Accurate and early identification of stroke and large vessel occlusion (LVO) in emergency settings is essential for improving patient outcomes and ensuring the efficient allocation of medical resources. This clinical practice guideline systematically reviews domestic and international literature and conducts meta-analyses to evaluate the utility and diagnostic accuracy of stroke assessment tools used in prehospital emergency medical services (EMS). We developed a guideline based on evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses via a de novo process. A systematic literature review was conducted to evaluate the usefulness of diagnostic EMS assessment tools for diagnosing stroke and LVO. Overall, 70 non-randomized control studies were selected for this study. A meta-analysis was conducted with a subgroup analysis to distinguish between patients with stroke and those with LVO. EMS tools demonstrated high sensitivity but low specificity for diagnosing stroke. In the prehospital setting, using validated EMS stroke assessment tools is recommended for the early identification of stroke and LVO. Upon hospital arrival, stroke specialists should conduct further evaluation and triage to confirm the diagnosis and guide appropriate management. Delays in diagnosing LVO are frequently unacceptable. While experts advocate for the use of EMS assessment tools to facilitate early identification of LVO, these tools alone lack adequate sensitivity. Therefore, further diagnostic evaluations and consultation with stroke specialists upon hospital arrival are recommended.

Purpose: Alectinib has been approved for anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)–positive non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) at 300 mg twice daily in Japan, lower than global standard of 600 mg twice daily. This study evaluated the clinical relevance of the reduced dose by comparing outcomes between the two doses. Materials and Methods: This study included patients with advanced ALK-positive NSCLC who received alectinib at Samsung Medical Center, Korea. The progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, cumulative incidence of central nervous system (CNS) progression, and safety profiles were retrospectively reviewed and compared. Results: Among 306 patients, 32 and 274 received alectinib at either 300 or 600 mg twice daily, respectively. The 300 mg group showed a slight but not significant advantage in PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44 to 1.51; p=0.51) and overall survival (HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.20 to 1.21; p=0.13). Superior outcome with 300 mg was remarkable in patients with lower body weight (≤ 60 kg), but diminished in patients with higher body weights. Patients with baseline brain metastasis in the 300 mg group exhibited a slight increase in incidence of CNS failure (HR, 1.76; 95% CI, 0.53 to 5.8; p=0.36). Although the safety profiles were mostly mild, adverse events were more frequent in the 600 mg group, 50% of which requiring dose reduction. Conclusion Alectinib at 300 mg twice daily seems an acceptable dose in East Asians with ALK-positive NSCLC. Notably, our data favor 300 mg twice daily in patients with lower body weight and no baseline brain metastasis, considering the more tolerable safety profiles and the potential to reduce medical costs.

Background: The World Health Organization has declared the end of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) public health emergency. However, this did not indicate the end of COVID-19. Several months after the infection, numerous patients complain of respiratory or nonspecific symptoms; this condition is called long COVID. Even patients with mild COVID-19 can experience long COVID, thus the burden of long COVID remains considerable. Therefore, we conducted this study to comprehensively analyze the effects of long COVID using multi-faceted assessments. Materials and Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study involving patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between February 2020 and September 2021 in six tertiary hospitals in Korea. Patients were followed up at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after discharge. Long COVID was defined as the persistence of three or more COVID-19-related symptoms. The primary outcome of this study was the prevalence of long COVID after the period of COVID-19. Results: During the study period, 290 patients were enrolled. Among them, 54.5 and 34.6% experienced long COVID within 6 months and after more than 18 months, respectively. Several patients showed abnormal results when tested for post-traumatic stress disorder (17.4%) and anxiety (31.9%) after 18 months. In patients who underwent follow-up chest computed tomography 18 months after COVID-19, abnormal findings remained at 51.9%. Males (odds ratio [OR], 0.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.05–0.53; P=0.004) and elderly (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.00–1.09; P=0.04) showed a significant association with long COVID after 12–18 months in a multivariable logistic regression analysis. Conclusion Many patients still showed long COVID after 18 months post SARS-CoV-2 infection. When managing these patients, the assessment of multiple aspects is necessary.

