Non-human primates, due to their high genetic similarity to humans, are used as laboratory animals in biotechnology researches. The growing demand has recently led to a shortage of primate resources, which has become a significant issue both domestically and internation-ally. This shortage has been further exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Consequently, the importance of resource conservation through effective primate management is increas-ing. This requires the establishment of proper quarantine procedures and infectious disease control. Quarantine is an important process that protects not only animal health but also pub-lic health significance. Non-human primate quarantine procedures were organized in order.We compared the differences in quarantine procedures not only in Korea but also in variouscountries such as the US, EU, and Australia. In addition, the etiology, clinical symptoms, diagnosis, and treatment methods of representative infectious diseases of quarantine concern(tuberculosis, monkeypox, monkey immunodeficiency virus, salmonellosis, and shigellosis) were summarized. A literature review of nonhuman primate quarantine procedures in other countries revealed minimal differences in the basic structure. The quarantine periods were similar around 30 days, but we found some differences in details such as legal requirements, documentation forms, and quarantine authorities. These findings are expected to contributeto the development of strategies for improving methods to prevent the spread of infectious diseases and enhancing quarantine management methods.

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.

Non-human primates, due to their high genetic similarity to humans, are used as laboratory animals in biotechnology researches. The growing demand has recently led to a shortage of primate resources, which has become a significant issue both domestically and internation-ally. This shortage has been further exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Consequently, the importance of resource conservation through effective primate management is increas-ing. This requires the establishment of proper quarantine procedures and infectious disease control. Quarantine is an important process that protects not only animal health but also pub-lic health significance. Non-human primate quarantine procedures were organized in order.We compared the differences in quarantine procedures not only in Korea but also in variouscountries such as the US, EU, and Australia. In addition, the etiology, clinical symptoms, diagnosis, and treatment methods of representative infectious diseases of quarantine concern(tuberculosis, monkeypox, monkey immunodeficiency virus, salmonellosis, and shigellosis) were summarized. A literature review of nonhuman primate quarantine procedures in other countries revealed minimal differences in the basic structure. The quarantine periods were similar around 30 days, but we found some differences in details such as legal requirements, documentation forms, and quarantine authorities. These findings are expected to contributeto the development of strategies for improving methods to prevent the spread of infectious diseases and enhancing quarantine management methods.

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.

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.

Non-human primates, due to their high genetic similarity to humans, are used as laboratory animals in biotechnology researches. The growing demand has recently led to a shortage of primate resources, which has become a significant issue both domestically and internation-ally. This shortage has been further exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Consequently, the importance of resource conservation through effective primate management is increas-ing. This requires the establishment of proper quarantine procedures and infectious disease control. Quarantine is an important process that protects not only animal health but also pub-lic health significance. Non-human primate quarantine procedures were organized in order.We compared the differences in quarantine procedures not only in Korea but also in variouscountries such as the US, EU, and Australia. In addition, the etiology, clinical symptoms, diagnosis, and treatment methods of representative infectious diseases of quarantine concern(tuberculosis, monkeypox, monkey immunodeficiency virus, salmonellosis, and shigellosis) were summarized. A literature review of nonhuman primate quarantine procedures in other countries revealed minimal differences in the basic structure. The quarantine periods were similar around 30 days, but we found some differences in details such as legal requirements, documentation forms, and quarantine authorities. These findings are expected to contributeto the development of strategies for improving methods to prevent the spread of infectious diseases and enhancing quarantine management methods.

Objective: We aimed to identify the expectations and preferences for medication and medical decision-making in patients with major psychiatric disorders. Methods: A survey was conducted among patients with major psychiatric disorders who visited psychiatric outpatient clinics at 15 hospitals between 2016 and 2018 in Korea. The survey consisted of 12 questions about demographic variables and opinions on their expectations for medication, important medical decision-makers, and preferred drug type. The most preferred value in each category in the total population was identified, and differences in the preference ratio of each item among the disease groups were compared. Results: A total of 707 participants were surveyed. In the total population, patients reported high efficacy (44.01%±21.44%) as the main wish for medication, themselves (37.39%±22.57%) and a doctor (35.27%±22.88%) as the main decision makers, and tablet/capsule (36.16%±30.69%) as the preferred type of drug. In the depressive disorders group, the preference ratio of high efficacy was significantly lower, and the preference ratio of a small amount was significantly higher than that of the psychotic disorder and bipolar disorder groups. The preference ratio of a doctor as an important decision maker in the bipolar disorder group was higher compared to the other groups. Conclusion This study revealed the preference for medications and showed differences among patients with psychiatric disorders. Providing personalized medicine that considers a patient’s preference for the drug may contribute to the improvement of drug compliance and outcomes.