Purpose: This study evaluated the postoperative quality of life (QoL) after various types of gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Materials and Methods: A multicenter prospective observational study was conducted in Korea using the Korean Quality of Life in Stomach Cancer Patients Study (KOQUSS)-40, a new QoL assessment tool focusing on postgastrectomy syndrome. Overall, 496 patients with gastric cancer were enrolled, and QoL was assessed at 5 time points: preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Results: Distal gastrectomy (DG) and pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (PPG) showed significantly better outcomes than total gastrectomy (TG) and proximal gastrectomy (PG) with regard to total score, indigestion, and dysphagia. DG, PPG, and TG also showed significantly better outcomes than PG in terms of dumping syndrome and worry about cancer. Postoperative QoL did not differ significantly according to anastomosis type in DG, except for Billroth I anastomosis, which achieved better bowel habit change scores than the others. No domains differed significantly when comparing double tract reconstruction and esophagogastrostomy after PG. The total QoL score correlated significantly with postoperative body weight loss (more than 10%) and extent of resection (P<0.05 for both).Reflux as assessed by KOQUSS-40 did not correlate significantly with reflux observed on gastroscopy 1 year postoperatively (P=0.064). Conclusions Our prospective observation using KOQUSS-40 revealed that DG and PPG lead to better QoL than TG and PG. Further study is needed to compare postoperative QoL according to anastomosis type in DG and PG.

Purpose: This study evaluated the postoperative quality of life (QoL) after various types of gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Materials and Methods: A multicenter prospective observational study was conducted in Korea using the Korean Quality of Life in Stomach Cancer Patients Study (KOQUSS)-40, a new QoL assessment tool focusing on postgastrectomy syndrome. Overall, 496 patients with gastric cancer were enrolled, and QoL was assessed at 5 time points: preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Results: Distal gastrectomy (DG) and pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (PPG) showed significantly better outcomes than total gastrectomy (TG) and proximal gastrectomy (PG) with regard to total score, indigestion, and dysphagia. DG, PPG, and TG also showed significantly better outcomes than PG in terms of dumping syndrome and worry about cancer. Postoperative QoL did not differ significantly according to anastomosis type in DG, except for Billroth I anastomosis, which achieved better bowel habit change scores than the others. No domains differed significantly when comparing double tract reconstruction and esophagogastrostomy after PG. The total QoL score correlated significantly with postoperative body weight loss (more than 10%) and extent of resection (P<0.05 for both).Reflux as assessed by KOQUSS-40 did not correlate significantly with reflux observed on gastroscopy 1 year postoperatively (P=0.064). Conclusions Our prospective observation using KOQUSS-40 revealed that DG and PPG lead to better QoL than TG and PG. Further study is needed to compare postoperative QoL according to anastomosis type in DG and PG.

Purpose: This study evaluated the postoperative quality of life (QoL) after various types of gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Materials and Methods: A multicenter prospective observational study was conducted in Korea using the Korean Quality of Life in Stomach Cancer Patients Study (KOQUSS)-40, a new QoL assessment tool focusing on postgastrectomy syndrome. Overall, 496 patients with gastric cancer were enrolled, and QoL was assessed at 5 time points: preoperatively and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Results: Distal gastrectomy (DG) and pylorus-preserving gastrectomy (PPG) showed significantly better outcomes than total gastrectomy (TG) and proximal gastrectomy (PG) with regard to total score, indigestion, and dysphagia. DG, PPG, and TG also showed significantly better outcomes than PG in terms of dumping syndrome and worry about cancer. Postoperative QoL did not differ significantly according to anastomosis type in DG, except for Billroth I anastomosis, which achieved better bowel habit change scores than the others. No domains differed significantly when comparing double tract reconstruction and esophagogastrostomy after PG. The total QoL score correlated significantly with postoperative body weight loss (more than 10%) and extent of resection (P<0.05 for both).Reflux as assessed by KOQUSS-40 did not correlate significantly with reflux observed on gastroscopy 1 year postoperatively (P=0.064). Conclusions Our prospective observation using KOQUSS-40 revealed that DG and PPG lead to better QoL than TG and PG. Further study is needed to compare postoperative QoL according to anastomosis type in DG and PG.

