Objectives: This study evaluated the educational effectiveness of the Loving Life TokTok 65+, a suicide prevention gatekeeper education program for the elderly developed by the Jeju Special Self-Governing Province Mental Health Welfare Center. Methods: Community-dwelling adults aged ≥65 years (n=125) were assigned randomly to an intervention group (n=61) or a control group (n=64). The intervention group received the Loving Life TokTok 65+ program, while the control group received no education during the study period. The outcomes were assessed immediately before and after the intervention using validated self-report measures of gatekeeper behavior, preparedness to help, suicide prevention literacy, and attitudes toward suicide. Results: Post-intervention, the intervention group showed significant improvement in overall gatekeeper behavior (all p<0.001), particularly in readiness and self-efficacy, compared with the baseline, whereas the control group showed no significant change. Conclusion The Loving Life TokTok 65+ program effectively enhanced suicide-prevention–related behavioral competencies among the elderly.

Background: The World Health Organization has declared the end of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) public health emergency. However, this did not indicate the end of COVID-19. Several months after the infection, numerous patients complain of respiratory or nonspecific symptoms; this condition is called long COVID. Even patients with mild COVID-19 can experience long COVID, thus the burden of long COVID remains considerable. Therefore, we conducted this study to comprehensively analyze the effects of long COVID using multi-faceted assessments. Materials and Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study involving patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between February 2020 and September 2021 in six tertiary hospitals in Korea. Patients were followed up at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after discharge. Long COVID was defined as the persistence of three or more COVID-19-related symptoms. The primary outcome of this study was the prevalence of long COVID after the period of COVID-19. Results: During the study period, 290 patients were enrolled. Among them, 54.5 and 34.6% experienced long COVID within 6 months and after more than 18 months, respectively. Several patients showed abnormal results when tested for post-traumatic stress disorder (17.4%) and anxiety (31.9%) after 18 months. In patients who underwent follow-up chest computed tomography 18 months after COVID-19, abnormal findings remained at 51.9%. Males (odds ratio [OR], 0.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.05–0.53; P=0.004) and elderly (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.00–1.09; P=0.04) showed a significant association with long COVID after 12–18 months in a multivariable logistic regression analysis. Conclusion Many patients still showed long COVID after 18 months post SARS-CoV-2 infection. When managing these patients, the assessment of multiple aspects is necessary.

Background: The World Health Organization has declared the end of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) public health emergency. However, this did not indicate the end of COVID-19. Several months after the infection, numerous patients complain of respiratory or nonspecific symptoms; this condition is called long COVID. Even patients with mild COVID-19 can experience long COVID, thus the burden of long COVID remains considerable. Therefore, we conducted this study to comprehensively analyze the effects of long COVID using multi-faceted assessments. Materials and Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study involving patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between February 2020 and September 2021 in six tertiary hospitals in Korea. Patients were followed up at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after discharge. Long COVID was defined as the persistence of three or more COVID-19-related symptoms. The primary outcome of this study was the prevalence of long COVID after the period of COVID-19. Results: During the study period, 290 patients were enrolled. Among them, 54.5 and 34.6% experienced long COVID within 6 months and after more than 18 months, respectively. Several patients showed abnormal results when tested for post-traumatic stress disorder (17.4%) and anxiety (31.9%) after 18 months. In patients who underwent follow-up chest computed tomography 18 months after COVID-19, abnormal findings remained at 51.9%. Males (odds ratio [OR], 0.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.05–0.53; P=0.004) and elderly (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.00–1.09; P=0.04) showed a significant association with long COVID after 12–18 months in a multivariable logistic regression analysis. Conclusion Many patients still showed long COVID after 18 months post SARS-CoV-2 infection. When managing these patients, the assessment of multiple aspects is necessary.

