Background: Bronchiectasis has a complex and heterogeneous pathogenesis, with various etiologies, the majority being idiopathic. This study aimed to examine the characteristics of patients with idiopathic bronchiectasis in comparison to those with post-infectious bronchiectasis. Methods: We analyzed data from patients with idiopathic and post-infectious bronchiectasis (including post-tuberculosis) from the Korean Multicenter Bronchiectasis Audit and Research Collaboration (KMBARC) registry, a prospective cohort study. Results: Among the 866 patients enrolled in the study, 346 (40.0%) were classified as having idiopathic bronchiectasis, while 363 (41.9%) had post-infectious bronchiectasis. The idiopathic group demonstrated a shorter disease duration, a higher body mass index (BMI), a lower prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), a higher prevalence of rhinosinusitis, a predominance of lower lobe distribution, less frequent use of regular respiratory treatments, better pulmonary function, and a statistically lower bronchiectasis severity index compared to the post-infectious group. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted, considering factors such as gender, age, BMI, history of asthma, COPD, rhinosinusitis, rheumatoid arthritis, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and smoking status. A higher BMI (odds ratio [OR], 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04 to 1.15) and a history of rhinosinusitis (OR, 3.10; 95% CI, 1.57 to 6.14) were associated with idiopathic bronchiectasis. In contrast, a history of COPD was linked to post-infectious bronchiectasis (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.80). Conclusion Patients with idiopathic bronchiectasis are characterized by a higher BMI and a history of rhinosinusitis compared to those with post-infectious bronchiectasis. These findings may provide exploratory insights into underlying systemic or non-pulmonary factors. Further research is necessary to clarify the clinical significance of these associations.

Objective: Multiple cohort studies have investigated the potential link between anesthesia and dementia. However, mixed findings necessitate closer examination. This study aimed to investigate the association between anesthesia exposure and the incidence of dementia, considering different anesthesia types and anesthetic agents. Methods: This nationwide cohort study utilized data from the South Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service database, covering 62,541 participants, to investigate the correlation between anesthesia exposure and dementia incidence. Results: Results revealed an increased risk of dementia in individuals who underwent general (hazard ratio [HR], 1.318;95% confidence interval [CI], 1.061−1.637) or regional/local anesthesia (HR, 2.097; 95% CI, 1.887−2.329) compared to those who did not. However, combined general and regional/local anesthesia did not significantly increase dementia risk (HR, 1.097; 95% CI, 0.937−1.284). Notably, individual anesthetic agents exhibited varying risks; desflurane and midazolam showed increased risks, whereas propofol showed no significant difference. Conclusion This study provides unique insights into the nuanced relationship between anesthesia, individual anesthetic agents, and the incidence of dementia. While confirming a general association between anesthesia exposure and dementia risk, this study also emphasizes the importance of considering specific agents. These findings under-score the need for careful evaluation and long-term cognitive monitoring after anesthesia.

Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

Objective: Multiple cohort studies have investigated the potential link between anesthesia and dementia. However, mixed findings necessitate closer examination. This study aimed to investigate the association between anesthesia exposure and the incidence of dementia, considering different anesthesia types and anesthetic agents. Methods: This nationwide cohort study utilized data from the South Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service database, covering 62,541 participants, to investigate the correlation between anesthesia exposure and dementia incidence. Results: Results revealed an increased risk of dementia in individuals who underwent general (hazard ratio [HR], 1.318;95% confidence interval [CI], 1.061−1.637) or regional/local anesthesia (HR, 2.097; 95% CI, 1.887−2.329) compared to those who did not. However, combined general and regional/local anesthesia did not significantly increase dementia risk (HR, 1.097; 95% CI, 0.937−1.284). Notably, individual anesthetic agents exhibited varying risks; desflurane and midazolam showed increased risks, whereas propofol showed no significant difference. Conclusion This study provides unique insights into the nuanced relationship between anesthesia, individual anesthetic agents, and the incidence of dementia. While confirming a general association between anesthesia exposure and dementia risk, this study also emphasizes the importance of considering specific agents. These findings under-score the need for careful evaluation and long-term cognitive monitoring after anesthesia.

Objective: Multiple cohort studies have investigated the potential link between anesthesia and dementia. However, mixed findings necessitate closer examination. This study aimed to investigate the association between anesthesia exposure and the incidence of dementia, considering different anesthesia types and anesthetic agents. Methods: This nationwide cohort study utilized data from the South Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service database, covering 62,541 participants, to investigate the correlation between anesthesia exposure and dementia incidence. Results: Results revealed an increased risk of dementia in individuals who underwent general (hazard ratio [HR], 1.318;95% confidence interval [CI], 1.061−1.637) or regional/local anesthesia (HR, 2.097; 95% CI, 1.887−2.329) compared to those who did not. However, combined general and regional/local anesthesia did not significantly increase dementia risk (HR, 1.097; 95% CI, 0.937−1.284). Notably, individual anesthetic agents exhibited varying risks; desflurane and midazolam showed increased risks, whereas propofol showed no significant difference. Conclusion This study provides unique insights into the nuanced relationship between anesthesia, individual anesthetic agents, and the incidence of dementia. While confirming a general association between anesthesia exposure and dementia risk, this study also emphasizes the importance of considering specific agents. These findings under-score the need for careful evaluation and long-term cognitive monitoring after anesthesia.

Objective: Multiple cohort studies have investigated the potential link between anesthesia and dementia. However, mixed findings necessitate closer examination. This study aimed to investigate the association between anesthesia exposure and the incidence of dementia, considering different anesthesia types and anesthetic agents. Methods: This nationwide cohort study utilized data from the South Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service database, covering 62,541 participants, to investigate the correlation between anesthesia exposure and dementia incidence. Results: Results revealed an increased risk of dementia in individuals who underwent general (hazard ratio [HR], 1.318;95% confidence interval [CI], 1.061−1.637) or regional/local anesthesia (HR, 2.097; 95% CI, 1.887−2.329) compared to those who did not. However, combined general and regional/local anesthesia did not significantly increase dementia risk (HR, 1.097; 95% CI, 0.937−1.284). Notably, individual anesthetic agents exhibited varying risks; desflurane and midazolam showed increased risks, whereas propofol showed no significant difference. Conclusion This study provides unique insights into the nuanced relationship between anesthesia, individual anesthetic agents, and the incidence of dementia. While confirming a general association between anesthesia exposure and dementia risk, this study also emphasizes the importance of considering specific agents. These findings under-score the need for careful evaluation and long-term cognitive monitoring after anesthesia.

Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.