Background: Studies on whether donor-to-recipient sex match status affects long-term survival after liver transplantation (LT) have yielded contradictory results. This study evaluated whether donor-to-recipient sex match status influenced long-term survival after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) or deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) at a high-volume center. Methods: The study included 6,664 patients who underwent primary LT between January 2000 and December 2022 at our institution. Patients were divided into four groups according to donor-to-recipient sex match status: male-to-male (n=3,427 [51.4%]), male-to-female (n=1,152 [17.3%]), female-to-male (n=1,385 [20.8%]), and female-to-female (n=700 [10.5%]). Results: Regarding clinical characteristics, the four groups differed significantly regarding background liver disease (P<0.001), model for end-stage liver disease score (P<0.001), serum protein induced by vitamin K absence or antagonist II level (P=0.003), presence of concurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC; P<0.001), and type of LT (P=0.003). Overall survival (OS) of all LT recipients did not differ significantly among the groups (P=0.377). Donor-to-recipient sex match status did not affect long-term OS in either LDLT (P=0.176) or DDLT (P=0.220) groups. In addition, sex match status did not significantly influence posttransplant OS among patients who underwent LDLT without HCC (P=0.464), LDLT with HCC (P=0.236), DDLT without HCC (P=0.338), or DDLT with HCC (P=0.818). Conclusions Donor-to-recipient sex match status does not significantly affect posttransplant patient survival or HCC prognosis after LDLT or DDLT.

This study aimed to evaluate the differences in the baseline characteristics and patterns of antibiotic usage among hospitals based on their participation in the Korea National Antimicrobial Use Analysis System (KONAS). We obtained claims data from the National Health Insurance for inpatients admitted to all secondary- and tertiary-care hospitals between January 2020 and December 2021 in Korea. 15.9% (58/395) of hospitals were KONAS participants, among which the proportion of hospitals with > 900 beds (31.0% vs.2.6%, P < 0.001) and tertiary care (50.0% vs. 5.2%, P < 0.001) was higher than that among non-participants. The consumption of antibiotics targeting antimicrobial-resistant gram positive bacteria (33.7 vs. 27.1 days of therapy [DOT]/1,000 patient-days, P = 0.019) and antibiotics predominantly used for resistant gram-negative bacteria (4.8 vs. 3.7 DOT/1,000 patient-days, P = 0.034) was higher in KONAS-participating versus -non-participating hospitals. The current KONAS data do not fully represent all secondary- and tertiary-care hospitals in Korea; thus, the KONAS results should be interpreted with caution.

Background and Objectives: The transformation of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) treatment in Korea, ushered by targeted therapy’s advent, prompted our analysis of baseline attributes, treatment trends, and survival shifts within our single-center registry. Methods: We examined 230 patients (72.6% female, mean age 40.6±17.4 years) diagnosed and/or treated between 1980 and 2021 in our PAH clinic. Given targeted therapy’s introduction and active use since 2007, we compared diagnostic classification, demographics, and treatment patterns at that juncture. Survival analysis encompassed PAH types and the overall population. For historical survival comparison, 50 non-registry patients were retrospectively added, and age-sex matching enabled pooled analysis. Results: Congenital heart disease-associated pulmonary arterial hypertension (CHD-PAH) constituted the largest subset (43.0%), trailed by connective tissue disease-associated PAH (CTD-PAH, 29.6%) and idiopathic PAH (IPAH, 19.1%). Post-2007, CTD-PAH proportions surged, notably with an elevated initiation rate of targeted therapy (95.4%). Overall survival rates at 1, 5, and 10 years stood at 91.3%, 77.4%, and 65.8%, respectively, with CHD-PAH exhibiting superior survival to idiopathic or CTD-PAH. Age-sex matching analysis indicated survival disparities between those starting immediate targeted therapy vs. conservative treatment upon diagnosis, especially driven by IPAH. Conclusions In the post-introduction of the targeted therapy era, patients with PAH promptly started treatment right away, and higher survival rates of patients who started initial PAH-targeted therapy were demonstrated. The transition towards early treatment initiation might have likely contributed to the elevated survival rates observed in Korea’s PAH patient cohort.

