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.

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.

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.

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.

Purpose: This study was performed to analyze the association between age and outcomes of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) by comparing postoperative outcomes between octogenarians and younger patients. Methods: From November 1994 to December 2022, 1,585 internal carotid arteries of 1,434 patients were enrolled. Patients were stratified into 2 groups: octogenarians (≥80 years old) and non-octogenarians (<80 years old). Primary endpoints were early (≤30 days) outcomes of ipsilateral stroke, any stroke, myocardial infarction, death, and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). We also compared overall any stroke and death between the 2 groups. Results: One of 132 octogenarians (0.8%) and 17 of 1,453 non-octogenarians (1.1%) experienced ipsilateral stroke within 30 days. Thirty-day MACE occurred in 4 of 132 octogenarians (3%) and 44 of 1,453 non-octogenarians (3%). There were no significant differences in any early (≤30 days) outcomes. Symptomatic status was associated with increased 30-day MACE (odds ratio [OR], 2.610; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.450–4.696; P = 0.003) and 30-day any stroke (OR, 3.999; 95% CI, 1.627–9.828; P = 0.003). Symptomatic status was also associated with overall any stroke (hazard ratio [HR], 2.885; 95% CI, 1.865–4.463; P < 0.001), but age of ≥80 years was not associated with 30-day MACE, 30-day any stroke, or overall stroke. Age of ≥80 years was only associated with overall survival (HR, 2.644; 95% CI, 1.967–3.555; P < 0.001). Conclusion CEA would be a safe and effective treatment for octogenarians with low 30-day complications and long-term stroke rates, comparable with that of younger counterparts. Advanced age is not a contraindication for CEA.

Background: and Purpose: Dementia subtypes, including Alzheimer’s dementia (AD), dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), and frontotemporal dementia (FTD), pose diagnostic challenges. This review examines the effectiveness of 18 F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography ( 18 F-FDG PET) in differentiating these subtypes for precise treatment and management. Methods: A systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines was conducted using databases like PubMed and Embase to identify studies on the diagnostic utility of 18 F-FDG PET in dementia. The search included studies up to November 16, 2022, focusing on peer-reviewed journals and applying the goldstandard clinical diagnosis for dementia subtypes. Results: From 12,815 articles, 14 were selected for final analysis. For AD versus FTD, the sensitivity was 0.96 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88–0.98) and specificity was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.70–0.92). In the case of AD versus DLB, 18F-FDG PET showed a sensitivity of 0.93 (95% CI 0.88-0.98) and specificity of 0.92 (95% CI, 0.70–0.92). Lastly, when differentiating AD from non-AD dementias, the sensitivity was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.80–0.91) and the specificity was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.80–0.91). The studies mostly used case-control designs with visual and quantitative assessments. Conclusions 18 F-FDG PET exhibits high sensitivity and specificity in differentiating dementia subtypes, particularly AD, FTD, and DLB. This method, while not a standalone diagnostic tool, significantly enhances diagnostic accuracy in uncertain cases, complementing clinical assessments and structural imaging.

Background: and Purpose: Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is a neurodegenerative disease characterized by a progressive decline in cognition and performance of daily activities. Recent studies have attempted to establish the relationship between AD and sleep. It is believed that patients with AD pathology show altered sleep characteristics years before clinical symptoms appear. This study evaluated the differences in sleep characteristics between cognitively asymptomatic patients with and without some amyloid burden. Methods: Sleep characteristics of 76 subjects aged 60 years or older who were diagnosed with subjective cognitive decline (SCD) but not mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or AD were measured using Fitbit ® Alta HR, a wristwatch-shaped wearable device. Amyloid deposition was evaluated using brain amyloid plaque load (BAPL) and global standardized uptake value ratio (SUVR) from fluorine-18 florbetaben positron emission tomography. Each component of measured sleep characteristics was analyzed for statistically significant differences between the amyloid-positive group and the amyloid-negative group. Results: Of the 76 subjects included in this study, 49 (64.5%) were female. The average age of the subjects was 70.72±6.09 years when the study started. 15 subjects were classified as amyloid-positive based on BAPL. The average global SUVR was 1.598±0.263 in the amyloidpositive group and 1.187±0.100 in the amyloid-negative group. Time spent in slow-wave sleep (SWS) was significantly lower in the amyloid-positive group (39.4±13.1 minutes) than in the amyloid-negative group (49.5±13.1 minutes) (p=0.009). Conclusions This study showed that SWS is different between the elderly SCD population with and without amyloid positivity. How SWS affects AD pathology requires further research.