Background: The World Health Organization has declared the end of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) public health emergency. However, this did not indicate the end of COVID-19. Several months after the infection, numerous patients complain of respiratory or nonspecific symptoms; this condition is called long COVID. Even patients with mild COVID-19 can experience long COVID, thus the burden of long COVID remains considerable. Therefore, we conducted this study to comprehensively analyze the effects of long COVID using multi-faceted assessments. Materials and Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study involving patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between February 2020 and September 2021 in six tertiary hospitals in Korea. Patients were followed up at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after discharge. Long COVID was defined as the persistence of three or more COVID-19-related symptoms. The primary outcome of this study was the prevalence of long COVID after the period of COVID-19. Results: During the study period, 290 patients were enrolled. Among them, 54.5 and 34.6% experienced long COVID within 6 months and after more than 18 months, respectively. Several patients showed abnormal results when tested for post-traumatic stress disorder (17.4%) and anxiety (31.9%) after 18 months. In patients who underwent follow-up chest computed tomography 18 months after COVID-19, abnormal findings remained at 51.9%. Males (odds ratio [OR], 0.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.05–0.53; P=0.004) and elderly (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.00–1.09; P=0.04) showed a significant association with long COVID after 12–18 months in a multivariable logistic regression analysis. Conclusion Many patients still showed long COVID after 18 months post SARS-CoV-2 infection. When managing these patients, the assessment of multiple aspects is necessary.

Background/Aims: The proposed eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) endoscopic reference score serves to diagnose and evaluate treatment responses in EoE.Nevertheless, the validated reference score thresholds for diagnosis and treatment response in Asian patients are yet to be established.This study aims to establish these thresholds for the first time among Asian patients with EoE. Methods: Patients presenting with ≥ 15 eosinophils/high power field and esophageal dysfunction symptoms between August 2007 andNovember 2021 were included. Age- and sex-matched non-EoE controls were also enrolled. Baseline characteristics, endoscopic reference score features, and scores were compared between patients and controls. Among patients, endoscopic reference score features and scores, along with peak eosinophil counts, were evaluated both before and after treatment. The optimal threshold was determined based on sensitivity, specificity, and the Youden index. Results: Overall, 102 patients were enrolled (74.5% men; mean age, 46.9 years). The mean endoscopic reference score was 2.65 and 0.52 for patients and controls, respectively (P < 0.001). An endoscopic reference score ≥ 2 was identified as the optimal diagnostic threshold for EoE (sensitivity, 0.79; specificity, 0.86; Youden index, 0.66). Post-treatment data regarding endoscopic findings and histology wereavailable for 30 patients. Regarding histologic response, an endoscopic reference score of ≤ 3 demonstrated the optimal threshold(sensitivity, 0.95; specificity, 0.88; Youden index, 0.83). Conclusions The optimal diagnostic and treatment response thresholds were determined to be endoscopic reference scores of ≥ 2 and ≤ 3,respectively. Further studies involving a larger patient cohort are necessary to validate these findings.

Differentiated thyroid cancer demonstrates a wide range of clinical presentations, from very indolent cases to those with an aggressive prognosis. Therefore, diagnosing and treating each cancer appropriately based on its risk status is important. The Korean Thyroid Association (KTA) has provided and amended the clinical guidelines for thyroid cancer management since 2007. The main changes in this revised 2024 guideline include 1) individualization of surgical extent according to pathological tests and clinical findings, 2) application of active surveillance in low-risk papillary thyroid microcarcinoma, 3) indications for minimally invasive surgery, 4) adoption of World Health Organization pathological diagnostic criteria and definition of terminology in Korean, 5) update on literature evidence of recurrence risk for initial risk stratification, 6) addition of the role of molecular testing, 7) addition of definition of initial risk stratification and targeting thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) concentrations according to ongoing risk stratification (ORS), 8) addition of treatment of perioperative hypoparathyroidism, 9) update on systemic chemotherapy, and 10) addition of treatment for pediatric patients with thyroid cancer.

