Purpose: This study was conducted to update the practice guidelines for intravenous infusion therapy published in 2017, focusing on the most recent evidence for peripheral intravenous infusion therapy. Methods: The guideline update was conducted using the 22-step methodology. Results: The updated guidelines consist of 17 domains and 235 recommendations (including 284 sub-recommendations). The domains are as follows: general instructions (5 items), peripheral catheter selection (7), catheter insertion site selection (11), management during peripheral catheter insertion (10), post-insertion management (30), perfusion and locking (17), blood sampling via peripheral catheters(6), exchange and removal of peripheral catheters (6), infusion set management (14), add-on devices (32), complications (25), chemotherapy infusions (10), PCA infusions (7), parenteral nutrition (20), transfusion therapy (23), education (5), and documentation and reporting (7). The evidence levels for these recommendations are as follows: 27(9.5%) at level I, 3 (1.1%) at level I A/P, 118 (41.5%) at level II, and 136 (47.9%) at level III.Recommendation grades are categorized as follows: 30 (10.6%) at level A, 118 (41.5%) at level B, and 136(47.9%) at level C. Of these, 73 (25.7%) recommendations were newly developed, 49 (17.3%) underwent major revisions, and 147 (51.7%) underwent minor revisions. Conclusion The updated practice guideline, based on the latest evidence, is anticipated to enhance nursing practice related to peripheral intravenous infusion therapy.

Purpose: This study was conducted to update the practice guidelines for intravenous infusion therapy published in 2017, focusing on the most recent evidence for peripheral intravenous infusion therapy. Methods: The guideline update was conducted using the 22-step methodology. Results: The updated guidelines consist of 17 domains and 235 recommendations (including 284 sub-recommendations). The domains are as follows: general instructions (5 items), peripheral catheter selection (7), catheter insertion site selection (11), management during peripheral catheter insertion (10), post-insertion management (30), perfusion and locking (17), blood sampling via peripheral catheters(6), exchange and removal of peripheral catheters (6), infusion set management (14), add-on devices (32), complications (25), chemotherapy infusions (10), PCA infusions (7), parenteral nutrition (20), transfusion therapy (23), education (5), and documentation and reporting (7). The evidence levels for these recommendations are as follows: 27(9.5%) at level I, 3 (1.1%) at level I A/P, 118 (41.5%) at level II, and 136 (47.9%) at level III.Recommendation grades are categorized as follows: 30 (10.6%) at level A, 118 (41.5%) at level B, and 136(47.9%) at level C. Of these, 73 (25.7%) recommendations were newly developed, 49 (17.3%) underwent major revisions, and 147 (51.7%) underwent minor revisions. Conclusion The updated practice guideline, based on the latest evidence, is anticipated to enhance nursing practice related to peripheral intravenous infusion therapy.

Purpose: This study was conducted to update the practice guidelines for intravenous infusion therapy published in 2017, focusing on the most recent evidence for peripheral intravenous infusion therapy. Methods: The guideline update was conducted using the 22-step methodology. Results: The updated guidelines consist of 17 domains and 235 recommendations (including 284 sub-recommendations). The domains are as follows: general instructions (5 items), peripheral catheter selection (7), catheter insertion site selection (11), management during peripheral catheter insertion (10), post-insertion management (30), perfusion and locking (17), blood sampling via peripheral catheters(6), exchange and removal of peripheral catheters (6), infusion set management (14), add-on devices (32), complications (25), chemotherapy infusions (10), PCA infusions (7), parenteral nutrition (20), transfusion therapy (23), education (5), and documentation and reporting (7). The evidence levels for these recommendations are as follows: 27(9.5%) at level I, 3 (1.1%) at level I A/P, 118 (41.5%) at level II, and 136 (47.9%) at level III.Recommendation grades are categorized as follows: 30 (10.6%) at level A, 118 (41.5%) at level B, and 136(47.9%) at level C. Of these, 73 (25.7%) recommendations were newly developed, 49 (17.3%) underwent major revisions, and 147 (51.7%) underwent minor revisions. Conclusion The updated practice guideline, based on the latest evidence, is anticipated to enhance nursing practice related to peripheral intravenous infusion therapy.

Purpose: This study was conducted to update the practice guidelines for intravenous infusion therapy published in 2017, focusing on the most recent evidence for peripheral intravenous infusion therapy. Methods: The guideline update was conducted using the 22-step methodology. Results: The updated guidelines consist of 17 domains and 235 recommendations (including 284 sub-recommendations). The domains are as follows: general instructions (5 items), peripheral catheter selection (7), catheter insertion site selection (11), management during peripheral catheter insertion (10), post-insertion management (30), perfusion and locking (17), blood sampling via peripheral catheters(6), exchange and removal of peripheral catheters (6), infusion set management (14), add-on devices (32), complications (25), chemotherapy infusions (10), PCA infusions (7), parenteral nutrition (20), transfusion therapy (23), education (5), and documentation and reporting (7). The evidence levels for these recommendations are as follows: 27(9.5%) at level I, 3 (1.1%) at level I A/P, 118 (41.5%) at level II, and 136 (47.9%) at level III.Recommendation grades are categorized as follows: 30 (10.6%) at level A, 118 (41.5%) at level B, and 136(47.9%) at level C. Of these, 73 (25.7%) recommendations were newly developed, 49 (17.3%) underwent major revisions, and 147 (51.7%) underwent minor revisions. Conclusion The updated practice guideline, based on the latest evidence, is anticipated to enhance nursing practice related to peripheral intravenous infusion therapy.

