Purpose: To investigate whether using a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for the second time (2nd_CGM) would be effective after using it for the first time (1st_CGM), depending on age. Materials and Methods: This study included patients aged ≥40 years who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and had used a CGM at least twice between 2017 and 2021. Participants were divided into two groups based on their age: those aged <60 years and those aged ≥60 years. We assessed the glycemic control status of the 1st_CGM and 2nd_CGM, along with the glycemic variability. Results: Overall, 15 patients were included in the study. The mean glucose level in users aged <60 years significantly decreased (p<0.001) owing to the CGM use, while it did not increase in those aged ≥60 years. In users aged ≥60 years, the 1st_CGM group showed a significant decrease in blood glucose levels over time (p<0.05), whereas the 2nd_CGM group only showed a non-significant decreasing trend. The time in range tended to increase in those aged <60 years but decreased in those aged ≥60 years. In those aged <60 years, the mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (p<0.001), standard deviation (p<0.05), and coefficient of variation (p<0.001) significantly decreased. In those aged ≥60 years, these parameters exhibited a non-significant decreasing trend. Conclusion Glycemic effect and variability improved as expected with 1st_CGM use. However, 2nd_CGM did not significantly improve glycemic effect or variability in users aged ≥60 years, contrary to expectations. To address this issue, further investigation is needed to understand why, compared to 1st_CGM, 2nd_CGM fails to achieve better glycemic control in individuals aged ≥60 years.

Purpose: To investigate whether using a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for the second time (2nd_CGM) would be effective after using it for the first time (1st_CGM), depending on age. Materials and Methods: This study included patients aged ≥40 years who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and had used a CGM at least twice between 2017 and 2021. Participants were divided into two groups based on their age: those aged <60 years and those aged ≥60 years. We assessed the glycemic control status of the 1st_CGM and 2nd_CGM, along with the glycemic variability. Results: Overall, 15 patients were included in the study. The mean glucose level in users aged <60 years significantly decreased (p<0.001) owing to the CGM use, while it did not increase in those aged ≥60 years. In users aged ≥60 years, the 1st_CGM group showed a significant decrease in blood glucose levels over time (p<0.05), whereas the 2nd_CGM group only showed a non-significant decreasing trend. The time in range tended to increase in those aged <60 years but decreased in those aged ≥60 years. In those aged <60 years, the mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (p<0.001), standard deviation (p<0.05), and coefficient of variation (p<0.001) significantly decreased. In those aged ≥60 years, these parameters exhibited a non-significant decreasing trend. Conclusion Glycemic effect and variability improved as expected with 1st_CGM use. However, 2nd_CGM did not significantly improve glycemic effect or variability in users aged ≥60 years, contrary to expectations. To address this issue, further investigation is needed to understand why, compared to 1st_CGM, 2nd_CGM fails to achieve better glycemic control in individuals aged ≥60 years.

Purpose: To investigate whether using a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for the second time (2nd_CGM) would be effective after using it for the first time (1st_CGM), depending on age. Materials and Methods: This study included patients aged ≥40 years who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and had used a CGM at least twice between 2017 and 2021. Participants were divided into two groups based on their age: those aged <60 years and those aged ≥60 years. We assessed the glycemic control status of the 1st_CGM and 2nd_CGM, along with the glycemic variability. Results: Overall, 15 patients were included in the study. The mean glucose level in users aged <60 years significantly decreased (p<0.001) owing to the CGM use, while it did not increase in those aged ≥60 years. In users aged ≥60 years, the 1st_CGM group showed a significant decrease in blood glucose levels over time (p<0.05), whereas the 2nd_CGM group only showed a non-significant decreasing trend. The time in range tended to increase in those aged <60 years but decreased in those aged ≥60 years. In those aged <60 years, the mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (p<0.001), standard deviation (p<0.05), and coefficient of variation (p<0.001) significantly decreased. In those aged ≥60 years, these parameters exhibited a non-significant decreasing trend. Conclusion Glycemic effect and variability improved as expected with 1st_CGM use. However, 2nd_CGM did not significantly improve glycemic effect or variability in users aged ≥60 years, contrary to expectations. To address this issue, further investigation is needed to understand why, compared to 1st_CGM, 2nd_CGM fails to achieve better glycemic control in individuals aged ≥60 years.

