Background: Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is called ‘smoker’s disease’ because it is strongly associated with smoking and most cases occur in smokers. However, it can also occur in never smokers. We investigated the clinical features of never smokers with SCLC and compared their treatment outcomes with those of smokers with SCLC. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of patients who had proven SCLC and had received chemotherapy at a single cancer center between July 2002 and April 2021. Results: Of 1,643 patients, 1,416 (86.2%) were enrolled in this study. A total of 162 (11.4%) and 1,254 (88.6%) patients were never smokers and smokers, respectively. There were more female never smokers than smokers (n=130; 80.2% vs. 79, 6.3%, p=0.000), and the incidence of ischemic heart disease was lower among never smokers than among smokers (4/1,416, [2.5%] vs. 83/1,416 [6.6%], p=0.036). Never smokers showed less symptoms at diagnosis than smokers (80.9% vs. 87.2%, p=0.037); however, they showed more toxicity after first-line treatment (61.7% vs. 47.8%, p=0.001). The objective response rate (ORR) was significantly higher in never smokers (74.1% vs. 59.6%, p=0.000). In the multivariate analysis, never smoking and second-line treatment were associated with a better ORR. However, progression-free survival and overall survival were not significantly different between never smokers and smokers. Conclusion In conclusion, never smokers accounted for 11.4% of patients with SCLC. They had distinguishing clinical characteristics and showed better chemotherapeutic responses than smokers.

Background: Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is called ‘smoker’s disease’ because it is strongly associated with smoking and most cases occur in smokers. However, it can also occur in never smokers. We investigated the clinical features of never smokers with SCLC and compared their treatment outcomes with those of smokers with SCLC. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of patients who had proven SCLC and had received chemotherapy at a single cancer center between July 2002 and April 2021. Results: Of 1,643 patients, 1,416 (86.2%) were enrolled in this study. A total of 162 (11.4%) and 1,254 (88.6%) patients were never smokers and smokers, respectively. There were more female never smokers than smokers (n=130; 80.2% vs. 79, 6.3%, p=0.000), and the incidence of ischemic heart disease was lower among never smokers than among smokers (4/1,416, [2.5%] vs. 83/1,416 [6.6%], p=0.036). Never smokers showed less symptoms at diagnosis than smokers (80.9% vs. 87.2%, p=0.037); however, they showed more toxicity after first-line treatment (61.7% vs. 47.8%, p=0.001). The objective response rate (ORR) was significantly higher in never smokers (74.1% vs. 59.6%, p=0.000). In the multivariate analysis, never smoking and second-line treatment were associated with a better ORR. However, progression-free survival and overall survival were not significantly different between never smokers and smokers. Conclusion In conclusion, never smokers accounted for 11.4% of patients with SCLC. They had distinguishing clinical characteristics and showed better chemotherapeutic responses than smokers.

Background: Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is called ‘smoker’s disease’ because it is strongly associated with smoking and most cases occur in smokers. However, it can also occur in never smokers. We investigated the clinical features of never smokers with SCLC and compared their treatment outcomes with those of smokers with SCLC. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of patients who had proven SCLC and had received chemotherapy at a single cancer center between July 2002 and April 2021. Results: Of 1,643 patients, 1,416 (86.2%) were enrolled in this study. A total of 162 (11.4%) and 1,254 (88.6%) patients were never smokers and smokers, respectively. There were more female never smokers than smokers (n=130; 80.2% vs. 79, 6.3%, p=0.000), and the incidence of ischemic heart disease was lower among never smokers than among smokers (4/1,416, [2.5%] vs. 83/1,416 [6.6%], p=0.036). Never smokers showed less symptoms at diagnosis than smokers (80.9% vs. 87.2%, p=0.037); however, they showed more toxicity after first-line treatment (61.7% vs. 47.8%, p=0.001). The objective response rate (ORR) was significantly higher in never smokers (74.1% vs. 59.6%, p=0.000). In the multivariate analysis, never smoking and second-line treatment were associated with a better ORR. However, progression-free survival and overall survival were not significantly different between never smokers and smokers. Conclusion In conclusion, never smokers accounted for 11.4% of patients with SCLC. They had distinguishing clinical characteristics and showed better chemotherapeutic responses than smokers.

