Objective: Evidence remains limited regarding whether Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1) or modified RECIST (mRECIST) more reliably assesses treatment response in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) receiving atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Atezo/Bev). This study aimed to evaluate response patterns based on RECIST 1.1 and mRECIST, analyze inter-reader agreement, and assess their prognostic value for overall survival (OS) in patients with HCC receiving first-line Atezo/Bev. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study included patients with HCC treated with first-line Atezo/Bev between June 2020 and December 2022 at a tertiary center. Patients with at least one hypervascular hepatic target lesion were eligible. Two radiologists independently assessed treatment responses using RECIST 1.1 and mRECIST. Inter-reader agreement was evaluated using Cohen’s kappa coefficient. Time-dependent Cox regression analysis was performed, with radiologic response and progression treated as time-varying covariates. Prognostic discrimination was evaluated using Harrell’s concordance index (C-index). Results: A total of 207 patients were included (171 men; median age, 63 years; median follow-up, 10.7 months [range, 0.8– 46.4 months]; median OS, 10.7 months [95% confidence interval, 9.2–12.8 months]). mRECIST identified more responders than RECIST 1.1 (54.6% vs. 16.9%). RECIST 1.1 demonstrated excellent inter-reader agreement, whereas mRECIST showed substantial agreement (weighted kappa, 0.89 vs. 0.79). A significantly higher rate of dissociated responses was observed with mRECIST than with RECIST 1.1 (14.0% vs. 4.3%, P < 0.001). Both RECIST 1.1- and mRECIST-based responses and progression were independently associated with OS. Models incorporating RECIST 1.1 demonstrated slightly higher C-index values than those incorporating mRECIST (RECIST 1.1: 0.68 for response and 0.75 for progression; mRECIST: 0.65 and 0.70, respectively). Conclusion RECIST 1.1 is more reproducible and prognostically valuable for guiding treatment decisions in patients with HCC receiving first-line Atezo/Bev. However, this does not invalidate the use of mRECIST as a biological tumor response marker.

Background: Antithyroid drug (ATD) treatment is the preferred initial treatment for Graves’ disease (GD) in South Korea, despite higher treatment failure rates than radioactive iodine (RAI) therapy or thyroidectomy. This study aimed to evaluate the incidence of treatment failure associated with the primary modalities for GD treatment in real-world practice. Methods: We included 452,001 patients diagnosed with GD between 2004 and 2020 from the Korean National Health Insurance Service-National Health Information Database. Treatment failure was defined as switching from ATD, RAI, or thyroidectomy treatments, and for ATD specifically, inability to discontinue medication for over 2 years. Results: Mean age was 46.2 years, with females constituting 70.8%. Initial treatments for GD included ATDs (98.0%), thyroidectomy (1.3%), and RAI (0.7%), with a noted increment in ATD application from 96.2% in 2004 to 98.8% in 2020. During a median follow- up of 8.5 years, the treatment failure rates were 58.5% for ATDs, 21.3% for RAI, and 2.1% for thyroidectomy. Multivariate analysis indicated that the hazard ratio for treatment failure with ATD was 2.81 times higher than RAI. RAI treatments ≥10 mCi had 37% lower failure rates than doses <10 mCi. Conclusion ATDs are the most commonly used for GD in South Korea, followed by thyroidectomy and RAI. Although the risk of treatment failure for ATD is higher than that of RAI therapy, initial RAI treatment in South Korea is relatively limited compared to that in Western countries. Further studies are required to evaluate the cause of low initial RAI treatment rates in South Korea.

Background: Antithyroid drug (ATD) treatment is the preferred initial treatment for Graves’ disease (GD) in South Korea, despite higher treatment failure rates than radioactive iodine (RAI) therapy or thyroidectomy. This study aimed to evaluate the incidence of treatment failure associated with the primary modalities for GD treatment in real-world practice. Methods: We included 452,001 patients diagnosed with GD between 2004 and 2020 from the Korean National Health Insurance Service-National Health Information Database. Treatment failure was defined as switching from ATD, RAI, or thyroidectomy treatments, and for ATD specifically, inability to discontinue medication for over 2 years. Results: Mean age was 46.2 years, with females constituting 70.8%. Initial treatments for GD included ATDs (98.0%), thyroidectomy (1.3%), and RAI (0.7%), with a noted increment in ATD application from 96.2% in 2004 to 98.8% in 2020. During a median follow- up of 8.5 years, the treatment failure rates were 58.5% for ATDs, 21.3% for RAI, and 2.1% for thyroidectomy. Multivariate analysis indicated that the hazard ratio for treatment failure with ATD was 2.81 times higher than RAI. RAI treatments ≥10 mCi had 37% lower failure rates than doses <10 mCi. Conclusion ATDs are the most commonly used for GD in South Korea, followed by thyroidectomy and RAI. Although the risk of treatment failure for ATD is higher than that of RAI therapy, initial RAI treatment in South Korea is relatively limited compared to that in Western countries. Further studies are required to evaluate the cause of low initial RAI treatment rates in South Korea.

