Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors are an important treatment option for ulcerative colitis, providing rapid onset of action, oral administration, and efficacy even after biologic failure. The 3 approved agents—tofacitinib, filgotinib, and upadacitinib—differ in JAK isoform selectivity, leading to clinically meaningful differences in efficacy and safety. Evidence from network meta-analyses, clinical trials, and real-world studies consistently shows that upadacitinib provides the highest efficacy for induction and maintenance of remission, whereas filgotinib demonstrates the most favorable safety profile. The strong efficacy of upadacitinib and tofacitinib is particularly relevant in patients with severe disease, including acute severe ulcerative colitis, and upadacitinib maintains high efficacy regardless of prior advanced therapy exposure. JAK inhibitors also benefit extraintestinal manifestations. Although risks such as herpes zoster, serious infection, thromboembolism, and major cardiovascular events differ among agents, long-term data suggest generally acceptable safety when used appropriately. Intraclass JAK-to-JAK cycling is feasible, with about half of patients achieving steroid-free clinical remission in retrospective cohorts. Based on mechanistic, clinical, and real-world evidence, filgotinib may be a first-line option for patients with lower disease activity or when safety is a priority, whereas upadacitinib or tofacitinib may be preferred in higher disease activity. Strategically selecting agents may improve durability and outcomes.

Background and Objectives: Clinical characteristics and outcomes in acute heart failure (AHF) vary by phenotype. We assessed phenotype-specific features, treatment patterns, and outcomes in a nationwide Korean cohort. Methods: The Korean Heart Failure III registry prospectively enrolled 7,351 AHF admissions at 47 hospitals. Among 6,777 patients with available left ventricular ejection fraction (EF), phenotypes were defined as heart failure with reduced EF (HFrEF, ≤40%), mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF,41–49%), or preserved EF (HFpEF, ≥50%). The primary endpoint was a 12-month composite of all-cause death or heart transplantation, evaluated from index admission and, among hospital survivors, from discharge. We used inverse probability weighting (multinomial generalized boosted models with stabilized, trimmed weights) and weighted Cox proportional-hazards models to estimate hazard ratios (HRs). Results: Phenotype distribution was 58.9% HFrEF, 13.6% HFmrEF, and 27.5% HFpEF. Crude 12-month composite rates from index admission were 13.4% (HFrEF), 12.7% (HFmrEF), and 16.8% (HFpEF). After weighting, from index admission, HFmrEF (HR, 0.892; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.731–1.088) and HFpEF (HR, 1.101; 95% CI, 0.939–1.291) did not differ from HFrEF; from discharge, HFpEF had modestly higher risk (HR, 1.207; 95% CI, 1.008–1.445) whereas HFmrEF did not (HR, 1.039; 95% CI, 0.844–1.279). Hyponatremia and chronic kidney disease were consistent adverse markers, while angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/ angiotensin II receptor blocker use at discharge was protective. Conclusions Across the EF spectrum, phenotypes showed distinct profiles and risk. Postdischarge risk was modestly higher in HFpEF, supporting phenotype-tailored care and systematic discharge optimization in Korean patients with AHF.

Rheumatoid neutrophilic dermatitis (RND) is a rare extra-articular skin lesion associated with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Lesions typically occur symmetrically on the extensor surfaces of the extremities and present with variable clinical features. A 78-year-old female with a 2-month history of skin rash on the right forearm and left lower leg, with no other systemic symptoms, visited the dermatology department of our hospital. She had been diagnosed with seropositive RA approximately 20 years ago. The skin rash was asymmetrically distributed and presented with localized pustules, purpura, and edema. The biopsy specimen showed dermal infiltration by neutrophils, leukocytoclasia without vasculitis, and a neutrophilic dermal abscess. No fungi or bacteria were detected on any of the stains. The patient was diagnosed with RND. Clinical improvement was noted after treatment with dapsone, followed by colchicine and methylprednisolone. In this case report, we described the case of a female patient with atypically presented RND and conducted a literature review.

Background: Complete revascularization has demonstrated better outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and multivessel disease. However, in the case of left main (LM) culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease, there is limited evidence to suggest that complete revascularization is better. Methods: We reviewed 16,831 patients in the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry who were treated from July 2016 to June 2020, and 399 patients were enrolled with LM culprit lesion AMI treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. We categorized the patients as those treated with complete revascularization (n=295) or incomplete revascularization (n=104). The study endpoint was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven revascularization, stent thrombosis, and stroke. We performed propensity score matching (PSM) and analyzed the incidence of MACCE at 1 year. Results: After PSM, the two groups were well balanced. There was no significant difference between the two groups in MACCE at 1 year (12.1% vs. 15.2%; hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.60–2.74; p=0.524) after PSM. The components of MACCE and major bleeding were also not significantly different. Conclusion There was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between the groups treated with complete or incomplete revascularization for LM culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease.

Background: Complete revascularization has demonstrated better outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and multivessel disease. However, in the case of left main (LM) culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease, there is limited evidence to suggest that complete revascularization is better. Methods: We reviewed 16,831 patients in the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry who were treated from July 2016 to June 2020, and 399 patients were enrolled with LM culprit lesion AMI treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. We categorized the patients as those treated with complete revascularization (n=295) or incomplete revascularization (n=104). The study endpoint was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven revascularization, stent thrombosis, and stroke. We performed propensity score matching (PSM) and analyzed the incidence of MACCE at 1 year. Results: After PSM, the two groups were well balanced. There was no significant difference between the two groups in MACCE at 1 year (12.1% vs. 15.2%; hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.60–2.74; p=0.524) after PSM. The components of MACCE and major bleeding were also not significantly different. Conclusion There was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between the groups treated with complete or incomplete revascularization for LM culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease.

