Background: The World Health Organization has declared the end of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) public health emergency. However, this did not indicate the end of COVID-19. Several months after the infection, numerous patients complain of respiratory or nonspecific symptoms; this condition is called long COVID. Even patients with mild COVID-19 can experience long COVID, thus the burden of long COVID remains considerable. Therefore, we conducted this study to comprehensively analyze the effects of long COVID using multi-faceted assessments. Materials and Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study involving patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between February 2020 and September 2021 in six tertiary hospitals in Korea. Patients were followed up at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after discharge. Long COVID was defined as the persistence of three or more COVID-19-related symptoms. The primary outcome of this study was the prevalence of long COVID after the period of COVID-19. Results: During the study period, 290 patients were enrolled. Among them, 54.5 and 34.6% experienced long COVID within 6 months and after more than 18 months, respectively. Several patients showed abnormal results when tested for post-traumatic stress disorder (17.4%) and anxiety (31.9%) after 18 months. In patients who underwent follow-up chest computed tomography 18 months after COVID-19, abnormal findings remained at 51.9%. Males (odds ratio [OR], 0.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.05–0.53; P=0.004) and elderly (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.00–1.09; P=0.04) showed a significant association with long COVID after 12–18 months in a multivariable logistic regression analysis. Conclusion Many patients still showed long COVID after 18 months post SARS-CoV-2 infection. When managing these patients, the assessment of multiple aspects is necessary.

Background: The World Health Organization has declared the end of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) public health emergency. However, this did not indicate the end of COVID-19. Several months after the infection, numerous patients complain of respiratory or nonspecific symptoms; this condition is called long COVID. Even patients with mild COVID-19 can experience long COVID, thus the burden of long COVID remains considerable. Therefore, we conducted this study to comprehensively analyze the effects of long COVID using multi-faceted assessments. Materials and Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study involving patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between February 2020 and September 2021 in six tertiary hospitals in Korea. Patients were followed up at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after discharge. Long COVID was defined as the persistence of three or more COVID-19-related symptoms. The primary outcome of this study was the prevalence of long COVID after the period of COVID-19. Results: During the study period, 290 patients were enrolled. Among them, 54.5 and 34.6% experienced long COVID within 6 months and after more than 18 months, respectively. Several patients showed abnormal results when tested for post-traumatic stress disorder (17.4%) and anxiety (31.9%) after 18 months. In patients who underwent follow-up chest computed tomography 18 months after COVID-19, abnormal findings remained at 51.9%. Males (odds ratio [OR], 0.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.05–0.53; P=0.004) and elderly (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.00–1.09; P=0.04) showed a significant association with long COVID after 12–18 months in a multivariable logistic regression analysis. Conclusion Many patients still showed long COVID after 18 months post SARS-CoV-2 infection. When managing these patients, the assessment of multiple aspects is necessary.

Background: The World Health Organization has declared the end of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) public health emergency. However, this did not indicate the end of COVID-19. Several months after the infection, numerous patients complain of respiratory or nonspecific symptoms; this condition is called long COVID. Even patients with mild COVID-19 can experience long COVID, thus the burden of long COVID remains considerable. Therefore, we conducted this study to comprehensively analyze the effects of long COVID using multi-faceted assessments. Materials and Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study involving patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between February 2020 and September 2021 in six tertiary hospitals in Korea. Patients were followed up at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after discharge. Long COVID was defined as the persistence of three or more COVID-19-related symptoms. The primary outcome of this study was the prevalence of long COVID after the period of COVID-19. Results: During the study period, 290 patients were enrolled. Among them, 54.5 and 34.6% experienced long COVID within 6 months and after more than 18 months, respectively. Several patients showed abnormal results when tested for post-traumatic stress disorder (17.4%) and anxiety (31.9%) after 18 months. In patients who underwent follow-up chest computed tomography 18 months after COVID-19, abnormal findings remained at 51.9%. Males (odds ratio [OR], 0.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.05–0.53; P=0.004) and elderly (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.00–1.09; P=0.04) showed a significant association with long COVID after 12–18 months in a multivariable logistic regression analysis. Conclusion Many patients still showed long COVID after 18 months post SARS-CoV-2 infection. When managing these patients, the assessment of multiple aspects is necessary.

