Background: and Purpose: This clinical practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for treatment of dementia, focusing on cholinesterase inhibitors and N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and other types of dementia. Methods: Using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes (PICO) framework, we developed key clinical questions and conducted systematic literature reviews. A multidisciplinary panel of experts, organized by the Korean Dementia Association, evaluated randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Recommendations were graded for evidence quality and strength using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Results: Three main recommendations are presented: (1) For AD, cholinesterase inhibitors (donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine) are strongly recommended for improving cognition and daily function based on moderate evidence; (2) Cholinesterase inhibitors are conditionally recommended for vascular dementia and Parkinson’s disease dementia, with a strong recommendation for Lewy body dementia; (3) For moderate to severe AD, NMDA receptor antagonist (memantine) is strongly recommended, demonstrating significant cognitive and functional improvements. Both drug classes showed favorable safety profiles with manageable side effects. Conclusions This guideline offers standardized, evidence-based pharmacologic recommendations for dementia management, with specific guidance on cholinesterase inhibitors and NMDA receptor antagonists. It aims to support clinical decision-making and improve patient outcomes in dementia care. Further updates will address emerging treatments, including amyloid-targeting therapies, to reflect advances in dementia management.

Background: and Purpose: This clinical practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for treatment of dementia, focusing on cholinesterase inhibitors and N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and other types of dementia. Methods: Using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes (PICO) framework, we developed key clinical questions and conducted systematic literature reviews. A multidisciplinary panel of experts, organized by the Korean Dementia Association, evaluated randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Recommendations were graded for evidence quality and strength using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Results: Three main recommendations are presented: (1) For AD, cholinesterase inhibitors (donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine) are strongly recommended for improving cognition and daily function based on moderate evidence; (2) Cholinesterase inhibitors are conditionally recommended for vascular dementia and Parkinson’s disease dementia, with a strong recommendation for Lewy body dementia; (3) For moderate to severe AD, NMDA receptor antagonist (memantine) is strongly recommended, demonstrating significant cognitive and functional improvements. Both drug classes showed favorable safety profiles with manageable side effects. Conclusions This guideline offers standardized, evidence-based pharmacologic recommendations for dementia management, with specific guidance on cholinesterase inhibitors and NMDA receptor antagonists. It aims to support clinical decision-making and improve patient outcomes in dementia care. Further updates will address emerging treatments, including amyloid-targeting therapies, to reflect advances in dementia management.

Background: and Purpose: This clinical practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for treatment of dementia, focusing on cholinesterase inhibitors and N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and other types of dementia. Methods: Using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes (PICO) framework, we developed key clinical questions and conducted systematic literature reviews. A multidisciplinary panel of experts, organized by the Korean Dementia Association, evaluated randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Recommendations were graded for evidence quality and strength using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Results: Three main recommendations are presented: (1) For AD, cholinesterase inhibitors (donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine) are strongly recommended for improving cognition and daily function based on moderate evidence; (2) Cholinesterase inhibitors are conditionally recommended for vascular dementia and Parkinson’s disease dementia, with a strong recommendation for Lewy body dementia; (3) For moderate to severe AD, NMDA receptor antagonist (memantine) is strongly recommended, demonstrating significant cognitive and functional improvements. Both drug classes showed favorable safety profiles with manageable side effects. Conclusions This guideline offers standardized, evidence-based pharmacologic recommendations for dementia management, with specific guidance on cholinesterase inhibitors and NMDA receptor antagonists. It aims to support clinical decision-making and improve patient outcomes in dementia care. Further updates will address emerging treatments, including amyloid-targeting therapies, to reflect advances in dementia management.

Background: and Purpose: This clinical practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for treatment of dementia, focusing on cholinesterase inhibitors and N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and other types of dementia. Methods: Using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes (PICO) framework, we developed key clinical questions and conducted systematic literature reviews. A multidisciplinary panel of experts, organized by the Korean Dementia Association, evaluated randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Recommendations were graded for evidence quality and strength using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Results: Three main recommendations are presented: (1) For AD, cholinesterase inhibitors (donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine) are strongly recommended for improving cognition and daily function based on moderate evidence; (2) Cholinesterase inhibitors are conditionally recommended for vascular dementia and Parkinson’s disease dementia, with a strong recommendation for Lewy body dementia; (3) For moderate to severe AD, NMDA receptor antagonist (memantine) is strongly recommended, demonstrating significant cognitive and functional improvements. Both drug classes showed favorable safety profiles with manageable side effects. Conclusions This guideline offers standardized, evidence-based pharmacologic recommendations for dementia management, with specific guidance on cholinesterase inhibitors and NMDA receptor antagonists. It aims to support clinical decision-making and improve patient outcomes in dementia care. Further updates will address emerging treatments, including amyloid-targeting therapies, to reflect advances in dementia management.