Purpose: To investigate whether using a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for the second time (2nd_CGM) would be effective after using it for the first time (1st_CGM), depending on age. Materials and Methods: This study included patients aged ≥40 years who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and had used a CGM at least twice between 2017 and 2021. Participants were divided into two groups based on their age: those aged <60 years and those aged ≥60 years. We assessed the glycemic control status of the 1st_CGM and 2nd_CGM, along with the glycemic variability. Results: Overall, 15 patients were included in the study. The mean glucose level in users aged <60 years significantly decreased (p<0.001) owing to the CGM use, while it did not increase in those aged ≥60 years. In users aged ≥60 years, the 1st_CGM group showed a significant decrease in blood glucose levels over time (p<0.05), whereas the 2nd_CGM group only showed a non-significant decreasing trend. The time in range tended to increase in those aged <60 years but decreased in those aged ≥60 years. In those aged <60 years, the mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (p<0.001), standard deviation (p<0.05), and coefficient of variation (p<0.001) significantly decreased. In those aged ≥60 years, these parameters exhibited a non-significant decreasing trend. Conclusion Glycemic effect and variability improved as expected with 1st_CGM use. However, 2nd_CGM did not significantly improve glycemic effect or variability in users aged ≥60 years, contrary to expectations. To address this issue, further investigation is needed to understand why, compared to 1st_CGM, 2nd_CGM fails to achieve better glycemic control in individuals aged ≥60 years.

Purpose: To investigate whether using a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for the second time (2nd_CGM) would be effective after using it for the first time (1st_CGM), depending on age. Materials and Methods: This study included patients aged ≥40 years who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and had used a CGM at least twice between 2017 and 2021. Participants were divided into two groups based on their age: those aged <60 years and those aged ≥60 years. We assessed the glycemic control status of the 1st_CGM and 2nd_CGM, along with the glycemic variability. Results: Overall, 15 patients were included in the study. The mean glucose level in users aged <60 years significantly decreased (p<0.001) owing to the CGM use, while it did not increase in those aged ≥60 years. In users aged ≥60 years, the 1st_CGM group showed a significant decrease in blood glucose levels over time (p<0.05), whereas the 2nd_CGM group only showed a non-significant decreasing trend. The time in range tended to increase in those aged <60 years but decreased in those aged ≥60 years. In those aged <60 years, the mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (p<0.001), standard deviation (p<0.05), and coefficient of variation (p<0.001) significantly decreased. In those aged ≥60 years, these parameters exhibited a non-significant decreasing trend. Conclusion Glycemic effect and variability improved as expected with 1st_CGM use. However, 2nd_CGM did not significantly improve glycemic effect or variability in users aged ≥60 years, contrary to expectations. To address this issue, further investigation is needed to understand why, compared to 1st_CGM, 2nd_CGM fails to achieve better glycemic control in individuals aged ≥60 years.

Objective: Effective triage of febrile patients in the emergency department is crucial during times of overcrowding to prioritize care and allocate resources, especially during pandemics. However, available triage tools often require laboratory data and lack accuracy. We aimed to develop a simple and accurate triage tool for febrile patients by modifying the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from 7,303 febrile patients and created modified versions of qSOFA using factors identified through multivariable analysis. The performance of these modified qSOFAs in predicting in-hospital mortality and intensive care unit (ICU) admission was compared using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Results: Through multivariable analysis, the identified factors were age (“A” factor), male sex (“M” factor), oxygen saturation measured by pulse oximetry (SpO2; “S” factor), and lactate level (“L” factor). The AUROCs of ASqSOFA (in-hospital mortality: 0.812 [95% confidence interval, 0.789–0.835]; ICU admission: 0.794 [95% confidence interval, 0.771–0.817]) were simple and not inferior to those of other more complex models (e.g., ASMqSOFA, ASLqSOFA, and ASMLqSOFA). ASqSOFA also displayed significantly higher AUROC than other triage scales, such as the Modified Early Warning Score and Korean Triage and Acuity Scale. The optimal cutoff score of ASqSOFA for the outcome was 2, and the score for redistribution to a lower level emergency department was 0. Conclusion We demonstrated that ASqSOFA can be employed as a simple and efficient triage tool for emergency febrile patients to aid in resource distribution during overcrowding. It also may be applicable in prehospital settings for febrile patient triage.

