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.

Purpose: To evaluate the provision of physiotherapy services at 40 Korea Professional Golfers’ Association (KPGA) Tour tournaments during the 2023 and 2024 seasons. Methods: Data from 300 registered KPGA Tour players (150 per season) who utilized physiotherapy services during 40 tournaments from April to November were analyzed. Services were categorized as physical contact (manual therapy, extracorporeal shock wave therapy, cryotherapy, high-intensity laser, interferential current therapy, high-frequency therapy and noncontact (warm-up, cool-down). Records included golf-related injury sites and treatment methods. Results: Physiotherapy services were provided over 200 days, with 9,126 total visits and 10,565 treatments (average 264 treatments per tournament). Physical contact treatments comprised 8,634 of all interventions (81.9%), with noncontact treatments at 1,931 (18.1%). Among 7,972 recorded golf-related injuries, spinal issues accounted for 63.6%, lower limb 23.0%, and upper limb 13.4%. Lower back injuries were most prevalent (33.1%), followed by neck and upper back. Manual therapy was the predominant treatment (61%), followed by warm-up and taping. Conclusion This study provides insights into physiotherapy service utilization on the KPGA Tour and suggests effective intervention methods for golf-related injuries. Results indicate that physiotherapy services play an important role in injury prevention and treatment, supporting the establishment of systematic injury management systems for professional golfers.

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.

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.

Background: There was limited evidence to evaluate the association between lifestyle habits and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) metrics. Thus, we aimed to depict the behavioral and metabolic determinants of CGM metrics in insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Methods: This is a prospective observational study. We analyzed data from 122 insulin-treated patients with T2DM. Participants wore Dexcom G6 and Fitbit, and diet information was identified for 10 days. Multivariate-adjusted logistic regression analysis was performed for the simultaneous achievement of CGM-based targets, defined by the percentage of time in terms of hyper, hypoglycemia and glycemic variability (GV). Intake of macronutrients and fiber, step counts, sleep, postprandial C-peptide-to-glucose ratio (PCGR), information about glucose lowering medications and metabolic factors were added to the analyses. Additionally, we evaluated the impact of the distribution of energy and macronutrient during a day, and snack consumption on CGM metrics. Results: Logistic regression analysis revealed that female, participants with high PCGR, low glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and daytime step count had a higher probability of achieving all targets based on CGM (odds ratios [95% confidence intervals] which were 0.24 [0.09 to 0.65], 1.34 [1.03 to 1.25], 0.95 [0.9 to 0.99], and 1.15 [1.03 to 1.29], respectively). And participants who ate snacks showed a shorter period of hyperglycemia and less GV compared to those without. Conclusion We confirmed that residual insulin secretion, daytime step count, HbA1c, and women were the most relevant determinants of adequate glycemic control in insulin-treated patients with T2DM. In addition, individuals with snack consumption were exposed to lower times of hyperglycemia and GV.

Diabetes mellitus is a major risk factor for the development of heart failure. Furthermore, the prognosis of heart failure is worse in patients with diabetes mellitus than in those without it. Therefore, early diagnosis and proper management of heart failure in patients with diabetes mellitus are important. This review discusses the current criteria for diagnosis and screening tools for heart failure and the currently recommended pharmacological therapies for heart failure. We also highlight the effects of anti-diabetic medications on heart failure.