Objectives: This study was performed to evaluate the utilization patterns of acid suppressants following the withdrawal of ranitidine in Korea. Methods: Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service (HIRA) data from January 2016 to May 2023 were utilized to assess the usage of histamine H2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) for acid-related diseases. Drug utilization was calculated for each agent based on the defined daily dose (DDD). To evaluate changes in utilization following the ranitidine recall, an interrupted time series analysis was conducted using segmented linear regression and an autoregressive integrated moving average model. Results: Before the withdrawal of ranitidine, the DDD per 100 000 inhabitants per day was increasing by 6.9 (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.7 to 9.0) for H2RAs and by 19.3 (95% CI, 16.9 to 21.8) for PPIs each month. After the recall, H2RA utilization immediately declined by -1041.7 (95% CI, -1115.8 to -967.7), followed by a monthly increase of 6.6 (95% CI, 3.7 to 9.6) above the previous trend. PPI utilization temporarily surged by 235.2 (95% CI, 149.1 to 321.3), then displayed a monthly increase of 4.1 (95% CI, 0.7 to 7.6) on top of the pre-recall trend. Among PPIs, esomeprazole and rabeprazole demonstrated notable increases, representing the most commonly used acid suppressants in 2023. Conclusions PPI usage rose prominently following the withdrawal of ranitidine from the market. Considering the potential adverse effects of PPIs, further research is necessary to evaluate the public health implications of shifts in the utilization of acid suppressants.

Background: This study aimed to estimate the association between mRNA coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine exposure during pregnancy and the risks of preterm birth and congenital malformations leveraging a national population data. Methods: This retrospective cohort study utilized national data from the National Health Insurance System, linking maternal and infant records with COVID-19 vaccination registries.Newborns with congenital malformations were identified using diagnosis codes. The analysis included women aged 20–49 who gave live births between February 2022 and December 2022. Odds ratios (ORs) for preterm birth and any congenital malformation per COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy compared to 1:4 matched unvaccinated controls, adjusted for maternal age, residential area, employment, income, disability, month of conception, prepregnancy obesity, smoking, and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection prior to pregnancy, were calculated. We compared the risk of two outcomes between BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273. Results: Among 106,692 women who gave birth during the study period, 8,966 (8.4%) received a COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy. Of the newborns, 7,039 (6.6%) were preterm births and 7,658 (7.2%) had congenital malformations. COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy was associated with a comparable risk of preterm birth (OR, 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77–1.36) and a similar risk of congenital malformations (0.90; 95% CI, 0.72–1.12) compared to non-vaccinees. The ORs of preterm birth (1.02; 95% CI, 0.77–1.36) and congenital malformation (0.91; 95% CI, 0.73–1.14) for mRNA-1273 were comparable to those for BNT162b2. Conclusion COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy poses no increased risk of preterm birth and congenital malformations compared to those not exposed to the vaccine, with similar risk levels observed between the two mRNA vaccines. This finding provides additional evidence supporting the safety of COVID-19 vaccines.

Background: This study aimed to estimate the association between mRNA coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine exposure during pregnancy and the risks of preterm birth and congenital malformations leveraging a national population data. Methods: This retrospective cohort study utilized national data from the National Health Insurance System, linking maternal and infant records with COVID-19 vaccination registries.Newborns with congenital malformations were identified using diagnosis codes. The analysis included women aged 20–49 who gave live births between February 2022 and December 2022. Odds ratios (ORs) for preterm birth and any congenital malformation per COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy compared to 1:4 matched unvaccinated controls, adjusted for maternal age, residential area, employment, income, disability, month of conception, prepregnancy obesity, smoking, and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection prior to pregnancy, were calculated. We compared the risk of two outcomes between BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273. Results: Among 106,692 women who gave birth during the study period, 8,966 (8.4%) received a COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy. Of the newborns, 7,039 (6.6%) were preterm births and 7,658 (7.2%) had congenital malformations. COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy was associated with a comparable risk of preterm birth (OR, 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77–1.36) and a similar risk of congenital malformations (0.90; 95% CI, 0.72–1.12) compared to non-vaccinees. The ORs of preterm birth (1.02; 95% CI, 0.77–1.36) and congenital malformation (0.91; 95% CI, 0.73–1.14) for mRNA-1273 were comparable to those for BNT162b2. Conclusion COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy poses no increased risk of preterm birth and congenital malformations compared to those not exposed to the vaccine, with similar risk levels observed between the two mRNA vaccines. This finding provides additional evidence supporting the safety of COVID-19 vaccines.