Background: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS) have been implementing the expedited programs that promote the innovative approval of new medications to be used for serious diseases. The authors comprehensively investigated, analyzed, and compared the regulations and guidelines associated with the expedited programs. Methods: The expedited programs for innovative drug development and approval were searched from the homepages of FDA, EMA and MFDS. The detailed information on the regulations and guidelines associated with the programs was comprehensively extracted from various electronic repositories of each regulatory authority. The informa-tion on each program was analyzed, categorized, and compared from the points of benefits, applicability with scientific rationale,application procedure, and maintenance. Results: FDA’s programs include Fast Track Designation, Breakthrough Therapy Designation, Priority Review Designation, and Accelerated Approval. EMA’s regulation implements PRIority MEdicines (PRIME), Accelerated Assessment, Marketing Authorization under Exceptional Circumstances (MAEC), and Conditional Marketing Authorization (CMA). MFDS has a single Expedited Program. These programs are broadly categorized into those that 1) facilitate early and proactive communication with regulatory authorities, 2) shorten the review time after submitting a marketing application, and 3) temporarily approve a marketing authorization under certain conditions. Conclusion Each expedited program requiresa different level and amount of safety and efficacy evidence to be submitted to each regulatory authority. This article will likely provide the comprehensive information on which program provides scientific and regulatory advantages to be taken for innova-tive medication development.

Background and Objectives: The transformation of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) treatment in Korea, ushered by targeted therapy’s advent, prompted our analysis of baseline attributes, treatment trends, and survival shifts within our single-center registry. Methods: We examined 230 patients (72.6% female, mean age 40.6±17.4 years) diagnosed and/or treated between 1980 and 2021 in our PAH clinic. Given targeted therapy’s introduction and active use since 2007, we compared diagnostic classification, demographics, and treatment patterns at that juncture. Survival analysis encompassed PAH types and the overall population. For historical survival comparison, 50 non-registry patients were retrospectively added, and age-sex matching enabled pooled analysis. Results: Congenital heart disease-associated pulmonary arterial hypertension (CHD-PAH) constituted the largest subset (43.0%), trailed by connective tissue disease-associated PAH (CTD-PAH, 29.6%) and idiopathic PAH (IPAH, 19.1%). Post-2007, CTD-PAH proportions surged, notably with an elevated initiation rate of targeted therapy (95.4%). Overall survival rates at 1, 5, and 10 years stood at 91.3%, 77.4%, and 65.8%, respectively, with CHD-PAH exhibiting superior survival to idiopathic or CTD-PAH. Age-sex matching analysis indicated survival disparities between those starting immediate targeted therapy vs. conservative treatment upon diagnosis, especially driven by IPAH. Conclusions In the post-introduction of the targeted therapy era, patients with PAH promptly started treatment right away, and higher survival rates of patients who started initial PAH-targeted therapy were demonstrated. The transition towards early treatment initiation might have likely contributed to the elevated survival rates observed in Korea’s PAH patient cohort.

Background: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS) have been implementing the expedited programs that promote the innovative approval of new medications to be used for serious diseases. The authors comprehensively investigated, analyzed, and compared the regulations and guidelines associated with the expedited programs. Methods: The expedited programs for innovative drug development and approval were searched from the homepages of FDA, EMA and MFDS. The detailed information on the regulations and guidelines associated with the programs was comprehensively extracted from various electronic repositories of each regulatory authority. The informa-tion on each program was analyzed, categorized, and compared from the points of benefits, applicability with scientific rationale,application procedure, and maintenance. Results: FDA’s programs include Fast Track Designation, Breakthrough Therapy Designation, Priority Review Designation, and Accelerated Approval. EMA’s regulation implements PRIority MEdicines (PRIME), Accelerated Assessment, Marketing Authorization under Exceptional Circumstances (MAEC), and Conditional Marketing Authorization (CMA). MFDS has a single Expedited Program. These programs are broadly categorized into those that 1) facilitate early and proactive communication with regulatory authorities, 2) shorten the review time after submitting a marketing application, and 3) temporarily approve a marketing authorization under certain conditions. Conclusion Each expedited program requiresa different level and amount of safety and efficacy evidence to be submitted to each regulatory authority. This article will likely provide the comprehensive information on which program provides scientific and regulatory advantages to be taken for innova-tive medication development.

Background and Objectives: The transformation of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) treatment in Korea, ushered by targeted therapy’s advent, prompted our analysis of baseline attributes, treatment trends, and survival shifts within our single-center registry. Methods: We examined 230 patients (72.6% female, mean age 40.6±17.4 years) diagnosed and/or treated between 1980 and 2021 in our PAH clinic. Given targeted therapy’s introduction and active use since 2007, we compared diagnostic classification, demographics, and treatment patterns at that juncture. Survival analysis encompassed PAH types and the overall population. For historical survival comparison, 50 non-registry patients were retrospectively added, and age-sex matching enabled pooled analysis. Results: Congenital heart disease-associated pulmonary arterial hypertension (CHD-PAH) constituted the largest subset (43.0%), trailed by connective tissue disease-associated PAH (CTD-PAH, 29.6%) and idiopathic PAH (IPAH, 19.1%). Post-2007, CTD-PAH proportions surged, notably with an elevated initiation rate of targeted therapy (95.4%). Overall survival rates at 1, 5, and 10 years stood at 91.3%, 77.4%, and 65.8%, respectively, with CHD-PAH exhibiting superior survival to idiopathic or CTD-PAH. Age-sex matching analysis indicated survival disparities between those starting immediate targeted therapy vs. conservative treatment upon diagnosis, especially driven by IPAH. Conclusions In the post-introduction of the targeted therapy era, patients with PAH promptly started treatment right away, and higher survival rates of patients who started initial PAH-targeted therapy were demonstrated. The transition towards early treatment initiation might have likely contributed to the elevated survival rates observed in Korea’s PAH patient cohort.