Background: Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is called ‘smoker’s disease’ because it is strongly associated with smoking and most cases occur in smokers. However, it can also occur in never smokers. We investigated the clinical features of never smokers with SCLC and compared their treatment outcomes with those of smokers with SCLC. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of patients who had proven SCLC and had received chemotherapy at a single cancer center between July 2002 and April 2021. Results: Of 1,643 patients, 1,416 (86.2%) were enrolled in this study. A total of 162 (11.4%) and 1,254 (88.6%) patients were never smokers and smokers, respectively. There were more female never smokers than smokers (n=130; 80.2% vs. 79, 6.3%, p=0.000), and the incidence of ischemic heart disease was lower among never smokers than among smokers (4/1,416, [2.5%] vs. 83/1,416 [6.6%], p=0.036). Never smokers showed less symptoms at diagnosis than smokers (80.9% vs. 87.2%, p=0.037); however, they showed more toxicity after first-line treatment (61.7% vs. 47.8%, p=0.001). The objective response rate (ORR) was significantly higher in never smokers (74.1% vs. 59.6%, p=0.000). In the multivariate analysis, never smoking and second-line treatment were associated with a better ORR. However, progression-free survival and overall survival were not significantly different between never smokers and smokers. Conclusion In conclusion, never smokers accounted for 11.4% of patients with SCLC. They had distinguishing clinical characteristics and showed better chemotherapeutic responses than smokers.

Background: Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is called ‘smoker’s disease’ because it is strongly associated with smoking and most cases occur in smokers. However, it can also occur in never smokers. We investigated the clinical features of never smokers with SCLC and compared their treatment outcomes with those of smokers with SCLC. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of patients who had proven SCLC and had received chemotherapy at a single cancer center between July 2002 and April 2021. Results: Of 1,643 patients, 1,416 (86.2%) were enrolled in this study. A total of 162 (11.4%) and 1,254 (88.6%) patients were never smokers and smokers, respectively. There were more female never smokers than smokers (n=130; 80.2% vs. 79, 6.3%, p=0.000), and the incidence of ischemic heart disease was lower among never smokers than among smokers (4/1,416, [2.5%] vs. 83/1,416 [6.6%], p=0.036). Never smokers showed less symptoms at diagnosis than smokers (80.9% vs. 87.2%, p=0.037); however, they showed more toxicity after first-line treatment (61.7% vs. 47.8%, p=0.001). The objective response rate (ORR) was significantly higher in never smokers (74.1% vs. 59.6%, p=0.000). In the multivariate analysis, never smoking and second-line treatment were associated with a better ORR. However, progression-free survival and overall survival were not significantly different between never smokers and smokers. Conclusion In conclusion, never smokers accounted for 11.4% of patients with SCLC. They had distinguishing clinical characteristics and showed better chemotherapeutic responses than smokers.

Mechanical power (MP) has been reported to be associated with clinical outcomes. Because the original MP equation is derived from paralyzed patients under volume-controlled ventilation, its application in practice could be limited in patients receiving pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV). Recently, a simplified equation for patients under PCV was developed. We investigated the association between MP and intensive care unit (ICU) mortality. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of Korean data from the Fourth International Study of Mechanical Ventilation. We extracted data of patients under PCV on day 1 and calculated MP using the following simplified equation: MPPCV = 0.098 ∙ respiratory rate ∙ tidal volume ∙ (ΔPinsp + positive end-expiratory pressure), where ΔPinsp is the change in airway pressure during inspiration. Patients were divided into survivors and non-survivors and then compared. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to determine association between MPPCV and ICU mortality. The interaction of MPPCV and use of neuromuscular blocking agent (NMBA) was also analyzed. Results: A total of 125 patients was eligible for final analysis, of whom 38 died in the ICU. MPPCV was higher in non-survivors (17.6 vs. 26.3 J/min, P<0.001). In logistic regression analysis, only MPPCV was significantly associated with ICU mortality (odds ratio, 1.090; 95% confidence interval, 1.029–1.155; P=0.003). There was no significant effect of the interaction between MPPCV and use of NMBA on ICU mortality (P=0.579). Conclusions: MPPCV is associated with ICU mortality in patients mechanically ventilated with PCV mode, regardless of NMBA use.