Background: This study aimed to estimate the association between mRNA coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine exposure during pregnancy and the risks of preterm birth and congenital malformations leveraging a national population data. Methods: This retrospective cohort study utilized national data from the National Health Insurance System, linking maternal and infant records with COVID-19 vaccination registries.Newborns with congenital malformations were identified using diagnosis codes. The analysis included women aged 20–49 who gave live births between February 2022 and December 2022. Odds ratios (ORs) for preterm birth and any congenital malformation per COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy compared to 1:4 matched unvaccinated controls, adjusted for maternal age, residential area, employment, income, disability, month of conception, prepregnancy obesity, smoking, and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection prior to pregnancy, were calculated. We compared the risk of two outcomes between BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273. Results: Among 106,692 women who gave birth during the study period, 8,966 (8.4%) received a COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy. Of the newborns, 7,039 (6.6%) were preterm births and 7,658 (7.2%) had congenital malformations. COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy was associated with a comparable risk of preterm birth (OR, 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77–1.36) and a similar risk of congenital malformations (0.90; 95% CI, 0.72–1.12) compared to non-vaccinees. The ORs of preterm birth (1.02; 95% CI, 0.77–1.36) and congenital malformation (0.91; 95% CI, 0.73–1.14) for mRNA-1273 were comparable to those for BNT162b2. Conclusion COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy poses no increased risk of preterm birth and congenital malformations compared to those not exposed to the vaccine, with similar risk levels observed between the two mRNA vaccines. This finding provides additional evidence supporting the safety of COVID-19 vaccines.

Objectives: This study was performed to evaluate the utilization patterns of acid suppressants following the withdrawal of ranitidine in Korea. Methods: Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service (HIRA) data from January 2016 to May 2023 were utilized to assess the usage of histamine H2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) for acid-related diseases. Drug utilization was calculated for each agent based on the defined daily dose (DDD). To evaluate changes in utilization following the ranitidine recall, an interrupted time series analysis was conducted using segmented linear regression and an autoregressive integrated moving average model. Results: Before the withdrawal of ranitidine, the DDD per 100 000 inhabitants per day was increasing by 6.9 (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.7 to 9.0) for H2RAs and by 19.3 (95% CI, 16.9 to 21.8) for PPIs each month. After the recall, H2RA utilization immediately declined by -1041.7 (95% CI, -1115.8 to -967.7), followed by a monthly increase of 6.6 (95% CI, 3.7 to 9.6) above the previous trend. PPI utilization temporarily surged by 235.2 (95% CI, 149.1 to 321.3), then displayed a monthly increase of 4.1 (95% CI, 0.7 to 7.6) on top of the pre-recall trend. Among PPIs, esomeprazole and rabeprazole demonstrated notable increases, representing the most commonly used acid suppressants in 2023. Conclusions PPI usage rose prominently following the withdrawal of ranitidine from the market. Considering the potential adverse effects of PPIs, further research is necessary to evaluate the public health implications of shifts in the utilization of acid suppressants.

Background: This study aimed to estimate the association between mRNA coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine exposure during pregnancy and the risks of preterm birth and congenital malformations leveraging a national population data. Methods: This retrospective cohort study utilized national data from the National Health Insurance System, linking maternal and infant records with COVID-19 vaccination registries.Newborns with congenital malformations were identified using diagnosis codes. The analysis included women aged 20–49 who gave live births between February 2022 and December 2022. Odds ratios (ORs) for preterm birth and any congenital malformation per COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy compared to 1:4 matched unvaccinated controls, adjusted for maternal age, residential area, employment, income, disability, month of conception, prepregnancy obesity, smoking, and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection prior to pregnancy, were calculated. We compared the risk of two outcomes between BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273. Results: Among 106,692 women who gave birth during the study period, 8,966 (8.4%) received a COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy. Of the newborns, 7,039 (6.6%) were preterm births and 7,658 (7.2%) had congenital malformations. COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy was associated with a comparable risk of preterm birth (OR, 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77–1.36) and a similar risk of congenital malformations (0.90; 95% CI, 0.72–1.12) compared to non-vaccinees. The ORs of preterm birth (1.02; 95% CI, 0.77–1.36) and congenital malformation (0.91; 95% CI, 0.73–1.14) for mRNA-1273 were comparable to those for BNT162b2. Conclusion COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy poses no increased risk of preterm birth and congenital malformations compared to those not exposed to the vaccine, with similar risk levels observed between the two mRNA vaccines. This finding provides additional evidence supporting the safety of COVID-19 vaccines.