Background: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS) have been implementing the expedited programs that promote the innovative approval of new medications to be used for serious diseases. The authors comprehensively investigated, analyzed, and compared the regulations and guidelines associated with the expedited programs. Methods: The expedited programs for innovative drug development and approval were searched from the homepages of FDA, EMA and MFDS. The detailed information on the regulations and guidelines associated with the programs was comprehensively extracted from various electronic repositories of each regulatory authority. The informa-tion on each program was analyzed, categorized, and compared from the points of benefits, applicability with scientific rationale,application procedure, and maintenance. Results: FDA’s programs include Fast Track Designation, Breakthrough Therapy Designation, Priority Review Designation, and Accelerated Approval. EMA’s regulation implements PRIority MEdicines (PRIME), Accelerated Assessment, Marketing Authorization under Exceptional Circumstances (MAEC), and Conditional Marketing Authorization (CMA). MFDS has a single Expedited Program. These programs are broadly categorized into those that 1) facilitate early and proactive communication with regulatory authorities, 2) shorten the review time after submitting a marketing application, and 3) temporarily approve a marketing authorization under certain conditions. Conclusion Each expedited program requiresa different level and amount of safety and efficacy evidence to be submitted to each regulatory authority. This article will likely provide the comprehensive information on which program provides scientific and regulatory advantages to be taken for innova-tive medication development.

Background and Objectives: The transformation of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) treatment in Korea, ushered by targeted therapy’s advent, prompted our analysis of baseline attributes, treatment trends, and survival shifts within our single-center registry. Methods: We examined 230 patients (72.6% female, mean age 40.6±17.4 years) diagnosed and/or treated between 1980 and 2021 in our PAH clinic. Given targeted therapy’s introduction and active use since 2007, we compared diagnostic classification, demographics, and treatment patterns at that juncture. Survival analysis encompassed PAH types and the overall population. For historical survival comparison, 50 non-registry patients were retrospectively added, and age-sex matching enabled pooled analysis. Results: Congenital heart disease-associated pulmonary arterial hypertension (CHD-PAH) constituted the largest subset (43.0%), trailed by connective tissue disease-associated PAH (CTD-PAH, 29.6%) and idiopathic PAH (IPAH, 19.1%). Post-2007, CTD-PAH proportions surged, notably with an elevated initiation rate of targeted therapy (95.4%). Overall survival rates at 1, 5, and 10 years stood at 91.3%, 77.4%, and 65.8%, respectively, with CHD-PAH exhibiting superior survival to idiopathic or CTD-PAH. Age-sex matching analysis indicated survival disparities between those starting immediate targeted therapy vs. conservative treatment upon diagnosis, especially driven by IPAH. Conclusions In the post-introduction of the targeted therapy era, patients with PAH promptly started treatment right away, and higher survival rates of patients who started initial PAH-targeted therapy were demonstrated. The transition towards early treatment initiation might have likely contributed to the elevated survival rates observed in Korea’s PAH patient cohort.

Background: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS) have been implementing the expedited programs that promote the innovative approval of new medications to be used for serious diseases. The authors comprehensively investigated, analyzed, and compared the regulations and guidelines associated with the expedited programs. Methods: The expedited programs for innovative drug development and approval were searched from the homepages of FDA, EMA and MFDS. The detailed information on the regulations and guidelines associated with the programs was comprehensively extracted from various electronic repositories of each regulatory authority. The informa-tion on each program was analyzed, categorized, and compared from the points of benefits, applicability with scientific rationale,application procedure, and maintenance. Results: FDA’s programs include Fast Track Designation, Breakthrough Therapy Designation, Priority Review Designation, and Accelerated Approval. EMA’s regulation implements PRIority MEdicines (PRIME), Accelerated Assessment, Marketing Authorization under Exceptional Circumstances (MAEC), and Conditional Marketing Authorization (CMA). MFDS has a single Expedited Program. These programs are broadly categorized into those that 1) facilitate early and proactive communication with regulatory authorities, 2) shorten the review time after submitting a marketing application, and 3) temporarily approve a marketing authorization under certain conditions. Conclusion Each expedited program requiresa different level and amount of safety and efficacy evidence to be submitted to each regulatory authority. This article will likely provide the comprehensive information on which program provides scientific and regulatory advantages to be taken for innova-tive medication development.