Background and Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare and analyze the 18- year change in the relative value scale (RVS) in otolaryngology in relation to other surgical departments so as to help make future policy decisions.Subjects and Method Data on RVSs and addition rates, the deparments of main managed care, frequency of practice, and number of specialists were collected for all surgeries and procedures conducted in 2004, 2008, 2013, 2018, and 2022. Among these, an analysis was conducted for nine surgical departments. The number of surgeries and procedure items, the median value of the RVS, and the usage amount (i.e., RVS of all items multiplied by the frequency of surgeries and procedures) were calculated. Results: Over the past 18 years, the increase in the number of surgeries, procedure items and RVS in otolaryngology has grown smaller than that in other surgical departments, and the usage has decreased very sharply; in essence, the usage per specialist has actually decreased compared to 18 years ago. Conclusion Compared to other departments, RVS in otorhinolaryngology has shown very little change over the past period of 18 years. It is necessary to reasonably increase the currently undervalued RVS in otorhinolaryngology, particularly focusing on surgeries and procedures.

Background and Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare and analyze the 18- year change in the relative value scale (RVS) in otolaryngology in relation to other surgical departments so as to help make future policy decisions.Subjects and Method Data on RVSs and addition rates, the deparments of main managed care, frequency of practice, and number of specialists were collected for all surgeries and procedures conducted in 2004, 2008, 2013, 2018, and 2022. Among these, an analysis was conducted for nine surgical departments. The number of surgeries and procedure items, the median value of the RVS, and the usage amount (i.e., RVS of all items multiplied by the frequency of surgeries and procedures) were calculated. Results: Over the past 18 years, the increase in the number of surgeries, procedure items and RVS in otolaryngology has grown smaller than that in other surgical departments, and the usage has decreased very sharply; in essence, the usage per specialist has actually decreased compared to 18 years ago. Conclusion Compared to other departments, RVS in otorhinolaryngology has shown very little change over the past period of 18 years. It is necessary to reasonably increase the currently undervalued RVS in otorhinolaryngology, particularly focusing on surgeries and procedures.

Background and Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare and analyze the 18- year change in the relative value scale (RVS) in otolaryngology in relation to other surgical departments so as to help make future policy decisions.Subjects and Method Data on RVSs and addition rates, the deparments of main managed care, frequency of practice, and number of specialists were collected for all surgeries and procedures conducted in 2004, 2008, 2013, 2018, and 2022. Among these, an analysis was conducted for nine surgical departments. The number of surgeries and procedure items, the median value of the RVS, and the usage amount (i.e., RVS of all items multiplied by the frequency of surgeries and procedures) were calculated. Results: Over the past 18 years, the increase in the number of surgeries, procedure items and RVS in otolaryngology has grown smaller than that in other surgical departments, and the usage has decreased very sharply; in essence, the usage per specialist has actually decreased compared to 18 years ago. Conclusion Compared to other departments, RVS in otorhinolaryngology has shown very little change over the past period of 18 years. It is necessary to reasonably increase the currently undervalued RVS in otorhinolaryngology, particularly focusing on surgeries and procedures.

Background and Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare and analyze the 18- year change in the relative value scale (RVS) in otolaryngology in relation to other surgical departments so as to help make future policy decisions.Subjects and Method Data on RVSs and addition rates, the deparments of main managed care, frequency of practice, and number of specialists were collected for all surgeries and procedures conducted in 2004, 2008, 2013, 2018, and 2022. Among these, an analysis was conducted for nine surgical departments. The number of surgeries and procedure items, the median value of the RVS, and the usage amount (i.e., RVS of all items multiplied by the frequency of surgeries and procedures) were calculated. Results: Over the past 18 years, the increase in the number of surgeries, procedure items and RVS in otolaryngology has grown smaller than that in other surgical departments, and the usage has decreased very sharply; in essence, the usage per specialist has actually decreased compared to 18 years ago. Conclusion Compared to other departments, RVS in otorhinolaryngology has shown very little change over the past period of 18 years. It is necessary to reasonably increase the currently undervalued RVS in otorhinolaryngology, particularly focusing on surgeries and procedures.

Background and Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare and analyze the 18- year change in the relative value scale (RVS) in otolaryngology in relation to other surgical departments so as to help make future policy decisions.Subjects and Method Data on RVSs and addition rates, the deparments of main managed care, frequency of practice, and number of specialists were collected for all surgeries and procedures conducted in 2004, 2008, 2013, 2018, and 2022. Among these, an analysis was conducted for nine surgical departments. The number of surgeries and procedure items, the median value of the RVS, and the usage amount (i.e., RVS of all items multiplied by the frequency of surgeries and procedures) were calculated. Results: Over the past 18 years, the increase in the number of surgeries, procedure items and RVS in otolaryngology has grown smaller than that in other surgical departments, and the usage has decreased very sharply; in essence, the usage per specialist has actually decreased compared to 18 years ago. Conclusion Compared to other departments, RVS in otorhinolaryngology has shown very little change over the past period of 18 years. It is necessary to reasonably increase the currently undervalued RVS in otorhinolaryngology, particularly focusing on surgeries and procedures.

Background: It is well known that a large number of patients with diabetes also have dyslipidemia, which significantly increases the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of combination drugs consisting of metformin and atorvastatin, widely used as therapeutic agents for diabetes and dyslipidemia. Methods: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group and phase III multicenter study included adults with glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels >7.0% and <10.0%, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) >100 and <250 mg/dL. One hundred eighty-five eligible subjects were randomized to the combination group (metformin+atorvastatin), metformin group (metformin+atorvastatin placebo), and atorvastatin group (atorvastatin+metformin placebo). The primary efficacy endpoints were the percent changes in HbA1c and LDL-C levels from baseline at the end of the treatment. Results: After 16 weeks of treatment compared to baseline, HbA1c showed a significant difference of 0.94% compared to the atorvastatin group in the combination group (0.35% vs. −0.58%, respectively; P<0.0001), whereas the proportion of patients with increased HbA1c was also 62% and 15%, respectively, showing a significant difference (P<0.001). The combination group also showed a significant decrease in LDL-C levels compared to the metformin group (−55.20% vs. −7.69%, P<0.001) without previously unknown adverse drug events. Conclusion The addition of atorvastatin to metformin improved HbA1c and LDL-C levels to a significant extent compared to metformin or atorvastatin alone in diabetes and dyslipidemia patients. This study also suggested metformin’s preventive effect on the glucose-elevating potential of atorvastatin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and dyslipidemia, insufficiently controlled with exercise and diet. Metformin and atorvastatin combination might be an effective treatment in reducing the CVD risk in patients with both diabetes and dyslipidemia because of its lowering effect on LDL-C and glucose.