Background: Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors are frequently prescribed for patients with type 2 diabetes; however, their cost can pose a significant barrier for those with impaired kidney function. This study aimed to estimate the economic benefits of substituting non-renal dose-adjusted (NRDA) DPP4 inhibitors with renal dose-adjusted (RDA) DPP4 inhibitors in patients with both impaired kidney function and type 2 diabetes. Methods: This retrospective cohort study was conducted from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2018, using data obtained from common data models of five medical centers in Korea. Model 1 applied the prescription pattern of participants with preserved kidney function to those with impaired kidney function. In contrast, model 2 replaced all NRDA DPP4 inhibitors with RDA DPP4 inhibitors, adjusting the doses of RDA DPP4 inhibitors based on individual kidney function. The primary outcome was the cost difference between the two models. Results: In total, 67,964,996 prescription records were analyzed. NRDA DPP4 inhibitors were more frequently prescribed to patients with impaired kidney function than in those with preserved kidney function (25.7%, 51.3%, 64.3%, and 71.6% in patients with estimated glomerular filtration rates [eGFRs] of ≥60, <60, <45, and <30 mL/min/1.73 m2, respectively). When model 1 was applied, the cost savings per year were 7.6% for eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 and 30.4% for eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m2. According to model 2, 15.4% to 51.2% per year could be saved depending on kidney impairment severity. Conclusion Adjusting the doses of RDA DPP4 inhibitors based on individual kidney function could alleviate the economic burden associated with medical expenses.

In May 2023, the Committee of Clinical Practice Guidelines of the Korean Diabetes Association published the revised clinical practice guidelines for Korean adults with diabetes and prediabetes. We incorporated the latest clinical research findings through a comprehensive systematic literature review and applied them in a manner suitable for the Korean population. These guidelines are designed for all healthcare providers nationwide, including physicians, diabetes experts, and certified diabetes educators who manage patients with diabetes or individuals at risk of developing diabetes. Based on recent changes in international guidelines and the results of a Korean epidemiological study, the recommended age for diabetes screening has been lowered. In collaboration with the relevant Korean medical societies, recently revised guidelines for managing hypertension and dyslipidemia in patients with diabetes have been incorporated into this guideline. An abridgment containing practical information on patient education and systematic management in the clinic was published separately.

Objective: Dysphagia is a common clinical condition characterized by difficulty in swallowing. It is sub-classified into oropharyngeal dysphagia, which refers to problems in the mouth and pharynx, and esophageal dysphagia, which refers to problems in the esophageal body and esophagogastric junction. Dysphagia can have a significant negative impact one’s physical health and quality of life as its severity increases. Therefore, proper assessment and management of dysphagia are critical for improving swallowing function and preventing complications. Thus a guideline was developed to provide evidence-based recommendations for assessment and management in patients with dysphagia. Methods: Nineteen key questions on dysphagia were developed. These questions dealt with various aspects of problems related to dysphagia, including assessment, management, and complications. A literature search for relevant articles was conducted using Pubmed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and one domestic database of KoreaMed, until April 2021. The level of evidence and recommendation grade were established according to the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. Results: Early screening and assessment of videofluoroscopic swallowing were recommended for assessing the presence of dysphagia. Therapeutic methods, such as tongue and pharyngeal muscle strengthening exercises and neuromuscular electrical stimulation with swallowing therapy, were effective in improving swallowing function and quality of life in patients with dysphagia. Nutritional intervention and an oral care program were also recommended. Conclusion This guideline presents recommendations for the assessment and management of patients with oropharyngeal dysphagia, including rehabilitative strategies.

Purpose: To compare the prognosis of patients with axillary adenocarcinoma from an unknown primary (ACUPax) origin with negative MRI results and those with MRI-detected primary breast cancers. Materials and Methods: The breast MRI images of 32 patients with ACUPax without signs of primary breast cancer on mammography and ultrasound (US) were analyzed. Spot compression-magnification mammography and second-look US were performed for the area of MRI abnormality in patients with positive results; any positive findings corresponding to the MRI abnormality were confirmed by biopsy. If suspicious MRI lesions could not be localized on mammography or US, MR-guided biopsy or excision biopsy after MR-guided localization was performed. We compared the prognosis of patients with negative breast MRI with that for patients with MRI-detected primary breast cancers. Results: Primary breast cancers were confirmed in 8 (25%) patients after breast MRI. Primary breast cancers were not detected on MRI in 24 (75%) patients, including five cases of false-positive MRI results. Twenty-three patients underwent axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) followed by whole breast radiation therapy (WBRT) and chemotherapy (n=17) or subsequent chemotherapy only (n=2). Recurrence or distant metastasis did not occur during follow up in 7/8 patients with MRI-detected primary breast cancers and 22/24 patients with negative MRI results. Regional recurrence or distant metastasis did not occur in any MR-negative patient who received adjuvant chemotherapy after ALND and WBRT. Conclusion The prognoses of MR-negative patients with ACUPax who received ALND and WBRT followed by chemotherapy were as good as those of patients with MRI-detected primary breast cancers.