Mechanical power (MP) has been reported to be associated with clinical outcomes. Because the original MP equation is derived from paralyzed patients under volume-controlled ventilation, its application in practice could be limited in patients receiving pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV). Recently, a simplified equation for patients under PCV was developed. We investigated the association between MP and intensive care unit (ICU) mortality. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of Korean data from the Fourth International Study of Mechanical Ventilation. We extracted data of patients under PCV on day 1 and calculated MP using the following simplified equation: MPPCV = 0.098 ∙ respiratory rate ∙ tidal volume ∙ (ΔPinsp + positive end-expiratory pressure), where ΔPinsp is the change in airway pressure during inspiration. Patients were divided into survivors and non-survivors and then compared. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to determine association between MPPCV and ICU mortality. The interaction of MPPCV and use of neuromuscular blocking agent (NMBA) was also analyzed. Results: A total of 125 patients was eligible for final analysis, of whom 38 died in the ICU. MPPCV was higher in non-survivors (17.6 vs. 26.3 J/min, P<0.001). In logistic regression analysis, only MPPCV was significantly associated with ICU mortality (odds ratio, 1.090; 95% confidence interval, 1.029–1.155; P=0.003). There was no significant effect of the interaction between MPPCV and use of NMBA on ICU mortality (P=0.579). Conclusions: MPPCV is associated with ICU mortality in patients mechanically ventilated with PCV mode, regardless of NMBA use.

Mechanical power (MP) has been reported to be associated with clinical outcomes. Because the original MP equation is derived from paralyzed patients under volume-controlled ventilation, its application in practice could be limited in patients receiving pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV). Recently, a simplified equation for patients under PCV was developed. We investigated the association between MP and intensive care unit (ICU) mortality. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of Korean data from the Fourth International Study of Mechanical Ventilation. We extracted data of patients under PCV on day 1 and calculated MP using the following simplified equation: MPPCV = 0.098 ∙ respiratory rate ∙ tidal volume ∙ (ΔPinsp + positive end-expiratory pressure), where ΔPinsp is the change in airway pressure during inspiration. Patients were divided into survivors and non-survivors and then compared. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to determine association between MPPCV and ICU mortality. The interaction of MPPCV and use of neuromuscular blocking agent (NMBA) was also analyzed. Results: A total of 125 patients was eligible for final analysis, of whom 38 died in the ICU. MPPCV was higher in non-survivors (17.6 vs. 26.3 J/min, P<0.001). In logistic regression analysis, only MPPCV was significantly associated with ICU mortality (odds ratio, 1.090; 95% confidence interval, 1.029–1.155; P=0.003). There was no significant effect of the interaction between MPPCV and use of NMBA on ICU mortality (P=0.579). Conclusions: MPPCV is associated with ICU mortality in patients mechanically ventilated with PCV mode, regardless of NMBA use.

Mechanical power (MP) has been reported to be associated with clinical outcomes. Because the original MP equation is derived from paralyzed patients under volume-controlled ventilation, its application in practice could be limited in patients receiving pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV). Recently, a simplified equation for patients under PCV was developed. We investigated the association between MP and intensive care unit (ICU) mortality. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of Korean data from the Fourth International Study of Mechanical Ventilation. We extracted data of patients under PCV on day 1 and calculated MP using the following simplified equation: MPPCV = 0.098 ∙ respiratory rate ∙ tidal volume ∙ (ΔPinsp + positive end-expiratory pressure), where ΔPinsp is the change in airway pressure during inspiration. Patients were divided into survivors and non-survivors and then compared. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to determine association between MPPCV and ICU mortality. The interaction of MPPCV and use of neuromuscular blocking agent (NMBA) was also analyzed. Results: A total of 125 patients was eligible for final analysis, of whom 38 died in the ICU. MPPCV was higher in non-survivors (17.6 vs. 26.3 J/min, P<0.001). In logistic regression analysis, only MPPCV was significantly associated with ICU mortality (odds ratio, 1.090; 95% confidence interval, 1.029–1.155; P=0.003). There was no significant effect of the interaction between MPPCV and use of NMBA on ICU mortality (P=0.579). Conclusions: MPPCV is associated with ICU mortality in patients mechanically ventilated with PCV mode, regardless of NMBA use.

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.