Background: and Purpose: We aimed to develop the diagnostic matrix of the Seoul Cognitive Status Test (SCST) and compare its performance with traditional paper-and-pencil neuropsychological tests, including the Seoul Neuropsychological Screening Battery-II (SNSB-II) and the Korean version of the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer’s Disease (CERAD-K). Methods: We recruited 197 participants from the head-to-head SCST-SNSB cohort, and 204 participants from the head-to-head SCST-CERAD cohort. They underwent either SNSB-II or CERAD-K, in addition to SCST. The diagnostic matrix was developed by combining cognitive function, determined by neuropsychological tests, and activities of daily living (ADL), determined by Instrumental-ADL scales. Results: The diagnostic agreement between the SCST and the SNSB-II was 83.9% (weighted kappa=0.87). The agreement between the SCST and the CERAD-K was 84.3% (weighted kappa=0.88). In the SCST-SNSB cohort, all differences in SCST scores between the cognitively unimpaired (CU), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and dementia diagnosed with the SNSB-II were significant in all cognitive domains (all p<0.01), except for the executive domain between CU and MCI (p=0.145). In the SCST-CERAD cohort, all differences in SCST scores between the 3 groups diagnosed with the CERAD-K were significant in all cognitive domains (all p<0.01), except for the language and visuospatial domains between MCI and dementia (p=0.169 and p=0.778, respectively). Conclusions Our findings suggest that the tablet-based SCST may be another option to traditional paper-and-pencil neuropsychological tests, especially in situations where time and space are relatively limited, and neuropsychological testing specialists are not available.

Objective: This study was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lurasidone (160 mg/day) compared to quetiapine XR (QXR; 600 mg/day) in the treatment of acutely psychotic patients with schizophrenia. Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to 6 weeks of double-blind treatment with lurasidone 160 mg/day (n=105) or QXR 600 mg/day (n=105). Primary efficacy measure was the change from baseline to week 6 in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score and Clinical Global Impressions severity (CGI-S) score. Adverse events, body measurements, and laboratory parameters were assessed. Results: Lurasidone demonstrated non-inferiority to QXR on the PANSS total score. Adjusted mean±standard error change at week 6 on the PANSS total score was -26.42±2.02 and -27.33±2.01 in the lurasidone and QXR group, respectively. The mean difference score was -0.91 (95% confidence interval -6.35–4.53). The lurasidone group showed a greater reduction in PANSS total and negative subscale on week 1 and a greater reduction in end-point CGI-S score compared to the QXR group. Body weight, body mass index, and waist circumference in the lurasidone group were reduced, with significantly lower mean change compared to QXR. Endpoint changes in glucose, cholesterol, triglycerides, and low-density lipoprotein levels were also significantly lower. The most common adverse drug reactions with lurasidone were akathisia and nausea. Conclusion Lurasidone 160 mg/day was found to be non-inferior to QXR 600 mg/day in the treatment of schizophrenia with comparable efficacy and tolerability. Adverse effects of lurasidone were generally tolerable, and beneficial effects on metabolic parameters can be expected.

Background: and Purpose: We aimed to develop the diagnostic matrix of the Seoul Cognitive Status Test (SCST) and compare its performance with traditional paper-and-pencil neuropsychological tests, including the Seoul Neuropsychological Screening Battery-II (SNSB-II) and the Korean version of the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer’s Disease (CERAD-K). Methods: We recruited 197 participants from the head-to-head SCST-SNSB cohort, and 204 participants from the head-to-head SCST-CERAD cohort. They underwent either SNSB-II or CERAD-K, in addition to SCST. The diagnostic matrix was developed by combining cognitive function, determined by neuropsychological tests, and activities of daily living (ADL), determined by Instrumental-ADL scales. Results: The diagnostic agreement between the SCST and the SNSB-II was 83.9% (weighted kappa=0.87). The agreement between the SCST and the CERAD-K was 84.3% (weighted kappa=0.88). In the SCST-SNSB cohort, all differences in SCST scores between the cognitively unimpaired (CU), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and dementia diagnosed with the SNSB-II were significant in all cognitive domains (all p<0.01), except for the executive domain between CU and MCI (p=0.145). In the SCST-CERAD cohort, all differences in SCST scores between the 3 groups diagnosed with the CERAD-K were significant in all cognitive domains (all p<0.01), except for the language and visuospatial domains between MCI and dementia (p=0.169 and p=0.778, respectively). Conclusions Our findings suggest that the tablet-based SCST may be another option to traditional paper-and-pencil neuropsychological tests, especially in situations where time and space are relatively limited, and neuropsychological testing specialists are not available.