Objectives: This study was performed to evaluate the utilization patterns of acid suppressants following the withdrawal of ranitidine in Korea. Methods: Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service (HIRA) data from January 2016 to May 2023 were utilized to assess the usage of histamine H2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) for acid-related diseases. Drug utilization was calculated for each agent based on the defined daily dose (DDD). To evaluate changes in utilization following the ranitidine recall, an interrupted time series analysis was conducted using segmented linear regression and an autoregressive integrated moving average model. Results: Before the withdrawal of ranitidine, the DDD per 100 000 inhabitants per day was increasing by 6.9 (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.7 to 9.0) for H2RAs and by 19.3 (95% CI, 16.9 to 21.8) for PPIs each month. After the recall, H2RA utilization immediately declined by -1041.7 (95% CI, -1115.8 to -967.7), followed by a monthly increase of 6.6 (95% CI, 3.7 to 9.6) above the previous trend. PPI utilization temporarily surged by 235.2 (95% CI, 149.1 to 321.3), then displayed a monthly increase of 4.1 (95% CI, 0.7 to 7.6) on top of the pre-recall trend. Among PPIs, esomeprazole and rabeprazole demonstrated notable increases, representing the most commonly used acid suppressants in 2023. Conclusions PPI usage rose prominently following the withdrawal of ranitidine from the market. Considering the potential adverse effects of PPIs, further research is necessary to evaluate the public health implications of shifts in the utilization of acid suppressants.

Purpose: Despite the increasing use of immediate breast reconstruction (IBR), its oncologic safety in the setting of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) needs to be comprehensively clarified in breast cancer management. The objective of the present study was to analyze the oncologic safety of IBR following NACT. Methods: In total, 587 patients with breast cancer who underwent a total mastectomy (TM) with IBR after NACT between 2008 and 2017 at a single institution were retrospectively reviewed. The reviewed patients with IBR following skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) or nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) were matched 1:3 to patients who underwent TM alone after NACT. Matching variables included age, clinical T and N stages before NACT, response to NACT, pathologic T and N stages, and molecular subtypes. Results: After propensity score matching, 95 patients who underwent IBR following SSM/ NSM after NACT (IBR group) and 228 patients who underwent TM alone after NACT (TM group) were selected. The median follow-up period was 73 (range, 5–181) months after matching. After matching, there were no significant differences between the two groups in 5-year locoregional recurrence-free survival (88.8% vs. 91.2%, p = 0.516), disease-free survival (67.3% vs. 76.6%, p = 0.099), distant metastasis-free survival (71.9% vs. 81.9%, p = 0.057), or overall survival (84.1% vs. 91.5, p = 0.061) rates. In multivariate analyses, conducting IBR was not associated with increased risks for locoregional recurrence, any recurrence, distant metastasis, or overall death. Conclusion Our findings suggest that IBR following SSM/NSM elicits comparable long-term oncologic outcomes to those of TM alone in the setting of NACT.

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, conclusively evaluating possible associations between COVID-19 vaccines and potential adverse events was of critical importance. The National Academy of Medicine of Korea established the COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Research Center (CoVaSC) with support from the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency to investigate the scientific relationship between COVID-19 vaccines and suspected adverse events. Although determining whether the COVID-19 vaccine was responsible for any suspected adverse event necessitated a systematic approach, traditional causal inference theories, such as Hill's criteria, encountered certain limitations and criticisms. To facilitate a systematic and evidence-based evaluation, the United States Institute of Medicine, at the request of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, offered a detailed causality assessment framework in 2012, which was updated in the recent report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) in 2024.This framework, based on a weight-of-evidence approach, allows the independent evaluation of both epidemiological and mechanistic evidence, culminating in a comprehensive conclusion about causality. Epidemiological evidence derived from population studies is categorized into four levels—high, moderate, limited, or insufficient—while mechanistic evidence, primarily from biological and clinical studies in animals and individuals, is classified as strong, intermediate, weak, or lacking. The committee then synthesizes these two types of evidence to draw a conclusion about the causal relationship, which can be described as “convincingly supports” (“evidence established” in the 2024 NASEM report), “favors acceptance,” “favors rejection,” or “inadequate to accept or reject.” The CoVaSC has established an independent committee to conduct causality assessments using the weightof-evidence framework, specifically for evaluating the causality of adverse events associated with COVID-19 vaccines. The aim of this study is to provide an overview of the weight-ofevidence framework and to detail the considerations involved in its practical application in the CoVaSC.