Background: Despite widespread vaccination efforts against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, variants with increased transmissibility or immune evasion continue to emerge, posing a considerable challenge. Understanding the immunological factors associated with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) progression is essential for improving patient management and treatment strategies. We explored the dynamic changes in the peripheral white blood cell (WBC) profile, including T lymphocyte subsets, to assess their potential as predictors of disease severity and progression. Methods: Two hundred fifty-eight patients hospitalized for confirmed COVID-19 were classified into four sub-cohorts based on changes in disease severity over 7 days. WBC parameters, including absolute neutrophil, total lymphocyte, and T cell subset counts, and the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) were assessed at admission and after 7 days. Results: Patients with persistent mild-to-moderate illness exhibited a marked increase in the lymphocyte count and a decrease in the NLR over time. In contrast, patients with sustained severe-to-critical illness showed an increasing WBC count without a corresponding increase in the lymphocyte count, in addition to a marked elevation in the NLR. Patients whose condition improved from severe-to-critical to mild-to-moderate illness showed increased cluster of differentiation (CD)3+ and CD4+ T cell counts and an elevated CD4/CD8 ratio, whereas the NLR did not significantly change. Conclusions The early-phase dynamics of T cell subsets may serve as a useful biomarker of disease severity and recovery in patients with COVID-19. Monitoring these immunological changes may help support clinical decision-making and inform the timing of therapeutic interventions.

Purpose: Radiotherapy (RT) remains a cornerstone of curative treatment for localized and locally advanced prostate cancer. However, dose escalation to improve tumor control is often constrained by the proximity of the rectum, which increases the risk of gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary toxicities. Biodegradable rectal spacers inserted between the prostate and rectum have emerged as an effective approach to reduce rectal radiation exposure. This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations on indications, contraindications, procedural standards, and clinical management for biodegradable rectal spacer insertion during prostate cancer RT. Materials and Methods: This guideline was developed by a multidisciplinary expert panel through a systematic review of the literature, analysis of international guidelines (National Comprehensive Cancer Network, European Association of Urology, American Society for Radiation Oncology), and expert consensus among radiation oncologists, radiologists, and urologists with clinical experience in spacer insertion. The strength of each recommendation and the level of evidence were classified according to the modified GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) system. Results: Spacer insertion is conditionally recommended (Grade C, Level I) for patients receiving definitive external-beam RT without rectal invasion. It reduces the high-dose rectal irradiation volume (V70–75) by >50%, decreases acute GI toxicity, and helps maintain bowel-related quality of life. However, the benefit for late severe toxicity (grade 2 or higher) remains debated in recent meta-analyses. Contraindications include rectal invasion, anatomical inaccessibility, infection, and material hypersensitivity. Procedures should be performed under local anesthesia in a sterile environment by trained physicians. Short-course antibiotics and simulator-based training, including completion of multiple supervised cases, are advised. Conclusion Biodegradable rectal spacer insertion is clinically validated and effective in reducing acute rectal toxicity. Although pivotal trials demonstrated a favorable procedural safety profile, real-world postmarket data include reports of rare but severe procedural complications. This guideline provides standardized recommendations tailored to Korean clinical practice while remaining consistent with international standards, emphasizing the importance of operator training and careful patient selection.

Objective: To investigate the effects of methylphenidate and atomoxetine treatment on motor coordination in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Methods: In this single-site, open-label, naturalistic follow-up study, 157 children (7.6±1.4 years; 139 males) with ADHD were recruited between March 2015 and May 2020 from the Department of Psychiatry, Asan Medical Center, and treated for 12 weeks with methylphenidate (n=48) or atomoxetine (n=109). Children completed the Advanced Test of Attention (ATA), and caregivers completed the ADHD Rating Scale (ARS) questionnaire and Developmental Coordination Disorder Questionnaire (DCDQ) at baseline and at 12 weeks. Paired t-tests, a mixed-effects model, and linear regression were used to compare treatment groups and assess factors influencing motor coordination changes. Results: Methylphenidate and atomoxetine resulted in significant improvement in DCDQ fine motor/handwriting, general coordination, and total scores over 12 weeks. Fine motor/handwriting had a significant main effect for time (F1=16.64, p<0.001, η2=0.097); however, the interaction effect between group and time was not significant (F1=0.24, p=0.625, η2=0.002). Changes in parent-reported ARS inattention scores (β=-0.174, p=0.029) and auditory commission errors of ATA (β=0.191, p=0.022) were significantly associated with changes in fine motor/handwriting. Additionally, changes in parent-reported ARS inattention scores (β=-0.177, p=0.034) and rater-reported ARS inattention scores (β=-0.198, p=0.017) were significant predictors of improvements in general coordination in separate models. Conclusion Methylphenidate and atomoxetine had a positive effect on motor coordination in children with ADHD. Improvement in motor coordination was associated with ADHD symptom improvement.

