Background: The novel sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor enavogliflozin effectively lowers glycosylated hemoglobin levels and body weights without the increased risk of serious adverse events; however, the long-term clinical benefits of enavogliflozin in terms of cardiovascular and renal outcomes have not been investigated. Methods: This study is an investigator-initiated, multicenter, randomized, pragmatic, open-label, active-controlled, non-inferiority trial. Eligible participants are adults (aged ≥19 years) with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who have a history of, or are at risk of, cardiovascular disease. A total of 2,862 participants will be randomly assigned to receive either enavogliflozin or other SGLT2 inhibitors with proven cardiorenal benefits, such as dapagliflozin or empagliflozin. The primary endpoint is the time to the first occurrence of a composite of major adverse cardiovascular or renal events (Clinical Research Information Service registration number: KCT0009243). Conclusion This trial will determine whether enavogliflozin is non-inferior to dapagliflozin or empagliflozin in terms of cardiorenal outcomes in patients with T2DM and cardiovascular risk factors. This study will elucidate the role of enavogliflozin in preventing vascular complications in patients with T2DM.

Background: The novel sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor enavogliflozin effectively lowers glycosylated hemoglobin levels and body weights without the increased risk of serious adverse events; however, the long-term clinical benefits of enavogliflozin in terms of cardiovascular and renal outcomes have not been investigated. Methods: This study is an investigator-initiated, multicenter, randomized, pragmatic, open-label, active-controlled, non-inferiority trial. Eligible participants are adults (aged ≥19 years) with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who have a history of, or are at risk of, cardiovascular disease. A total of 2,862 participants will be randomly assigned to receive either enavogliflozin or other SGLT2 inhibitors with proven cardiorenal benefits, such as dapagliflozin or empagliflozin. The primary endpoint is the time to the first occurrence of a composite of major adverse cardiovascular or renal events (Clinical Research Information Service registration number: KCT0009243). Conclusion This trial will determine whether enavogliflozin is non-inferior to dapagliflozin or empagliflozin in terms of cardiorenal outcomes in patients with T2DM and cardiovascular risk factors. This study will elucidate the role of enavogliflozin in preventing vascular complications in patients with T2DM.

Background: The novel sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor enavogliflozin effectively lowers glycosylated hemoglobin levels and body weights without the increased risk of serious adverse events; however, the long-term clinical benefits of enavogliflozin in terms of cardiovascular and renal outcomes have not been investigated. Methods: This study is an investigator-initiated, multicenter, randomized, pragmatic, open-label, active-controlled, non-inferiority trial. Eligible participants are adults (aged ≥19 years) with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who have a history of, or are at risk of, cardiovascular disease. A total of 2,862 participants will be randomly assigned to receive either enavogliflozin or other SGLT2 inhibitors with proven cardiorenal benefits, such as dapagliflozin or empagliflozin. The primary endpoint is the time to the first occurrence of a composite of major adverse cardiovascular or renal events (Clinical Research Information Service registration number: KCT0009243). Conclusion This trial will determine whether enavogliflozin is non-inferior to dapagliflozin or empagliflozin in terms of cardiorenal outcomes in patients with T2DM and cardiovascular risk factors. This study will elucidate the role of enavogliflozin in preventing vascular complications in patients with T2DM.

Background: The novel sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor enavogliflozin effectively lowers glycosylated hemoglobin levels and body weights without the increased risk of serious adverse events; however, the long-term clinical benefits of enavogliflozin in terms of cardiovascular and renal outcomes have not been investigated. Methods: This study is an investigator-initiated, multicenter, randomized, pragmatic, open-label, active-controlled, non-inferiority trial. Eligible participants are adults (aged ≥19 years) with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who have a history of, or are at risk of, cardiovascular disease. A total of 2,862 participants will be randomly assigned to receive either enavogliflozin or other SGLT2 inhibitors with proven cardiorenal benefits, such as dapagliflozin or empagliflozin. The primary endpoint is the time to the first occurrence of a composite of major adverse cardiovascular or renal events (Clinical Research Information Service registration number: KCT0009243). Conclusion This trial will determine whether enavogliflozin is non-inferior to dapagliflozin or empagliflozin in terms of cardiorenal outcomes in patients with T2DM and cardiovascular risk factors. This study will elucidate the role of enavogliflozin in preventing vascular complications in patients with T2DM.