Background: Complete revascularization has demonstrated better outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and multivessel disease. However, in the case of left main (LM) culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease, there is limited evidence to suggest that complete revascularization is better. Methods: We reviewed 16,831 patients in the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry who were treated from July 2016 to June 2020, and 399 patients were enrolled with LM culprit lesion AMI treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. We categorized the patients as those treated with complete revascularization (n=295) or incomplete revascularization (n=104). The study endpoint was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven revascularization, stent thrombosis, and stroke. We performed propensity score matching (PSM) and analyzed the incidence of MACCE at 1 year. Results: After PSM, the two groups were well balanced. There was no significant difference between the two groups in MACCE at 1 year (12.1% vs. 15.2%; hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.60–2.74; p=0.524) after PSM. The components of MACCE and major bleeding were also not significantly different. Conclusion There was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between the groups treated with complete or incomplete revascularization for LM culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease.

Background: Complete revascularization has demonstrated better outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and multivessel disease. However, in the case of left main (LM) culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease, there is limited evidence to suggest that complete revascularization is better. Methods: We reviewed 16,831 patients in the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry who were treated from July 2016 to June 2020, and 399 patients were enrolled with LM culprit lesion AMI treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. We categorized the patients as those treated with complete revascularization (n=295) or incomplete revascularization (n=104). The study endpoint was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven revascularization, stent thrombosis, and stroke. We performed propensity score matching (PSM) and analyzed the incidence of MACCE at 1 year. Results: After PSM, the two groups were well balanced. There was no significant difference between the two groups in MACCE at 1 year (12.1% vs. 15.2%; hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.60–2.74; p=0.524) after PSM. The components of MACCE and major bleeding were also not significantly different. Conclusion There was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between the groups treated with complete or incomplete revascularization for LM culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease.

Background: This study aimed to investigate the epidemiological characteristics and outcomes of myocarditis/pericarditis after BNT162b2 vaccination in Korean adolescents. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort analysis of adolescents aged 12–19 years old diagnosed with myocarditis/pericarditis within 42 days of BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination. All reported cases were investigated by city or government epidemiologists and the diagnostic certainty and causality was determined by the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency’s Adverse Event Following Immunization Expert Advisory Committee according to the modified version of Brighton Collaboration Myocarditis/Pericarditis Working group’s case definitions. Results: A total 3,709,063 adolescents aged 12–19 received 8,135,240 doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine in South Korea, and 184 cases met the Brighton criteria for the case definition of myocarditis and pericarditis with diagnostic certainty of possible and above. The median age was 17 years old (interquartile range [IQR], 15–18) and boys accounted for 81.5% (n = 150/184) of the cases. The overall incidence was 2.25 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.94–2.60) cases per 100,000 doses and severe cases was 0.25 (95% CI, 0.15–3.80) cases per 100,000 doses.The highest incidence rate was observed in boys after the second dose, with 5.01 (95% CI, 4.12–6.17) cases per 100,000 doses. A total 89.1% (164/184) were classified as mild, and no deaths were reported. Conclusion The highest incidence of myocarditis/pericarditis after BNT162b2 immunization was observed in male adolescents after the second dose, with majority of the cases presenting with a mild clinical course and favorable outcome.

Background: s/Aims: Reported incidence of extrahepatic bile duct cancer is higher in Asians than in Western populations. Korea, in particular, is one of the countries with the highest incidence rates of extrahepatic bile duct cancer in the world. Although research and innovative therapeutic modalities for extrahepatic bile duct cancer are emerging, clinical guidelines are currently unavailable in Korea. The Korean Society of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery in collaboration with related societies (Korean Pancreatic and Biliary Surgery Society, Korean Society of Abdominal Radiology, Korean Society of Medical Oncology, Korean Society of Radiation Oncology, Korean Society of Pathologists, and Korean Society of Nuclear Medicine) decided to establish clinical guideline for extrahepatic bile duct cancer in June 2021. Methods: Contents of the guidelines were developed through subgroup meetings for each key question and a preliminary draft was finalized through a Clinical Guidelines Committee workshop. Results: In November 2021, the finalized draft was presented for public scrutiny during a formal hearing. Conclusions The extrahepatic guideline committee believed that this guideline could be helpful in the treatment of patients.

There are limited data on outcomes after implantation of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) in East Asian patients with small vessel coronary lesions. A total of 1,600 patients treated with XIENCE EES (Abbott Vascular, CA, USA) were divided into the small vessel group treated with one ≤2.5 mm stent (n=119) and the non-small vessel group treated with one ≥2.75 mm stent (n=933). The primary end point was a patient-oriented composite outcome (POCO), a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), and any repeat revascularization at 12 months. The key secondary end point was a device-oriented composite outcome (DOCO), a composite of cardiovascular death, target-vessel MI, and target lesion revascularization at 12 months. The small vessel group was more often female, hypertensive, less likely to present with ST-elevation MI, and more often treated for the left circumflex artery, whereas the non-small vessel group more often had type B2/C lesions, underwent intravascular ultrasound, and received unfractionated heparin. In the propensity matched cohort, the mean stent diameter was 2.5±0.0 mm and 3.1±0.4 mm in the small and non-small vessel groups, respectively. Propensity-adjusted POCO at 12 months was 6.0% in the small vessel group and 4.3% in the non-small vessel group (p=0.558). There was no significant difference in DOCO at 12 months (small vessel group: 4.3% and non-small vessel group: 1.7%, p=0.270).Outcomes of XIENCE EES for small vessel disease were comparable to those for non-small vessel disease at 12-month clinical follow-up in real-world Korean patients.