Purpose: This study aims to explore the trend of nursing education and major research themes in the Journal of Korean Academic Society of Nursing Education (JKASNE) over 30 years. Methods: A total of 1,026 articles, published in the JKASNE from 1995 to 2023, were analyzed using the Microsoft Excel program for descriptive statistics and NetMiner for a word cloud of Korean keywords. Results: Most research subjects were healthy people (n=841). Education-related research topics (n=619) were categorized into nine domains: educational methods, educational curriculum, study type and methods, knowledge level and contents, psychosocial variables related to knowledge and education, attitude, behavior, development and evaluation of educational programs, and effects of educational programs. Quantitative (n=835) and descriptive studies (n=497) were determined to be the most common research designs. Self-reported questionnaires were the most common method used in surveys (n=581) and experimental studies (n=153). Descriptive statistics, Pearson's correlation coefficient, and other statistical techniques were used. The keywords in the JKASNE reflected various aspects of nursing research. General terms related to nursing education, such as "nursing students," "nurses," and "nursing education," appeared with high frequency, while more specific terms and phrases reflecting educational competencies and characteristics, such as "self-efficacy," "clinical performance ability," and "communication knowledge," were also prominently featured. Conclusion The JKASNE has published mainly education-focused papers. Analyzing the full set of papers published in JKASNE and examining their characteristics is very meaningful and helpful for the future development of Korean nursing education.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

Background: Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is a liver disease caused by obesity that leads to hepatic lipoapoptosis, resulting in fibrosis and cirrhosis. However, the mechanism underlying NASH is largely unknown, and there is currently no effective therapeutic agent against it. DWN12088, an agent used for treating idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, is a selective prolyl-tRNA synthetase (PRS) inhibitor that suppresses the synthesis of collagen. However, the mechanism underlying the hepatoprotective effect of DWN12088 is not clear. Therefore, we investigated the role of DWN12088 in NASH progression. Methods: Mice were fed a chow diet or methionine-choline deficient (MCD)-diet, which was administered with DWN12088 or saline by oral gavage for 6 weeks. The effects of DWN12088 on NASH were evaluated by pathophysiological examinations, such as real-time quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction, immunoblotting, biochemical analysis, and immunohistochemistry. Molecular and cellular mechanisms of hepatic injury were assessed by in vitro cell culture. Results: DWN12088 attenuated palmitic acid (PA)-induced lipid accumulation and lipoapoptosis by downregulating the Rho-kinase (ROCK)/AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK)/sterol regulatory element-binding protein-1c (SREBP-1c) and protein kinase R-like endoplasmic reticulum kinase (PERK)/α subunit of eukaryotic initiation factor 2 (eIF2α)/activating transcription factor 4 (ATF4)/C/EBP-homologous protein (CHOP) signaling cascades. PA increased but DWN12088 inhibited the phosphorylation of nuclear factor-κB (NF-κB) p65 (Ser536, Ser276) and the expression of proinflammatory genes. Moreover, the DWN12088 inhibited transforming growth factor β (TGFβ)-induced pro-fibrotic gene expression by suppressing TGFβ receptor 1 (TGFβR1)/Smad2/3 and TGFβR1/glutamyl-prolyl-tRNA synthetase (EPRS)/signal transducer and activator of transcription 6 (STAT6) axis signaling. In the case of MCD-diet-induced NASH, DWN12088 reduced hepatic steatosis, inflammation, and lipoapoptosis and prevented the progression of fibrosis. Conclusion Our findings provide new insights about DWN12088, namely that it plays an important role in the overall improvement of NASH. Hence, DWN12088 shows great potential to be developed as a new integrated therapeutic agent for NASH.

Background: It is well known that a large number of patients with diabetes also have dyslipidemia, which significantly increases the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of combination drugs consisting of metformin and atorvastatin, widely used as therapeutic agents for diabetes and dyslipidemia. Methods: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group and phase III multicenter study included adults with glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels >7.0% and <10.0%, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) >100 and <250 mg/dL. One hundred eighty-five eligible subjects were randomized to the combination group (metformin+atorvastatin), metformin group (metformin+atorvastatin placebo), and atorvastatin group (atorvastatin+metformin placebo). The primary efficacy endpoints were the percent changes in HbA1c and LDL-C levels from baseline at the end of the treatment. Results: After 16 weeks of treatment compared to baseline, HbA1c showed a significant difference of 0.94% compared to the atorvastatin group in the combination group (0.35% vs. −0.58%, respectively; P<0.0001), whereas the proportion of patients with increased HbA1c was also 62% and 15%, respectively, showing a significant difference (P<0.001). The combination group also showed a significant decrease in LDL-C levels compared to the metformin group (−55.20% vs. −7.69%, P<0.001) without previously unknown adverse drug events. Conclusion The addition of atorvastatin to metformin improved HbA1c and LDL-C levels to a significant extent compared to metformin or atorvastatin alone in diabetes and dyslipidemia patients. This study also suggested metformin’s preventive effect on the glucose-elevating potential of atorvastatin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and dyslipidemia, insufficiently controlled with exercise and diet. Metformin and atorvastatin combination might be an effective treatment in reducing the CVD risk in patients with both diabetes and dyslipidemia because of its lowering effect on LDL-C and glucose.