Background and Objectives: Lipid lowering therapy is essential to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events; however, limited evidence exists regarding the use of statin with ezetimibe as primary prevention strategy for middle-aged adults. We aimed to investigate the impact of single pill combination therapy on clinical outcomes in relatively healthy middleaged patients when compared with statin monotherapy. Methods: Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, a propensity score match analysis was performed for baseline characteristics of 92,156 patients categorized into combination therapy (n=46,078) and statin monotherapy (n=46,078) groups. Primary outcome was composite outcomes, including death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke. And secondary outcome was all-cause death. The mean follow-up duration was 2.9±0.3 years. Results: The 3-year composite outcomes of all-cause death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke demonstrated no significant difference between the 2 groups (10.3% vs.10.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.022; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.980–1.064; p=0.309).Meanwhile, the 3-year all-cause death rate was lower in the combination therapy group than in the statin monotherapy group (0.2% vs. 0.4%; p<0.001), with a significant HR of 0.595 (95% CI, 0.460–0.769; p<0.001). Single pill combination therapy exhibited consistently lower mortality rates across various subgroups. Conclusions Compared to the statin monotherapy, the combination therapy for primary prevention showed no difference in composite outcomes but may reduce mortality risk in relatively healthy middle-aged patients. However, since the study was observational, further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Background and Objectives: Lipid lowering therapy is essential to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events; however, limited evidence exists regarding the use of statin with ezetimibe as primary prevention strategy for middle-aged adults. We aimed to investigate the impact of single pill combination therapy on clinical outcomes in relatively healthy middleaged patients when compared with statin monotherapy. Methods: Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, a propensity score match analysis was performed for baseline characteristics of 92,156 patients categorized into combination therapy (n=46,078) and statin monotherapy (n=46,078) groups. Primary outcome was composite outcomes, including death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke. And secondary outcome was all-cause death. The mean follow-up duration was 2.9±0.3 years. Results: The 3-year composite outcomes of all-cause death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke demonstrated no significant difference between the 2 groups (10.3% vs.10.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.022; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.980–1.064; p=0.309).Meanwhile, the 3-year all-cause death rate was lower in the combination therapy group than in the statin monotherapy group (0.2% vs. 0.4%; p<0.001), with a significant HR of 0.595 (95% CI, 0.460–0.769; p<0.001). Single pill combination therapy exhibited consistently lower mortality rates across various subgroups. Conclusions Compared to the statin monotherapy, the combination therapy for primary prevention showed no difference in composite outcomes but may reduce mortality risk in relatively healthy middle-aged patients. However, since the study was observational, further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Background and Objectives: Lipid lowering therapy is essential to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events; however, limited evidence exists regarding the use of statin with ezetimibe as primary prevention strategy for middle-aged adults. We aimed to investigate the impact of single pill combination therapy on clinical outcomes in relatively healthy middleaged patients when compared with statin monotherapy. Methods: Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, a propensity score match analysis was performed for baseline characteristics of 92,156 patients categorized into combination therapy (n=46,078) and statin monotherapy (n=46,078) groups. Primary outcome was composite outcomes, including death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke. And secondary outcome was all-cause death. The mean follow-up duration was 2.9±0.3 years. Results: The 3-year composite outcomes of all-cause death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke demonstrated no significant difference between the 2 groups (10.3% vs.10.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.022; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.980–1.064; p=0.309).Meanwhile, the 3-year all-cause death rate was lower in the combination therapy group than in the statin monotherapy group (0.2% vs. 0.4%; p<0.001), with a significant HR of 0.595 (95% CI, 0.460–0.769; p<0.001). Single pill combination therapy exhibited consistently lower mortality rates across various subgroups. Conclusions Compared to the statin monotherapy, the combination therapy for primary prevention showed no difference in composite outcomes but may reduce mortality risk in relatively healthy middle-aged patients. However, since the study was observational, further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Background and Objectives: Lipid lowering therapy is essential to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events; however, limited evidence exists regarding the use of statin with ezetimibe as primary prevention strategy for middle-aged adults. We aimed to investigate the impact of single pill combination therapy on clinical outcomes in relatively healthy middleaged patients when compared with statin monotherapy. Methods: Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, a propensity score match analysis was performed for baseline characteristics of 92,156 patients categorized into combination therapy (n=46,078) and statin monotherapy (n=46,078) groups. Primary outcome was composite outcomes, including death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke. And secondary outcome was all-cause death. The mean follow-up duration was 2.9±0.3 years. Results: The 3-year composite outcomes of all-cause death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke demonstrated no significant difference between the 2 groups (10.3% vs.10.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.022; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.980–1.064; p=0.309).Meanwhile, the 3-year all-cause death rate was lower in the combination therapy group than in the statin monotherapy group (0.2% vs. 0.4%; p<0.001), with a significant HR of 0.595 (95% CI, 0.460–0.769; p<0.001). Single pill combination therapy exhibited consistently lower mortality rates across various subgroups. Conclusions Compared to the statin monotherapy, the combination therapy for primary prevention showed no difference in composite outcomes but may reduce mortality risk in relatively healthy middle-aged patients. However, since the study was observational, further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Purpose: The cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA4) is involved in the progression of various cancers, but its biological roles in breast cancer (BRCA) remain unclear. Therefore, we performed a systematic multiomic analysis to expound on the prognostic value and underlying mechanism of CTLA4 in BRCA. Methods: We assessed the effect of CTLA4 expression on BRCA using a variety of bioinformatics platforms, including Oncomine, GEPIA, UALCAN, PrognoScan database, Kaplan-Meier plotter, and R2: Kaplan-Meier scanner. Results: CTLA4 was highly expressed in BRCA tumor tissue compared to normal tissue (P < 0.01). The CTLA4 messenger RNA levels in BRCA based on BRCA subtypes of Luminal, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, and triple-negative BRCA were considerably higher than in normal tissues (P < 0.001). However, the overexpression of CTLA4 was associated with a better prognosis in BRCA (P < 0.001) and was correlated with clinicopathological characteristics including age, T stage, estrogen receptors, progesterone receptors, and prediction analysis of microarray 50 (P < 0.01). The infiltration of multiple immune cells was associated with increased CTLA4 expression in BRCA (P < 0.001). CTLA4 was highly enriched in antigen binding, immunoglobulin complexes, lymphocyte-mediated immunity, and cytokine-cytokine receptor interaction. Conclusion This study provides suggestive evidence of the prognostic role of CTLA4 in BRCA, which may be a therapeutic target for BRCA. Furthermore, CTLA4 may influence BRCA prognosis through antigen binding, immunoglobulin complexes, lymphocyte-mediated immunity, and cytokine-cytokine receptor interaction. These findings help us understand how CTLA4 plays a role in BRCA and set the stage for more research.