Background/Aims: The proposed eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) endoscopic reference score serves to diagnose and evaluate treatment responses in EoE.Nevertheless, the validated reference score thresholds for diagnosis and treatment response in Asian patients are yet to be established.This study aims to establish these thresholds for the first time among Asian patients with EoE. Methods: Patients presenting with ≥ 15 eosinophils/high power field and esophageal dysfunction symptoms between August 2007 andNovember 2021 were included. Age- and sex-matched non-EoE controls were also enrolled. Baseline characteristics, endoscopic reference score features, and scores were compared between patients and controls. Among patients, endoscopic reference score features and scores, along with peak eosinophil counts, were evaluated both before and after treatment. The optimal threshold was determined based on sensitivity, specificity, and the Youden index. Results: Overall, 102 patients were enrolled (74.5% men; mean age, 46.9 years). The mean endoscopic reference score was 2.65 and 0.52 for patients and controls, respectively (P < 0.001). An endoscopic reference score ≥ 2 was identified as the optimal diagnostic threshold for EoE (sensitivity, 0.79; specificity, 0.86; Youden index, 0.66). Post-treatment data regarding endoscopic findings and histology wereavailable for 30 patients. Regarding histologic response, an endoscopic reference score of ≤ 3 demonstrated the optimal threshold(sensitivity, 0.95; specificity, 0.88; Youden index, 0.83). Conclusions The optimal diagnostic and treatment response thresholds were determined to be endoscopic reference scores of ≥ 2 and ≤ 3,respectively. Further studies involving a larger patient cohort are necessary to validate these findings.

Background/Aims: The proposed eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) endoscopic reference score serves to diagnose and evaluate treatment responses in EoE.Nevertheless, the validated reference score thresholds for diagnosis and treatment response in Asian patients are yet to be established.This study aims to establish these thresholds for the first time among Asian patients with EoE. Methods: Patients presenting with ≥ 15 eosinophils/high power field and esophageal dysfunction symptoms between August 2007 andNovember 2021 were included. Age- and sex-matched non-EoE controls were also enrolled. Baseline characteristics, endoscopic reference score features, and scores were compared between patients and controls. Among patients, endoscopic reference score features and scores, along with peak eosinophil counts, were evaluated both before and after treatment. The optimal threshold was determined based on sensitivity, specificity, and the Youden index. Results: Overall, 102 patients were enrolled (74.5% men; mean age, 46.9 years). The mean endoscopic reference score was 2.65 and 0.52 for patients and controls, respectively (P < 0.001). An endoscopic reference score ≥ 2 was identified as the optimal diagnostic threshold for EoE (sensitivity, 0.79; specificity, 0.86; Youden index, 0.66). Post-treatment data regarding endoscopic findings and histology wereavailable for 30 patients. Regarding histologic response, an endoscopic reference score of ≤ 3 demonstrated the optimal threshold(sensitivity, 0.95; specificity, 0.88; Youden index, 0.83). Conclusions The optimal diagnostic and treatment response thresholds were determined to be endoscopic reference scores of ≥ 2 and ≤ 3,respectively. Further studies involving a larger patient cohort are necessary to validate these findings.

Gout is the most common form of arthritis, with the prevalence increasing worldwide. The present treatment guidelines provide recommendations for the appropriate treatment of acute gout, management during the inter-critical period, and prevention of chronic complications. The guidelines were developed based on evidence-based medicine and draft recommendations finalized after expert consensus. These guidelines are designed to provide clinicians with clinical evidence to enable efficient treatment of gout.

Gout is the most common form of arthritis, with the prevalence increasing worldwide. The present treatment guidelines provide recommendations for the appropriate treatment of acute gout, management during the inter-critical period, and prevention of chronic complications. The guidelines were developed based on evidence-based medicine and draft recommendations finalized after expert consensus. These guidelines are designed to provide clinicians with clinical evidence to enable efficient treatment of gout.