Background: It is well known that a large number of patients with diabetes also have dyslipidemia, which significantly increases the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of combination drugs consisting of metformin and atorvastatin, widely used as therapeutic agents for diabetes and dyslipidemia. Methods: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group and phase III multicenter study included adults with glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels >7.0% and <10.0%, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) >100 and <250 mg/dL. One hundred eighty-five eligible subjects were randomized to the combination group (metformin+atorvastatin), metformin group (metformin+atorvastatin placebo), and atorvastatin group (atorvastatin+metformin placebo). The primary efficacy endpoints were the percent changes in HbA1c and LDL-C levels from baseline at the end of the treatment. Results: After 16 weeks of treatment compared to baseline, HbA1c showed a significant difference of 0.94% compared to the atorvastatin group in the combination group (0.35% vs. −0.58%, respectively; P<0.0001), whereas the proportion of patients with increased HbA1c was also 62% and 15%, respectively, showing a significant difference (P<0.001). The combination group also showed a significant decrease in LDL-C levels compared to the metformin group (−55.20% vs. −7.69%, P<0.001) without previously unknown adverse drug events. Conclusion The addition of atorvastatin to metformin improved HbA1c and LDL-C levels to a significant extent compared to metformin or atorvastatin alone in diabetes and dyslipidemia patients. This study also suggested metformin’s preventive effect on the glucose-elevating potential of atorvastatin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and dyslipidemia, insufficiently controlled with exercise and diet. Metformin and atorvastatin combination might be an effective treatment in reducing the CVD risk in patients with both diabetes and dyslipidemia because of its lowering effect on LDL-C and glucose.

Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the recurrence patterns in patients who underwent curative surgery for gastric cancer (GC) and analyze their prognostic value for post-recurrence survival (PRS). Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 204 patients who experienced GC recurrence following curative gastrectomy for GC at a single institution between January 2012 and December 2017. Specific recurrence patterns (lymph node, peritoneal, and hematogenous) and their multiplicity were analyzed as prognostic factors of PRS. Results: The median PRS of the 204 patients was 8.3 months (interquartile range [IQR]:3.2–17.4). For patients with a single recurrence pattern (n=164), the difference in each recurrence pattern did not show a significant prognostic value for PRS (lymph node vs.peritoneal, P=0.343; peritoneal vs. hematogenous, P=0.660; lymph node vs. hematogenous, P=0.822). However, the patients with a single recurrence pattern had significantly longer PRS than those with multiple recurrence patterns (median PRS: 10.2 months [IQR: 3.7–18.7] vs. 3.9 months [IQR: 1.8–10.4]; P=0.037). In the multivariate analysis, multiple recurrence patterns emerged as independent prognostic factors for poor PRS (hazard ratio, 1.553; 95% confidence interval, 1.092–2.208; P=0.014) along with serosal invasion, recurrence within 1 year after gastrectomy, and the absence of post-recurrence chemotherapy. Conclusions Regardless of the specific recurrence pattern, multiple recurrence patterns emerged as independent prognostic factors for poor PRS compared with a single recurrence pattern.

Purpose: The original eCura system was designed to stratify the risk of lymph node metastasis (LNM) after endoscopic resection (ER) in patients with early gastric cancer (EGC).We assessed the effectiveness of a modified eCura system for reflecting the characteristics of undifferentiated-type (UD)-EGC. Materials and Methods: Six hundred thirty-four patients who underwent non-curative ER for UD-EGC and received either additional surgery (radical surgery group; n=270) or no further treatment (no additional treatment group; n=364) from 18 institutions between 2005 and 2015 were retrospectively included in this study. The eCuraU system assigned 1 point each for tumors >20 mm in size, ulceration, positive vertical margin, and submucosal invasion <500 µm; 2 points for submucosal invasion ≥500 µm; and 3 points for lymphovascular invasion. Results: LNM rates in the radical surgery group were 1.1%, 5.4%, and 13.3% for the low-(0–1 point), intermediate- (2–3 points), and high-risk (4–8 points), respectively (P-fortrend<0.001). The eCuraU system showed a significantly higher probability of identifying patients with LNM as high-risk than the eCura system (66.7% vs. 22.2%; McNemar P<0.001).In the no additional treatment group, overall survival (93.4%, 87.2%, and 67.6% at 5 years) and cancer-specific survival (99.6%, 98.9%, and 92.9% at 5 years) differed significantly among the low-, intermediate-, and high-risk categories, respectively (both P<0.001). In the high-risk category, surgery outperformed no treatment in terms of overall mortality (hazard ratio, 3.26; P=0.015). Conclusions The eCuraU system stratified the risk of LNM in patients with UD-EGC after ER. It is strongly recommended that high-risk patients undergo additional surgery.