Objective: To investigate the effects of methylphenidate and atomoxetine treatment on motor coordination in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Methods: In this single-site, open-label, naturalistic follow-up study, 157 children (7.6±1.4 years; 139 males) with ADHD were recruited between March 2015 and May 2020 from the Department of Psychiatry, Asan Medical Center, and treated for 12 weeks with methylphenidate (n=48) or atomoxetine (n=109). Children completed the Advanced Test of Attention (ATA), and caregivers completed the ADHD Rating Scale (ARS) questionnaire and Developmental Coordination Disorder Questionnaire (DCDQ) at baseline and at 12 weeks. Paired t-tests, a mixed-effects model, and linear regression were used to compare treatment groups and assess factors influencing motor coordination changes. Results: Methylphenidate and atomoxetine resulted in significant improvement in DCDQ fine motor/handwriting, general coordination, and total scores over 12 weeks. Fine motor/handwriting had a significant main effect for time (F1=16.64, p<0.001, η2=0.097); however, the interaction effect between group and time was not significant (F1=0.24, p=0.625, η2=0.002). Changes in parent-reported ARS inattention scores (β=-0.174, p=0.029) and auditory commission errors of ATA (β=0.191, p=0.022) were significantly associated with changes in fine motor/handwriting. Additionally, changes in parent-reported ARS inattention scores (β=-0.177, p=0.034) and rater-reported ARS inattention scores (β=-0.198, p=0.017) were significant predictors of improvements in general coordination in separate models. Conclusion Methylphenidate and atomoxetine had a positive effect on motor coordination in children with ADHD. Improvement in motor coordination was associated with ADHD symptom improvement.

Objective: To investigate the effects of methylphenidate and atomoxetine treatment on motor coordination in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Methods: In this single-site, open-label, naturalistic follow-up study, 157 children (7.6±1.4 years; 139 males) with ADHD were recruited between March 2015 and May 2020 from the Department of Psychiatry, Asan Medical Center, and treated for 12 weeks with methylphenidate (n=48) or atomoxetine (n=109). Children completed the Advanced Test of Attention (ATA), and caregivers completed the ADHD Rating Scale (ARS) questionnaire and Developmental Coordination Disorder Questionnaire (DCDQ) at baseline and at 12 weeks. Paired t-tests, a mixed-effects model, and linear regression were used to compare treatment groups and assess factors influencing motor coordination changes. Results: Methylphenidate and atomoxetine resulted in significant improvement in DCDQ fine motor/handwriting, general coordination, and total scores over 12 weeks. Fine motor/handwriting had a significant main effect for time (F1=16.64, p<0.001, η2=0.097); however, the interaction effect between group and time was not significant (F1=0.24, p=0.625, η2=0.002). Changes in parent-reported ARS inattention scores (β=-0.174, p=0.029) and auditory commission errors of ATA (β=0.191, p=0.022) were significantly associated with changes in fine motor/handwriting. Additionally, changes in parent-reported ARS inattention scores (β=-0.177, p=0.034) and rater-reported ARS inattention scores (β=-0.198, p=0.017) were significant predictors of improvements in general coordination in separate models. Conclusion Methylphenidate and atomoxetine had a positive effect on motor coordination in children with ADHD. Improvement in motor coordination was associated with ADHD symptom improvement.

Objective: To investigate the effects of methylphenidate and atomoxetine treatment on motor coordination in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Methods: In this single-site, open-label, naturalistic follow-up study, 157 children (7.6±1.4 years; 139 males) with ADHD were recruited between March 2015 and May 2020 from the Department of Psychiatry, Asan Medical Center, and treated for 12 weeks with methylphenidate (n=48) or atomoxetine (n=109). Children completed the Advanced Test of Attention (ATA), and caregivers completed the ADHD Rating Scale (ARS) questionnaire and Developmental Coordination Disorder Questionnaire (DCDQ) at baseline and at 12 weeks. Paired t-tests, a mixed-effects model, and linear regression were used to compare treatment groups and assess factors influencing motor coordination changes. Results: Methylphenidate and atomoxetine resulted in significant improvement in DCDQ fine motor/handwriting, general coordination, and total scores over 12 weeks. Fine motor/handwriting had a significant main effect for time (F1=16.64, p<0.001, η2=0.097); however, the interaction effect between group and time was not significant (F1=0.24, p=0.625, η2=0.002). Changes in parent-reported ARS inattention scores (β=-0.174, p=0.029) and auditory commission errors of ATA (β=0.191, p=0.022) were significantly associated with changes in fine motor/handwriting. Additionally, changes in parent-reported ARS inattention scores (β=-0.177, p=0.034) and rater-reported ARS inattention scores (β=-0.198, p=0.017) were significant predictors of improvements in general coordination in separate models. Conclusion Methylphenidate and atomoxetine had a positive effect on motor coordination in children with ADHD. Improvement in motor coordination was associated with ADHD symptom improvement.

