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: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common skin disease with a wide range of symptoms. Due to the rapidly changing treatment landscape, regular updates to clinical guidelines are needed. Objective: This study aimed to update the guidelines for the treatment of AD to reflect recent therapeutic advances and evidence-based recommendations. Methods: The Patient characteristics, type of Intervention, Control, and Outcome framework was used to determine 48 questions related to AD management. Evidence was graded, recommendations were determined, and, after 2 voting rounds among the Korean Atopic Dermatitis Association (KADA) council members, consensus was achieved. Results: This guideline provides treatment guidance on advanced systemic treatment modalities for AD. In particular, the guideline offers up-to-date treatment recommendations for biologics and Janus-kinase inhibitors used in the treatment of patients with moderate to severe AD.It also provides guidance on other therapies for AD, along with tailored recommendations for children, adolescents, the elderly, and pregnant or breastfeeding women. Conclusion KADA’s updated AD treatment guidelines incorporate the latest evidence and expert opinion to provide a comprehensive approach to AD treatment. The guidelines will help clinicians optimize patient-specific therapies.

Background: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common skin disease with a wide range of symptoms. Due to the rapidly changing treatment landscape, regular updates to clinical guidelines are needed. Objective: This study aimed to update the guidelines for the treatment of AD to reflect recent therapeutic advances and evidence-based practices. Methods: The Patient characteristics, type of Intervention, Control, and Outcome framework was used to determine 48 questions related to AD management. Evidence was graded, recommendations were determined, and, after 2 voting rounds among the Korean Atopic Dermatitis Association (KADA) council members, consensus was achieved. Results: The guidelines provide detailed recommendations on foundational therapies, including the use of moisturizers, cleansing and bathing practices, allergen avoidance, and patient education. Guidance on topical therapies, such as topical corticosteroids and calcineurin inhibitors, is also provided to help manage inflammation and maintain skin barrier function in patients with AD. Additionally, recommendations on conventional systemic therapies, including corticosteroids, cyclosporine, and methotrexate, are provided for managing moderate to severe AD. Conclusion KADA’s updated AD guidelines offer clinicians evidence-based strategies focused on basic therapies, topical therapies, and conventional systemic therapies, equipping them to enhance quality of care and improve patient outcomes in AD management.

Background: In 2006, the Korean Atopic Dermatitis Association (KADA) working group released the diagnostic criteria for Korean atopic dermatitis (AD). Recently, more simplified, and practical AD diagnostic criteria have been proposed. Objective: Based on updated criteria and experience, we studied to develop and share a consensus on diagnostic criteria for AD in Koreans. Materials and Methods: For the diagnostic criteria, a questionnaire was constructed by searching the English-language literature in MEDLINE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. A modified Delphi method composed of 3 rounds of email questionnaires was adopted for the consensus process. Fifty-four KADA council members participated in the 3 rounds of votes and expert consensus recommendations were established. Results: Diagnostic criteria for AD include pruritus, eczema with age-specific pattern, and chronic or relapsing history. Diagnostic aids for AD encompass xerosis, immunoglobulin E reactivity, hand–foot eczema, periorbital changes, periauricular changes, perioral changes, nipple eczema, perifollicular accentuation, and personal or family history of atopy. Conclusion This study streamlined and updated the diagnostic criteria for AD in Korea, making them more practicable for use in real-world clinical field.

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.

PURPOSE: This study aims to assess and predict lifespan of dental prostheses using newly developed Korean Association of Prosthodontics (KAP) criteria through a large-scale, multi-institutional survey. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Survey was conducted including 16 institutions. Cox proportional hazards model and principal component analysis (PCA) were used to find out relevant factors and predict life expectancy. RESULTS: 1,703 fixed and 815 removable prostheses data were collected and evaluated. Statistically significant factors in fixed prosthesis failure were plaque index and material type, with a median survival of 10 to 18 years and 14 to 20 years each. In removable prosthesis, factors were national health insurance coverage, antagonist type, and prosthesis type (complete or partial denture), with median survival of 10 to 13 years, 11 to 14 years, and 10 to 15 years each. For still-usable prostheses, PCA analysis predicted an additional 3 years in fixed and 4.8 years in removable prosthesis. CONCLUSION Life expectancy of a prosthesis differed significantly by factors mostly controllable either by dentist or a patient. Overall life expectancy was shown to be longer than previous research.