Objectives: This study aimed to present the Asia-Pacific consensus on long-term and sequential therapy for osteoporosis, offering evidence-based recommendations for the effective management of this chronic condition.The primary focus is on achieving optimal fracture prevention through a comprehensive, individualized approach. Methods: A panel of experts convened to develop consensus statements by synthesizing the current literature and leveraging clinical expertise. The review encompassed long-term anti-osteoporosis medication goals, first-line treatments for individuals at very high fracture risk, and the strategic integration of anabolic and anti resorptive agents in sequential therapy approaches. Results: The panelists reached a consensus on 12 statements. Key recommendations included advocating for anabolic agents as the first-line treatment for individuals at very high fracture risk and transitioning to anti resorptive agents following the completion of anabolic therapy. Anabolic therapy remains an option for in dividuals experiencing new fractures or persistent high fracture risk despite antiresorptive treatment. In cases of inadequate response, the consensus recommended considering a switch to more potent medications. The consensus also addressed the management of medication-related complications, proposing alternatives instead of discontinuation of treatment. Conclusions This consensus provides a comprehensive, cost-effective strategy for fracture prevention with an emphasis on shared decision-making and the incorporation of country-specific case management systems, such as fracture liaison services. It serves as a valuable guide for healthcare professionals in the Asia-Pacific region, contributing to the ongoing evolution of osteoporosis management.

Purpose: Repeated transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is expected to have the potential to improve cognitive function in patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI). We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of at-home tDCS for elderly patients with MCI. Materials and Methods: Patients aged 60–80 years, who maintained normal daily living but reported objective memory impairments, were enrolled. Active or sham stimulations were applied to the dorsal frontal cortex (left: anode; right: cathode) at home for 2 weeks. Changes in cognitive function were assessed using visual recognition tasks and the Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE), and safety and efficacy were assessed using self-reports and a remote monitoring application. Results: Of the 19 participants enrolled, 12 participants were included in the efficacy analysis. Response times and MMSE scores significantly improved after active stimulation compared to the sham stimulation; however, there were no significant differences in the proportion of correct responses. The mean compliance of the efficacy group was 97.5%±4.1%. Three participants experienced burns, but no permanent sequelae remained. Conclusion This preliminary result suggests that home-based tDCS may be a promising treatment option for MCI patients; however, it requires more attention and technological development to address safety concerns.

Objective: Effective triage of febrile patients in the emergency department is crucial during times of overcrowding to prioritize care and allocate resources, especially during pandemics. However, available triage tools often require laboratory data and lack accuracy. We aimed to develop a simple and accurate triage tool for febrile patients by modifying the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from 7,303 febrile patients and created modified versions of qSOFA using factors identified through multivariable analysis. The performance of these modified qSOFAs in predicting in-hospital mortality and intensive care unit (ICU) admission was compared using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Results: Through multivariable analysis, the identified factors were age (“A” factor), male sex (“M” factor), oxygen saturation measured by pulse oximetry (SpO2; “S” factor), and lactate level (“L” factor). The AUROCs of ASqSOFA (in-hospital mortality: 0.812 [95% confidence interval, 0.789–0.835]; ICU admission: 0.794 [95% confidence interval, 0.771–0.817]) were simple and not inferior to those of other more complex models (e.g., ASMqSOFA, ASLqSOFA, and ASMLqSOFA). ASqSOFA also displayed significantly higher AUROC than other triage scales, such as the Modified Early Warning Score and Korean Triage and Acuity Scale. The optimal cutoff score of ASqSOFA for the outcome was 2, and the score for redistribution to a lower level emergency department was 0. Conclusion We demonstrated that ASqSOFA can be employed as a simple and efficient triage tool for emergency febrile patients to aid in resource distribution during overcrowding. It also may be applicable in prehospital settings for febrile patient triage.

Background: The importance of digital technology is increasing among older adults. In this study, the digital health technology utilization status, purpose, and satisfaction of older adults were investigated according to frailty. Methods: A face-to-face survey was conducted among adults aged 65 years or older. Frailty was defined using the Korean version of the fatigue, resistance, ambulation, illnesses, and loss of weight scale. Results: A total of 505 participants completed the survey, with 153 (30.3%) identified as pre-frail or frail and 352 (69.7%) as healthy. All respondents used smartphones; 440 (87.1%) were application users, and 290 (57.4%) were healthcare application users. Wearable devices were used by only 36 patients (7.1%). Pre-frail or frail respondents used social media more frequently than healthy respondents (19.4% vs. 7.4%, P < 0.001). Among the respondents, 319 (63.2%) were not able to install or delete the application themselves, and 277 (54.9%) stated that the application was recommended by their children (or partner). Pre-frail and frail respondents used more healthcare applications to obtain health information (P = 0.002) and were less satisfied with wearable devices (P = 0.02). Conclusion The usage rate of digital devices, including mobile phones among older adults in Korea is high, whereas that of wearable devices is low. There was a notable difference in the services used by pre-frail and frail respondents compared to healthy respondents. Therefore, when developing digital devices for pre-frail and frail older adults, it is crucial to incorporate customized services that meet their unique needs, particularly those services that they frequently use.