Background: Chromosomal alterations serve as diagnostic and prognostic markers in acute leukemia. Given the evolving landscape of chromosomal abnormalities in acute leukemia, we previously studied these over two periods. In this study, we investigated the frequency of these abnormalities and clinical trends in acute leukemia in Korea across three time periods. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from 1,787 patients with acute leukemia (319 children and 1,468 adults) diagnosed between 2006 and 2020. Conventional cytogenetics, FISH, and multiplex quantitative PCR were used for analysis. The patient groups were divided according to the following three study periods: 2006–2009 (I), 2010–2015 (II), and 2016–2020 (III). Results: Chromosomal aberrations were detected in 92% of patients. The PML::RARA translocation was the most frequent. Over the 15-yr period, chromosomal aberrations showed minimal changes, with specific fusion transcripts being common among patients.ALL was more prevalent in children than in adults and correlated significantly with the ETV6::RUNX1 and RUNX1::RUNX1T1 aberrations. The incidence of ALL increased during the three periods, with PML::RARA remaining common. Conclusions The frequency of chromosomal abnormalities in acute leukemia has changed subtly over time. Notably, the age of onset of adult AML has continuously increased. Our results may help in establishing diagnoses and clinical treatment strategies and developing various molecular diagnostic platforms.

Serological tests for Helicobacter pylori needs local validation as the diagnostic accuracy may vary depending on the prevalence of H.pylori. This study examined the diagnostic performance of two ELISA, GastroPanel® (GastroPanel ELISA; Biohit Oyj) and GENE-DIA® (GENEDIA® H. pylori ELISA, Green Cross Co.) in Korean population. One thousand seventy seven patients who visited for esophagogastroduodenoscopy between 2013 and 2023 were prospectively enrolled, and serum samples from the subjects were tested using both GastroPanel® and GENEDIA® . The two tests were compared for their diagnostic accuracy in detecting atrophic gastritis (AG), intestinal metaplasia (IM), gastric adenoma (GA), and gastric cancer (GC), and the positivity rates by age and sexwere observed. There was substantial correlation (Pearson coefficient [r] = 0.512, P < 0.001) and agreement (Cohen’s Kappa coefficient [κ] = 0.723, P < 0.001) between the results obtained using GastroPanel® and GENEDIA® . The test results from the two kits did not match perfectly with a discrepancy observed in approximately 16% of cases, that 67 subjects were positive only on GENE-DIA® while 75 subjects were positive only on GastroPanel® . The area under receiver operating characteristic curve for AG, IM, GA,and GC using GastroPanel® were 0.666, 0.635, 0.540, and 0.575, while the results tested using GENEDIA® were 0.649, 0.604, 0.553, and 0.555, respectively, without significant difference between the two results. GastroPanel® and GENEDIA® showed similar performance in terms of diagnostic accuracy; but the test results did not match perfectly. A large-scale validation study in Koreansis needed.

Serological tests for Helicobacter pylori needs local validation as the diagnostic accuracy may vary depending on the prevalence of H.pylori. This study examined the diagnostic performance of two ELISA, GastroPanel® (GastroPanel ELISA; Biohit Oyj) and GENE-DIA® (GENEDIA® H. pylori ELISA, Green Cross Co.) in Korean population. One thousand seventy seven patients who visited for esophagogastroduodenoscopy between 2013 and 2023 were prospectively enrolled, and serum samples from the subjects were tested using both GastroPanel® and GENEDIA® . The two tests were compared for their diagnostic accuracy in detecting atrophic gastritis (AG), intestinal metaplasia (IM), gastric adenoma (GA), and gastric cancer (GC), and the positivity rates by age and sexwere observed. There was substantial correlation (Pearson coefficient [r] = 0.512, P < 0.001) and agreement (Cohen’s Kappa coefficient [κ] = 0.723, P < 0.001) between the results obtained using GastroPanel® and GENEDIA® . The test results from the two kits did not match perfectly with a discrepancy observed in approximately 16% of cases, that 67 subjects were positive only on GENE-DIA® while 75 subjects were positive only on GastroPanel® . The area under receiver operating characteristic curve for AG, IM, GA,and GC using GastroPanel® were 0.666, 0.635, 0.540, and 0.575, while the results tested using GENEDIA® were 0.649, 0.604, 0.553, and 0.555, respectively, without significant difference between the two results. GastroPanel® and GENEDIA® showed similar performance in terms of diagnostic accuracy; but the test results did not match perfectly. A large-scale validation study in Koreansis needed.

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.

Serological tests for Helicobacter pylori needs local validation as the diagnostic accuracy may vary depending on the prevalence of H.pylori. This study examined the diagnostic performance of two ELISA, GastroPanel® (GastroPanel ELISA; Biohit Oyj) and GENE-DIA® (GENEDIA® H. pylori ELISA, Green Cross Co.) in Korean population. One thousand seventy seven patients who visited for esophagogastroduodenoscopy between 2013 and 2023 were prospectively enrolled, and serum samples from the subjects were tested using both GastroPanel® and GENEDIA® . The two tests were compared for their diagnostic accuracy in detecting atrophic gastritis (AG), intestinal metaplasia (IM), gastric adenoma (GA), and gastric cancer (GC), and the positivity rates by age and sexwere observed. There was substantial correlation (Pearson coefficient [r] = 0.512, P < 0.001) and agreement (Cohen’s Kappa coefficient [κ] = 0.723, P < 0.001) between the results obtained using GastroPanel® and GENEDIA® . The test results from the two kits did not match perfectly with a discrepancy observed in approximately 16% of cases, that 67 subjects were positive only on GENE-DIA® while 75 subjects were positive only on GastroPanel® . The area under receiver operating characteristic curve for AG, IM, GA,and GC using GastroPanel® were 0.666, 0.635, 0.540, and 0.575, while the results tested using GENEDIA® were 0.649, 0.604, 0.553, and 0.555, respectively, without significant difference between the two results. GastroPanel® and GENEDIA® showed similar performance in terms of diagnostic accuracy; but the test results did not match perfectly. A large-scale validation study in Koreansis needed.