Background: and Purpose: We aimed to develop the diagnostic matrix of the Seoul Cognitive Status Test (SCST) and compare its performance with traditional paper-and-pencil neuropsychological tests, including the Seoul Neuropsychological Screening Battery-II (SNSB-II) and the Korean version of the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer’s Disease (CERAD-K). Methods: We recruited 197 participants from the head-to-head SCST-SNSB cohort, and 204 participants from the head-to-head SCST-CERAD cohort. They underwent either SNSB-II or CERAD-K, in addition to SCST. The diagnostic matrix was developed by combining cognitive function, determined by neuropsychological tests, and activities of daily living (ADL), determined by Instrumental-ADL scales. Results: The diagnostic agreement between the SCST and the SNSB-II was 83.9% (weighted kappa=0.87). The agreement between the SCST and the CERAD-K was 84.3% (weighted kappa=0.88). In the SCST-SNSB cohort, all differences in SCST scores between the cognitively unimpaired (CU), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and dementia diagnosed with the SNSB-II were significant in all cognitive domains (all p<0.01), except for the executive domain between CU and MCI (p=0.145). In the SCST-CERAD cohort, all differences in SCST scores between the 3 groups diagnosed with the CERAD-K were significant in all cognitive domains (all p<0.01), except for the language and visuospatial domains between MCI and dementia (p=0.169 and p=0.778, respectively). Conclusions Our findings suggest that the tablet-based SCST may be another option to traditional paper-and-pencil neuropsychological tests, especially in situations where time and space are relatively limited, and neuropsychological testing specialists are not available.

Background: and Purpose: We aimed to develop the diagnostic matrix of the Seoul Cognitive Status Test (SCST) and compare its performance with traditional paper-and-pencil neuropsychological tests, including the Seoul Neuropsychological Screening Battery-II (SNSB-II) and the Korean version of the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer’s Disease (CERAD-K). Methods: We recruited 197 participants from the head-to-head SCST-SNSB cohort, and 204 participants from the head-to-head SCST-CERAD cohort. They underwent either SNSB-II or CERAD-K, in addition to SCST. The diagnostic matrix was developed by combining cognitive function, determined by neuropsychological tests, and activities of daily living (ADL), determined by Instrumental-ADL scales. Results: The diagnostic agreement between the SCST and the SNSB-II was 83.9% (weighted kappa=0.87). The agreement between the SCST and the CERAD-K was 84.3% (weighted kappa=0.88). In the SCST-SNSB cohort, all differences in SCST scores between the cognitively unimpaired (CU), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and dementia diagnosed with the SNSB-II were significant in all cognitive domains (all p<0.01), except for the executive domain between CU and MCI (p=0.145). In the SCST-CERAD cohort, all differences in SCST scores between the 3 groups diagnosed with the CERAD-K were significant in all cognitive domains (all p<0.01), except for the language and visuospatial domains between MCI and dementia (p=0.169 and p=0.778, respectively). Conclusions Our findings suggest that the tablet-based SCST may be another option to traditional paper-and-pencil neuropsychological tests, especially in situations where time and space are relatively limited, and neuropsychological testing specialists are not available.

Background: and Purpose: Dementia subtypes, including Alzheimer’s dementia (AD), dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), and frontotemporal dementia (FTD), pose diagnostic challenges. This review examines the effectiveness of 18 F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography ( 18 F-FDG PET) in differentiating these subtypes for precise treatment and management. Methods: A systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines was conducted using databases like PubMed and Embase to identify studies on the diagnostic utility of 18 F-FDG PET in dementia. The search included studies up to November 16, 2022, focusing on peer-reviewed journals and applying the goldstandard clinical diagnosis for dementia subtypes. Results: From 12,815 articles, 14 were selected for final analysis. For AD versus FTD, the sensitivity was 0.96 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88–0.98) and specificity was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.70–0.92). In the case of AD versus DLB, 18F-FDG PET showed a sensitivity of 0.93 (95% CI 0.88-0.98) and specificity of 0.92 (95% CI, 0.70–0.92). Lastly, when differentiating AD from non-AD dementias, the sensitivity was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.80–0.91) and the specificity was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.80–0.91). The studies mostly used case-control designs with visual and quantitative assessments. Conclusions 18 F-FDG PET exhibits high sensitivity and specificity in differentiating dementia subtypes, particularly AD, FTD, and DLB. This method, while not a standalone diagnostic tool, significantly enhances diagnostic accuracy in uncertain cases, complementing clinical assessments and structural imaging.