Background: Atherogenic dyslipidemia, which is frequently associated with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and insulin resistance, contributes to the development of vascular complications. Statin therapy is the primary approach to dyslipidemia management in T2D, however, the role of non-statin therapy remains unclear. Ezetimibe reduces cholesterol burden by inhibiting intestinal cholesterol absorption. Fibrates lower triglyceride levels and increase high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels via peroxisome proliferator- activated receptor alpha agonism. Therefore, when combined, these drugs effectively lower non-HDL-C levels. Despite this, few clinical trials have specifically targeted non-HDL-C, and the efficacy of triple combination therapies, including statins, ezetimibe, and fibrates, has yet to be determined. Methods: This is a multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label, active-comparator controlled trial involving 3,958 eligible participants with T2D, cardiovascular risk factors, and elevated non-HDL-C (≥100 mg/dL). Participants, already on moderate-intensity statins, will be randomly assigned to either Ezefeno (ezetimibe/fenofibrate) addition or statin dose-escalation. The primary end point is the development of a composite of major adverse cardiovascular and diabetic microvascular events over 48 months. Conclusion This trial aims to assess whether combining statins, ezetimibe, and fenofibrate is as effective as, or possibly superior to, statin monotherapy intensification in lowering cardiovascular and microvascular disease risk for patients with T2D. This could propose a novel therapeutic approach for managing dyslipidemia in T2D.

Background/Aims: Patients with active cancer frequently develop venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, there is little data about VTE in patients with advanced cholangiocarcinoma (CCA). Therefore, we investigated the clinical significance of VTE in patients with advanced CCA. Methods: We analyzed the data of a total of 332 unresectable CCA patients diagnosed between 2010 and 2020 in this retrospective study. We investigated the incidence and risk factors for VTE, and its effect on survival in patients with advanced CCA. Results: During a median follow-up of 11.6 months, 118 patients (35.5%) developed VTE. The cumulative incidence of VTE was 22.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.18 to 0.27) at 3 months and 32.8% (95% CI, 0.27 to 0.38) at 12 months. Major vessel invasion was an independent risk factor for VTE (hazard ratio, 2.88; 95% CI, 1.92 to 4.31; p<0.001). Patients who developed VTE during follow-up had shorter overall survival than patients who did not (11.50 months vs 15.83 months, p=0.005). In multivariable analysis, VTE (hazard ratio, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.23 to 2.02;p<0.001) was associated with poor overall survival. Conclusions Major vessel invasion is related to the occurrence of VTE in advanced CCA. The development of VTE significantly decreases the overall survival and is an important unfavorable prognostic factor for survival.

Allergic rhinitis is the most common chronic disease worldwide. Various upper airway symptoms lower quality of life, and due to the recurrent symptoms, multiple treatments are usually attempted rather than one definitive treatment. There are alternatives to medical (medication-based) and nonmedical treatments. A guideline is needed to understand allergic rhinitis and develop an appropriate treatment plan. We have developed guidelines for medical treatment based on previous reports. The current guidelines herein are associated with the “KAAACI Evidence-Based Guidelines for Allergic Rhinitis in Korea, Part 1: Update in pharmacotherapy” in which we aimed to provide evidence-based recommendations for the medical treatment of allergic rhinitis. Part 2 focuses on nonpharmacological management, including allergen-specific immunotherapy, subcutaneous or sublingual immunotherapy, nasal saline irrigation, environmental management strategies, companion animal management, and nasal turbinate surgery. The evidence to support the treatment efficacy, safety, and selection has been systematically reviewed. However, larger controlled studies are needed to elevate the level of evidence to select rational non-medical therapeutic options for patients with allergic rhinitis.

The prevalence of allergic rhinitis (AR) and the socioeconomic burden associated with the medical cost and quality of life of AR have progressively increased. Therefore, practical guidelines for the appropriate management of AR need to be developed based on scientific evidence considering the real-world environment, values, and preferences of patients and physicians. The Korean Academy of Asthma, Allergy and Clinical Immunology revised clinical guidelines for AR to address key clinical questions of the management of AR. Part 1 of the revised guideline covers the pharmacological management of patients with AR in Korea. Through a meta-analysis and a systematic review, we made 4 recommendations for AR pharmacotherapy, including intranasal corticosteroid (INCS)/intranasal antihistamine combination therapy, oral antihistamine/INCS combination therapy, leukotriene receptor antagonist treatment in AR patients with asthma, and prophylactic treatment for patients with pollen-induced AR. However, all recommendations are conditional because of the low or very low evidence of certainty. Well-designed and strictly executed randomized controlled trials are needed to measure and report appropriate outcomes.

