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.

Background: This study investigated the optimal coefficient of variance (%CV) for preventing hypoglycemia based on real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rt-CGM) data in people with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) already achieving their mean glucose (MG) target. Methods: Data from 172 subjects who underwent rt-CGM for at least 90 days and for whom 439 90-day glycemic profiles were available were analyzed. Receiver operator characteristic analysis was conducted to determine the cut-off value of %CV to achieve time below range (%TBR)<54 mg/dL <1 and =0. Results: Overall mean glycosylated hemoglobin was 6.8% and median %TBR<54 mg/dL was 0.2%. MG was significantly higher and %CV significantly lower in profiles achieving %TBR<54 mg/dL <1 compared to %TBR<54 mg/dL ≥1 (all P<0.001). The cut-off value of %CV for achieving %TBR<54 mg/dL <1 was 37.5%, 37.3%, and 31.0%, in the whole population, MG >135 mg/dL, and ≤135 mg/dL, respectively. The cut-off value for %TBR<54 mg/dL=0% was 29.2% in MG ≤135 mg/dL. In profiles with MG ≤135 mg/dL, 94.2% of profiles with a %CV <31 achieved the target of %TBR<54 mg/dL <1, and 97.3% with a %CV <29.2 achieved the target of %TBR<54 mg/ dL=0%. When MG was >135 mg/dL, 99.4% of profiles with a %CV <37.3 achieved %TBR<54 mg/dL <1. Conclusion In well-controlled T1DM with MG ≤135 mg/dL, we suggest a %CV <31% to achieve the %TBR<54 mg/dL <1 target. Furthermore, we suggest a %CV <29.2% to achieve the target of %TBR<54 mg/dL =0 for people at high risk of hypoglycemia.

Diabetes mellitus is a heterogeneous disease that encompasses a wide range of conditions, from mild cases to severe conditions where survival depends on insulin therapy. The Korean Diabetes Association Task Force Team for Diabetes with β-Cell Failure has established the term to classify severe refractory disease with β-cell failure. Individuals with β-cell failure are at high risk of diabetes-related complications. We propose that diabetes with β-cell failure can be diagnosed when individuals treated with multiple daily insulin injections or insulin pumps meet at least one of the following criteria: fasting C-peptide ≤ 0.6 ng/mL, non-fasting C-peptide ≤ 1.8 ng/mL, 24-hour urine C-peptide < 30 μg/day, or spot urine C-peptide/creatinine ratio ≤ 0.6 nmol/mmol. Among cases of diabetes with β-cell failure, β-cell failure with absolute insulin deficiency can be diagnosed when at least one of the following criteria is met: fasting C-peptide < 0.24 ng/mL, non-fasting C-peptide < 0.6 ng/mL, or spot urine C-peptide/ creatinine ratio < 0.2 nmol/mmol. Multiple daily insulin injections with long-acting insulin analogs and rapid-acting insulin analogs or insulin pumps are required for treatment of diabetes with β-cell failure. Continuous glucose monitoring and an automated insulin delivery system, sensor-augmented pump, or smart insulin pen, along with structured education, are necessary. We call for improvements in the relevant systems to ensure that such treatments can be provided.

Diabetes mellitus is a heterogeneous disease that encompasses a wide range of conditions, from mild cases to severe conditions where survival depends on insulin therapy. The Korean Diabetes Association Task Force Team for Diabetes with β-Cell Failure has established the term to classify severe refractory disease with β-cell failure. Individuals with β-cell failure are at high risk of diabetes-related complications. We propose that diabetes with β-cell failure can be diagnosed when individuals treated with multiple daily insulin injections or insulin pumps meet at least one of the following criteria: fasting C-peptide ≤ 0.6 ng/mL, non-fasting C-peptide ≤ 1.8 ng/mL, 24-hour urine C-peptide < 30 μg/day, or spot urine C-peptide/creatinine ratio ≤ 0.6 nmol/mmol. Among cases of diabetes with β-cell failure, β-cell failure with absolute insulin deficiency can be diagnosed when at least one of the following criteria is met: fasting C-peptide < 0.24 ng/mL, non-fasting C-peptide < 0.6 ng/mL, or spot urine C-peptide/ creatinine ratio < 0.2 nmol/mmol. Multiple daily insulin injections with long-acting insulin analogs and rapid-acting insulin analogs or insulin pumps are required for treatment of diabetes with β-cell failure. Continuous glucose monitoring and an automated insulin delivery system, sensor-augmented pump, or smart insulin pen, along with structured education, are necessary. We call for improvements in the relevant systems to ensure that such treatments can be provided.

Diabetes mellitus is a heterogeneous disease that encompasses a wide range of conditions, from mild cases to severe conditions where survival depends on insulin therapy. The Korean Diabetes Association Task Force Team for Diabetes with β-Cell Failure has established the term to classify severe refractory disease with β-cell failure. Individuals with β-cell failure are at high risk of diabetes-related complications. We propose that diabetes with β-cell failure can be diagnosed when individuals treated with multiple daily insulin injections or insulin pumps meet at least one of the following criteria: fasting C-peptide ≤ 0.6 ng/mL, non-fasting C-peptide ≤ 1.8 ng/mL, 24-hour urine C-peptide < 30 μg/day, or spot urine C-peptide/creatinine ratio ≤ 0.6 nmol/mmol. Among cases of diabetes with β-cell failure, β-cell failure with absolute insulin deficiency can be diagnosed when at least one of the following criteria is met: fasting C-peptide < 0.24 ng/mL, non-fasting C-peptide < 0.6 ng/mL, or spot urine C-peptide/ creatinine ratio < 0.2 nmol/mmol. Multiple daily insulin injections with long-acting insulin analogs and rapid-acting insulin analogs or insulin pumps are required for treatment of diabetes with β-cell failure. Continuous glucose monitoring and an automated insulin delivery system, sensor-augmented pump, or smart insulin pen, along with structured education, are necessary. We call for improvements in the relevant systems to ensure that such treatments can be provided.

This fifth revised version of the Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology practice guidelines for the management of cervical cancer incorporates recent research findings and changes in treatment strategies based on version 4.0 released in 2020. Each key question was developed by focusing on recent notable insights and crucial contemporary issues in the field of cervical cancer. These questions were evaluated for their significance and impact on the current treatment and were finalized through voting by the development committee. The selected key questions were as follows: the efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors as firstor second-line treatment for recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer; the oncologic safety of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy in early stage cervical cancer; the efficacy and safety of adjuvant systemic treatment after concurrent chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer; and the oncologic safety of sentinel lymph node mapping compared to pelvic lymph node dissection. The recommendations, directions, and strengths of this guideline were based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and were finally confirmed through public hearings and external reviews. In this study, we describe the revised practice guidelines for the management of cervical cancer.

This fifth revised version of the Korean Society of Gynecologic Oncology practice guidelines for the management of cervical cancer incorporates recent research findings and changes in treatment strategies based on version 4.0 released in 2020. Each key question was developed by focusing on recent notable insights and crucial contemporary issues in the field of cervical cancer. These questions were evaluated for their significance and impact on the current treatment and were finalized through voting by the development committee. The selected key questions were as follows: the efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors as firstor second-line treatment for recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer; the oncologic safety of minimally invasive radical hysterectomy in early stage cervical cancer; the efficacy and safety of adjuvant systemic treatment after concurrent chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer; and the oncologic safety of sentinel lymph node mapping compared to pelvic lymph node dissection. The recommendations, directions, and strengths of this guideline were based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and were finally confirmed through public hearings and external reviews. In this study, we describe the revised practice guidelines for the management of cervical cancer.