Background: Antithyroid drug (ATD) treatment is the preferred initial treatment for Graves’ disease (GD) in South Korea, despite higher treatment failure rates than radioactive iodine (RAI) therapy or thyroidectomy. This study aimed to evaluate the incidence of treatment failure associated with the primary modalities for GD treatment in real-world practice. Methods: We included 452,001 patients diagnosed with GD between 2004 and 2020 from the Korean National Health Insurance Service-National Health Information Database. Treatment failure was defined as switching from ATD, RAI, or thyroidectomy treatments, and for ATD specifically, inability to discontinue medication for over 2 years. Results: Mean age was 46.2 years, with females constituting 70.8%. Initial treatments for GD included ATDs (98.0%), thyroidectomy (1.3%), and RAI (0.7%), with a noted increment in ATD application from 96.2% in 2004 to 98.8% in 2020. During a median follow- up of 8.5 years, the treatment failure rates were 58.5% for ATDs, 21.3% for RAI, and 2.1% for thyroidectomy. Multivariate analysis indicated that the hazard ratio for treatment failure with ATD was 2.81 times higher than RAI. RAI treatments ≥10 mCi had 37% lower failure rates than doses <10 mCi. Conclusion ATDs are the most commonly used for GD in South Korea, followed by thyroidectomy and RAI. Although the risk of treatment failure for ATD is higher than that of RAI therapy, initial RAI treatment in South Korea is relatively limited compared to that in Western countries. Further studies are required to evaluate the cause of low initial RAI treatment rates in South Korea.

Background: Antithyroid drug (ATD) treatment is the preferred initial treatment for Graves’ disease (GD) in South Korea, despite higher treatment failure rates than radioactive iodine (RAI) therapy or thyroidectomy. This study aimed to evaluate the incidence of treatment failure associated with the primary modalities for GD treatment in real-world practice. Methods: We included 452,001 patients diagnosed with GD between 2004 and 2020 from the Korean National Health Insurance Service-National Health Information Database. Treatment failure was defined as switching from ATD, RAI, or thyroidectomy treatments, and for ATD specifically, inability to discontinue medication for over 2 years. Results: Mean age was 46.2 years, with females constituting 70.8%. Initial treatments for GD included ATDs (98.0%), thyroidectomy (1.3%), and RAI (0.7%), with a noted increment in ATD application from 96.2% in 2004 to 98.8% in 2020. During a median follow- up of 8.5 years, the treatment failure rates were 58.5% for ATDs, 21.3% for RAI, and 2.1% for thyroidectomy. Multivariate analysis indicated that the hazard ratio for treatment failure with ATD was 2.81 times higher than RAI. RAI treatments ≥10 mCi had 37% lower failure rates than doses <10 mCi. Conclusion ATDs are the most commonly used for GD in South Korea, followed by thyroidectomy and RAI. Although the risk of treatment failure for ATD is higher than that of RAI therapy, initial RAI treatment in South Korea is relatively limited compared to that in Western countries. Further studies are required to evaluate the cause of low initial RAI treatment rates in South Korea.

Novel strategies are required to reduce the risk of developing diabetes and/or clinical outcomes and complications of diabetes. In this regard, the role of the circadian system may be a potential candidate for the prevention of diabetes. We reviewed evidence from animal, clinical, and epidemiological studies linking the circadian system to various aspects of the pathophysiology and clinical outcomes of diabetes. The circadian clock governs genetic, metabolic, hormonal, and behavioral signals in anticipation of cyclic 24-hour events through interactions between a “central clock” in the suprachiasmatic nucleus and “peripheral clocks” in the whole body. Currently, circadian rhythmicity in humans can be subjectively or objectively assessed by measuring melatonin and glucocorticoid levels, core body temperature, peripheral blood, oral mucosa, hair follicles, rest-activity cycles, sleep diaries, and circadian chronotypes. In this review, we summarized various circadian misalignments, such as altered light-dark, sleep-wake, rest-activity, fasting-feeding, shift work, evening chronotype, and social jetlag, as well as mutations in clock genes that could contribute to the development of diabetes and poor glycemic status in patients with diabetes. Targeting critical components of the circadian system could deliver potential candidates for the treatment and prevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus in the future.

Background: Guidelines for switching to triple combination therapy directly after monotherapy failure are limited. This study investigated the efficacy, long-term sustainability, and safety of either mono or dual add-on therapy using alogliptin and pioglitazone for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who did not achieve their target glycemic range with metformin monotherapy. Methods: The Practical Evidence of Antidiabetic Combination Therapy in Korea (PEAK) was a multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized trial. A total of 214 participants were randomized to receive alogliptin+pioglitazone (Alo+Pio group, n=70), alogliptin (Alo group, n=75), or pioglitazone (Pio group, n=69). The primary outcome was the difference in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels between the three groups at baseline to 24 weeks. For durability, the achievement of HbA1c levels <7% and <6.5% was compared in each group. The number of adverse events was investigated for safety. Results: After 24 weeks of treatment, the change of HbA1c in the Alo+Pio, Alo, and Pio groups were –1.38%±0.08%, –1.03%±0.08%, and –0.84%±0.08%, respectively. The Alo+Pio group had significantly lower HbA1c levels than the other groups (P=0.0063, P<0.0001) and had a higher proportion of patients with target HbA1c achievement. In addition, insulin sensitivity and β-cell function, lipid profiles, and other metabolic indicators were also improved. There were no significant safety issues in patients treated with triple combination therapy. Conclusion Early combination triple therapy showed better efficacy and durability than the single add-on (dual) therapy. Therefore, combination therapy with metformin, alogliptin, and pioglitazone is a valuable early treatment option for T2DM poorly controlled with metformin monotherapy.

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.