Purpose: This study aimed to report the final analysis of time-on-treatment (TOT) and overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced-stage epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)+ non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who received sequential afatinib and osimertinib and to compare the outcomes with other second-line regimens (comparator group). Materials and Methods: In this updated report, the existing medical records were reviewed and rechecked. TOT and OS were updated and analyzed according to clinical features using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test. TOT and OS were compared with those of the comparator group, in which most patients received pemetrexed-based treatments. A multivariable Cox proportional hazard model was used to evaluate features that could affect survival outcomes. Results: The median observation time was 31.0 months. The follow-up period was extended to 20 months. A total of 401 patients who received first-line afatinib were analyzed (166 with T790M+ and second-line osimertinib, and 235 with unproven T790M and other second-line agents). Median TOTs on afatinib and osimertinib were 15.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 14.0 to 16.1) and 11.9 months (95% CI, 8.9 to 14.6), respectively. The median OS in the osimertinib group was 54.3 months (95% CI, 46.7 to 61.9), much longer than that in the comparator group. In patients who received osimertinib, the OS was longest with Del19+ (median, 59.1; 95% CI, 48.7 to 69.5). Conclusion This is one of the largest real-world studies reporting the encouraging activity of sequential afatinib and osimertinib in Asian patients with EGFR+ NSCLC who acquired the T790M mutation, particularly Del19+.

Background/Aims: The combinatorial effects of prophylactic methods for postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) in patients with risk factors remain unclear. In this network meta-analysis, we compared the efficacy of various prophylactic strategies to decrease the risk of PEP among patients with risk factors. Methods: A systematic review was performed to identify randomized controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library through July 2021. We used frequentist network meta-analysis to compare the rates of PEP among patients who received prophylactic treatments as follows: class A, rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; class B, prophylactic pancreatic stent; class C, aggressive hydration; or control, no prophylaxis or active control. We selected those studies that included patients with risk factors for PEP. Results: We identified 19 trials, comprising 4,328 participants. Class ABC (odds ratio [OR], 0.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.03 to 0.24), class AC (OR, 0.10; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.47), class AB (OR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.26), class BC (OR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.41), class A (OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.50), and class B (OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.46), were associated with a reduced risk of PEP as compared to that of the control. The most effective prophylaxis was ABC (0.87), followed by AC (0.68), AB (0.65), BC (0.56), A (0.49), and B (0.24) according to P-score. Conclusions The results of this network meta-analysis suggest that the more prophylactic methods are employed, the better the outcomes. It appears that for patients with risk factors, we need to prevent PEP through the use of these well proven combination strategies.

Background: We aimed to analyze the risk factors for sudden death after diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in South Korea and to provide evidence for informing prevention and control interventions for patients at risk of sudden death. Methods: We included 30,302 COVID-19 related deaths registered in the patient management information system (Central Disease Control Headquarters) between January 1, 2021, and December 15, 2022. We collected their epidemiological data recorded by the reporting city, province, or country. We performed multivariate logistic regression analysis to identify risk factors for sudden death after diagnosis of COVID-19. Results: Among the 30,302 deaths, there were 7,258 (24.0%) and 23,044 (76.0%) sudden and non-sudden deaths, respectively. Sudden death means a person who died within 2 days of diagnosis and who did not receive inpatient treatment. Underlying condition, vaccination status, and place of death were significantly associated with the survival period in all age groups. Moreover, region, sex, and prescription were significantly associated with the survival period only in certain age groups. However, reinfection was not significantly associated with the survival period in any age group. Conclusion To our knowledge, this is the first study on the risk factors for sudden death after a diagnosis of COVID-19, which included age, underlying condition, vaccination status, and place of death. Additionally, individuals aged < 60 years without an underlying condition were at high risk for sudden death. However, this group has relatively low interest in health, as can be seen from the high non-vaccination rate (16.1% of the general population vs. 61.6% of the corresponding group). Therefore, there is a possibility for the presence of an uncontrolled underlying disease in this population. In addition, many sudden deaths occurred due to delayed hospital visits to continue economic activities even after the onset of COVID-19 symptoms (7 days overall vs. 10 days average for the group). In conclusion, ‘continued interest in health’ is a key factor in avoiding sudden death in the economically active group (under 60 years of age).