Background: We evaluated the achievement of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) targets in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) according to up-to-date Korean Diabetes Association (KDA), European Society of Cardiology (ESC)/European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS), and American Diabetes Association (ADA) guidelines. Methods: This retrospective cohort study collected electronic medical record data from patients with T2DM (≥20 years) managed by endocrinologists from 15 hospitals in Korea (January to December 2019). Patients were categorized according to guidelines to assess LDL-C target achievement. KDA (2019): Very High-I (atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease [ASCVD]) <70 mg/dL; Very High-II (target organ damage [TOD], or cardiovascular risk factors [CVRFs]) <70 mg/dL; high (others) <100 mg/dL. ESC/EAS (2019): Very High-I (ASCVD): <55 mg/dL; Very High-II (TOD or ≥3-CVRF) <55 mg/dL; high (diabetes ≥10 years without TOD plus any CVRF) <70 mg/dL; moderate (diabetes <10 years without CVRF) <100 mg/dL. ADA (2019): Very High-I (ASCVD); Very High-II (age ≥40+ TOD, or any CVRF), for high intensity statin or statin combined with ezetimibe. Results: Among 2,000 T2DM patients (mean age 62.6 years; male 55.9%; mean glycosylated hemoglobin 7.2%) ASCVD prevalence was 24.7%. Of 1,455 (72.8%) patients treated with statins, 73.9% received monotherapy. According to KDA guidelines, LDL-C target achievement rates were 55.2% in Very High-I and 34.9% in Very High-II patients. With ESC/EAS guidelines, target attainment rates were 26.6% in Very High-I, 15.7% in Very High-II, and 25.9% in high risk patients. Based on ADA guidelines, most patients (78.9%) were very-high risk; however, only 15.5% received high-intensity statin or combination therapy. Conclusion According to current dyslipidemia management guidelines, LDL-C goal achievement remains suboptimal in Korean patients with T2DM.

Background: The purpose of this study is to construct a job-exposure matrix for lead that accounts for industry and work processes within industries using a nationwide exposure database. Methods: We used the work environment measurement data (WEMD) of lead monitored nationwide from 2015 to 2016. Industrial hygienists standardized the work process codes in the database to 37 standard process and extracted key index words for each process. A total of 37 standardized process codes were allocated to each measurement based on an automated key word search based on the degree of agreement between the measurement information and the standard process index. Summary statistics, including the arithmetic mean, geometric mean, and 95th percentile level (X95), was calculated according to industry, process, and industry process. Using statistical parameters of contrast and precision, we compared the similarity of exposure groups by industry, process, and industry process. Results: The exposure intensity of lead was estimated for 583 exposure groups combined with 128 industry and 35 process. The X95 value of the “casting” process of the “manufacture of basic precious and non-ferrous metals” industry was 53.29 μg/m3, exceeding the occupational exposure limit of 50 μg/m3. Regardless of the limitation of the minimum number of samples in the exposure group, higher contrast was observed when the exposure groups were by industry process than by industry or process. Conclusion We evaluated the exposure intensities of lead by combination of industry and process. The results will be helpful in determining more accurate information regarding exposure in lead-related epidemiological studies.

Oropharyngeal dysphagia is a clinical condition caused by various underlying diseases and is characterized by difficulty in swallowing. Diagnosis and treatment of oropharyngeal dysphagia require multidisciplinary consultations. This position statement for oropharyngeal dysphagia was developed by The Korean Dysphagia Society (KDS) to outline its position on oropharyngeal dysphagia. The clinical practice guideline, position statements, a recent meta-analysis, a systematic review, and randomized controlled trials for oropharyngeal dysphagia were all performed. An expert Delphi survey was also done to achieve a consensus of opinion on this position statement. This position statement for oropharyngeal dysphagia aims to help make evidence-based decisions in clinical practice, improve clinical evaluation and manage oropharyngeal dysphagia in Korea.