30- and 90-day mortality rates were 50.0% and 70.0%, respectively. After 48 hours of PMX-DHP treatment, the P/F ratio improved (mean, 160.0 vs. 229.0; p = 0.054) and C-reactive protein level decreased (mean, 8.3 mg/dL vs. 3.5 mg/dL; p = 0.012). During hospitalization, no PMX-DHP–associated adverse events were observed. Conclusions Our results suggest that PMX-DHP treatment may be useful at improving oxygenation and reducing inflammation in patients with AE-IPF with acceptable safety profiles, however without affecting their prognosis.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.