Objective: To investigate the effects of methylphenidate and atomoxetine treatment on motor coordination in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Methods: In this single-site, open-label, naturalistic follow-up study, 157 children (7.6±1.4 years; 139 males) with ADHD were recruited between March 2015 and May 2020 from the Department of Psychiatry, Asan Medical Center, and treated for 12 weeks with methylphenidate (n=48) or atomoxetine (n=109). Children completed the Advanced Test of Attention (ATA), and caregivers completed the ADHD Rating Scale (ARS) questionnaire and Developmental Coordination Disorder Questionnaire (DCDQ) at baseline and at 12 weeks. Paired t-tests, a mixed-effects model, and linear regression were used to compare treatment groups and assess factors influencing motor coordination changes. Results: Methylphenidate and atomoxetine resulted in significant improvement in DCDQ fine motor/handwriting, general coordination, and total scores over 12 weeks. Fine motor/handwriting had a significant main effect for time (F1=16.64, p<0.001, η2=0.097); however, the interaction effect between group and time was not significant (F1=0.24, p=0.625, η2=0.002). Changes in parent-reported ARS inattention scores (β=-0.174, p=0.029) and auditory commission errors of ATA (β=0.191, p=0.022) were significantly associated with changes in fine motor/handwriting. Additionally, changes in parent-reported ARS inattention scores (β=-0.177, p=0.034) and rater-reported ARS inattention scores (β=-0.198, p=0.017) were significant predictors of improvements in general coordination in separate models. Conclusion Methylphenidate and atomoxetine had a positive effect on motor coordination in children with ADHD. Improvement in motor coordination was associated with ADHD symptom improvement.

Background/Aims: To determine the association between evolutionary changes in metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) status and the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in a nationwide population-based cohort. Methods: Information on study participants was derived from the Korea National Health Insurance Service database. The study population consisted of 5,080,410 participants who underwent two consecutive biennial health screenings between 2009 and 2012. All participants were followed up until HCC, death, or 31 December 2020. The association of evolutionary changes in MASLD status, as assessed by the fatty liver index and cardiometabolic risk factors, including persistent non-MASLD, resolved MASLD, incident MASLD, and persistent MASLD, with HCC risk was evaluated using multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression. Results: Among the 5,080,410 participants with 39,910,331 person-years of follow-up, 4,801 participants developed HCC. The incidence of HCC in participants with resolved, incident, and persistent MASLD was approximately 2.2-, 2.3-, and 4.7-fold higher, respectively, than that in those with persistent non-MASLD among the Korean adult population. When stratifying the participants according to the evolutionary change in MASLD status, persistent (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.68–3.21; P<0.001), incident (aHR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.63–2.10; P<0.001), and resolved MASLD (aHR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.18–1.50; P<0.001) had an increased risk of HCC compared to persistent non-MASLD. Conclusions The evolutionary changes in MASLD were associated with the differential risk of HCC independent of metabolic risk factors and concomitant medications, providing additional information on the risk of HCC stratification in patients with MASLD.

Background: Atherogenic dyslipidemia, which is frequently associated with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and insulin resistance, contributes to the development of vascular complications. Statin therapy is the primary approach to dyslipidemia management in T2D, however, the role of non-statin therapy remains unclear. Ezetimibe reduces cholesterol burden by inhibiting intestinal cholesterol absorption. Fibrates lower triglyceride levels and increase high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels via peroxisome proliferator- activated receptor alpha agonism. Therefore, when combined, these drugs effectively lower non-HDL-C levels. Despite this, few clinical trials have specifically targeted non-HDL-C, and the efficacy of triple combination therapies, including statins, ezetimibe, and fibrates, has yet to be determined. Methods: This is a multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label, active-comparator controlled trial involving 3,958 eligible participants with T2D, cardiovascular risk factors, and elevated non-HDL-C (≥100 mg/dL). Participants, already on moderate-intensity statins, will be randomly assigned to either Ezefeno (ezetimibe/fenofibrate) addition or statin dose-escalation. The primary end point is the development of a composite of major adverse cardiovascular and diabetic microvascular events over 48 months. Conclusion This trial aims to assess whether combining statins, ezetimibe, and fenofibrate is as effective as, or possibly superior to, statin monotherapy intensification in lowering cardiovascular and microvascular disease risk for patients with T2D. This could propose a novel therapeutic approach for managing dyslipidemia in T2D.