Background: The World Health Organization has declared the end of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) public health emergency. However, this did not indicate the end of COVID-19. Several months after the infection, numerous patients complain of respiratory or nonspecific symptoms; this condition is called long COVID. Even patients with mild COVID-19 can experience long COVID, thus the burden of long COVID remains considerable. Therefore, we conducted this study to comprehensively analyze the effects of long COVID using multi-faceted assessments. Materials and Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study involving patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between February 2020 and September 2021 in six tertiary hospitals in Korea. Patients were followed up at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after discharge. Long COVID was defined as the persistence of three or more COVID-19-related symptoms. The primary outcome of this study was the prevalence of long COVID after the period of COVID-19. Results: During the study period, 290 patients were enrolled. Among them, 54.5 and 34.6% experienced long COVID within 6 months and after more than 18 months, respectively. Several patients showed abnormal results when tested for post-traumatic stress disorder (17.4%) and anxiety (31.9%) after 18 months. In patients who underwent follow-up chest computed tomography 18 months after COVID-19, abnormal findings remained at 51.9%. Males (odds ratio [OR], 0.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.05–0.53; P=0.004) and elderly (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.00–1.09; P=0.04) showed a significant association with long COVID after 12–18 months in a multivariable logistic regression analysis. Conclusion Many patients still showed long COVID after 18 months post SARS-CoV-2 infection. When managing these patients, the assessment of multiple aspects is necessary.

Background: The World Health Organization has declared the end of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) public health emergency. However, this did not indicate the end of COVID-19. Several months after the infection, numerous patients complain of respiratory or nonspecific symptoms; this condition is called long COVID. Even patients with mild COVID-19 can experience long COVID, thus the burden of long COVID remains considerable. Therefore, we conducted this study to comprehensively analyze the effects of long COVID using multi-faceted assessments. Materials and Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study involving patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between February 2020 and September 2021 in six tertiary hospitals in Korea. Patients were followed up at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after discharge. Long COVID was defined as the persistence of three or more COVID-19-related symptoms. The primary outcome of this study was the prevalence of long COVID after the period of COVID-19. Results: During the study period, 290 patients were enrolled. Among them, 54.5 and 34.6% experienced long COVID within 6 months and after more than 18 months, respectively. Several patients showed abnormal results when tested for post-traumatic stress disorder (17.4%) and anxiety (31.9%) after 18 months. In patients who underwent follow-up chest computed tomography 18 months after COVID-19, abnormal findings remained at 51.9%. Males (odds ratio [OR], 0.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.05–0.53; P=0.004) and elderly (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.00–1.09; P=0.04) showed a significant association with long COVID after 12–18 months in a multivariable logistic regression analysis. Conclusion Many patients still showed long COVID after 18 months post SARS-CoV-2 infection. When managing these patients, the assessment of multiple aspects is necessary.

Purpose: Although retear after rotator cuff repair is relatively common, controversy remains regarding the differences in clinical outcomes between the intact and retear groups. In particular, there is a lack of research comparing the muscle strength between the two groups after rotator cuff repair. Materials and Methods: Among patients who underwent arthroscopic repair of full-thickness rotator cuff tears, the repair integrity was assessed using magnetic resonance imaging at 3 months postoperatively. The clinical outcomes were assessed by evaluating the Korean Shoulder Scoring System (KSS) score, the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) shoulder score, and muscular strength of a rotator cuff measured by a dynamometer preoperatively and postoperatively at 3 months, 6 months, 1 year and at the final follow-up at least 2 years after surgery. Results: Three hundred and seventy-three patients were included, and retear occurred in 14.2%. Both the intact (320 patients) and retear groups (53 patients) showed significant improvement in KSS (all, p<0.001) and UCLA scores (all, p<0.001) at the final follow-up compared to the preoperative values. On the other hand, the clinical scores of the intact group were significantly higher than those of the retear group from 6 months after surgery, except for several domains. In the intact group at the final follow-up, significant muscle strength improvements were confirmed in forward elevation (FE), external rotation (ER) and internal rotation (IR) compared to those before surgery (all, p<0.001).In the retear group, however, muscle strength was improved in FE (p=0.091) and IR (p=0.135), but the improvement was not statistically significant, and the muscle strength was decreased in ER (p=0.507). Conclusion The clinical outcomes improved in the intact and retear groups after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, but the intact group showed significantly higher improvement than the retear group. The muscle strength improved significantly only in the intact group, and muscle strength decreased in ER in the retear group. Maintaining the integrity of the rotator cuff after surgery may be beneficial for improving clinical outcomes and muscle strength.