Long coronavirus disease (COVID) is a condition in which coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) symptoms persist for over 3 months, and currently poses a global public health challenge. Due to varying manifestations and lack of standardized definitions, diagnostic methods, and treatments, comprehensive clinical guidelines are required. This review article, summarizing research and expert consensus up to June 2023, provides recommendations for diagnosis and long-term management of long COVID symptoms. It emphasizes thorough patient evaluation, including medical history, physical examinations, and tests, and advocates vaccination and antiviral treatments to reduce risk. Guidelines for long COVID will be updated as new knowledge emerges.

Objective: Acute coronary syndrome often requires urgent intervention. The 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines recommend invasive procedures within 24 hours for high-risk cases. Nevertheless, there have been limited studies on non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) in South Korea. This study compared the risk of complications based on the timing of intervention. Methods: A retrospective observational study was conducted on patients with chest pain and elevated high-sensitivity troponin T from January to December 2021 in the emergency department. Patients were categorized into early (≤24 hr) and late (>24 hr) intervention groups. Primary outcomes (death, restenosis, or stroke) at 12 months were compared. Survival and subgroup analyses were performed to examine the factors affecting the outcomes in the two groups. Results: Three hundred seventy six patients were enrolled in the study, and 115 patients were excluded. Among 261 patients, 106 and 155 patients were in the early intervention group (≤24 hr), and late intervention group (>24 hr), respectively. The primary outcome (death or restenosis) showed no significant difference (hazard ratio [HR] in the early intervention group at 12 mo; 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63-1.70; P=0.905). However, risk of stroke was lower in the early intervention group (HR in the early, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.00-0.66; P=0.013). Subgroup analysis showed no significant advantage for early intervention. Conclusion In NSTEMI patients, early intervention does not reduce death or restenosis but lowers stroke incidence. No specific risk factors favored early intervention.

South Korea’s current vaccination policies leave a surveillance gap for non-National Immunization Program (NIP) vaccines. In this study, we proposed a sentinel surveillance approach for monitoring the safety of non-NIP vaccines. Vaccination data were collected retrospectively among patients hospitalized with pre-defined adverse events of special interest (AESI) by reviewing electronic medical records in five university hospitals. This approach incorporates expert assessment to determine the causal relationship. We confirmed that 16 patients had received non-NIP vaccines among 860 patients diagnosed with AESI.We concluded one case of preeclampsia was possibly related to tetanus-diphtheria-pertussis vaccination. We propose a multi-hospital-based, retrospective assessment system for predefined AESIs as an alternative to active vaccine safety monitoring method. These efforts are expected to enhance both the accuracy and timeliness of safety monitoring in South Korea.

Background: Tinnitus is a multifactorial condition with no universally accepted assessment guidelines. The Korean Tinnitus Study Group previously established consensus statements on the definition, classification, and diagnostic tests for tinnitus. As a continuation of this effort, this study aims to establish expert consensus on tinnitus assessment and treatment outcome evaluation, specifically tailored to the Korean clinical context. Methods: A modified Delphi method involving 26 otology experts from across Korea was used. A two-round Delphi survey was conducted to evaluate statements related to tinnitus assessment before and after treatment. Statements were rated on a scale of 1 to 9 for the level of agreement. Consensus was defined as ≥ 70% agreement (score of 7–9) and ≤ 15% disagreement (score of 1–3). Statistical measures such as content validity ratio and Kendall’s coefficient of concordance (W) were calculated to assess agreement levels. Results: Of the 46 assessment-related statements, 17 (37%) reached consensus, though overall pre-treatment assessments showed weak agreement (Kendall’s W = 0.319). Key areas of agreement included the use of the visual analogue scale, numeric rating scale, and validated questionnaires for pre-treatment evaluation. Five statements, such as the use of computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and angiography for diagnosing pulsatile tinnitus, achieved over 90% agreement. For treatment outcome measurements, 8 of 12 statements (67%) reached a consensus, with moderate agreement (Kendall’s W = 0.513). Validated questionnaires and psychoacoustic tests were recommended for evaluating treatment effects within 12 weeks. While standardized imaging for pulsatile tinnitus and additional clinical tests were strongly recommended, full consensus was not achieved across all imaging modalities. Conclusion This study provides actionable recommendations for tinnitus assessment and treatment evaluation, emphasizing the use of standardized tools and individualized approaches based on patient needs. These findings offer a practical framework to enhance consistency and effectiveness in tinnitus management within Korean clinical settings.

Objective: Acute coronary syndrome often requires urgent intervention. The 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines recommend invasive procedures within 24 hours for high-risk cases. Nevertheless, there have been limited studies on non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) in South Korea. This study compared the risk of complications based on the timing of intervention. Methods: A retrospective observational study was conducted on patients with chest pain and elevated high-sensitivity troponin T from January to December 2021 in the emergency department. Patients were categorized into early (≤24 hr) and late (>24 hr) intervention groups. Primary outcomes (death, restenosis, or stroke) at 12 months were compared. Survival and subgroup analyses were performed to examine the factors affecting the outcomes in the two groups. Results: Three hundred seventy six patients were enrolled in the study, and 115 patients were excluded. Among 261 patients, 106 and 155 patients were in the early intervention group (≤24 hr), and late intervention group (>24 hr), respectively. The primary outcome (death or restenosis) showed no significant difference (hazard ratio [HR] in the early intervention group at 12 mo; 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63-1.70; P=0.905). However, risk of stroke was lower in the early intervention group (HR in the early, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.00-0.66; P=0.013). Subgroup analysis showed no significant advantage for early intervention. Conclusion In NSTEMI patients, early intervention does not reduce death or restenosis but lowers stroke incidence. No specific risk factors favored early intervention.