Purpose: The role of allogeneic stem cell transplantation (alloSCT) in multiple myeloma (MM) treatment remains controversial. We conducted a retrospective, multicenter, nationwide study in Korea to evaluate the outcomes of alloSCT in Asian patients with MM. Materials and Methods: Overall, 109 patients with MM who underwent alloSCT between 2003 and 2020 were included in this study. Data were collected from the Korean Multiple Myeloma Working Party Registry. Results: The overall response rate and stringent complete response plus complete response (CR) rates were 67.0 and 46.8%, respectively, after alloSCT. At a median follow-up of 32.5 months, the 3-year probability of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were 69.3% and 71.8%, respectively. The 3-year probabilities of OS rates in the upfront alloSCT, tandem auto-alloSCT, and later alloSCT groups were 75.0%, 88.9%, and 61.1%, respectively. Patients who achieved CR before or after alloSCT had significantly longer OS (89.8 vs. 18 months and 89.8 vs. 15.2 months, respectively). Even though patients who did not achieve CR prior to alloSCT, those who achieve CR after alloSCT had improved PFS and OS compared to those who had no achievement of CR both prior and after alloSCT. Patients who underwent alloSCT with 1-2 prior treatment lines had improved PFS (22.4 vs. 4.5 months) and OS (45.6 vs. 15.3 months) compared to those with three or more prior treatment lines. Conclusion AlloSCT may be a promising therapeutic option especially for younger, chemosensitive patients with earlier implementation from relapse.