Purpose: The novel curability criteria for elderly (EL) patients have been proposed to stratify their risk of lymph node metastasis (LNM), following non-curative endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for early gastric cancer (EGC). Hence, this study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the EL criteria and compare them with those of the well-known eCura system. Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on 143 patients who did not meet the curative ESD criteria at a tertiary hospital in Korea between 2011 and 2022. Of these, 102 underwent additional surgery, while 41 were followed up without further treatment. The LNM rates based on the EL and eCura systems were stratified and compared. Results: In the surgery group, 29.4% (30/102) patients were classified as EL-low (EL-L) and 70.2% (72/102) as EL-high (EL-H). The LNM rates (95% confidence interval) were 0.0% (0.0–11.6) and 9.7% (4.0–19.0) for EL-L and EL-H, respectively (P=0.102). EL-L was closely aligned with the eCura low-risk category, with a similar patient proportion (32.4%) and an LNM rate of 0.0% (0.0–10.6). The eCura system classified 94.1% (48/51) of the EL-L patients as lowrisk, with an 86% concordance rate (123/143). Discordant cases included patients with positive vertical margins, but without other risk factors, who were classified as EL-H without LNM. Conclusions Patients with EL-L showed no LNM, and the EL criteria demonstrated high concordance with the eCura system. The EL criteria may be as effective as the eCura system in identifying low-risk patients after non-curative ESD for EGC.

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.

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.

Purpose: The novel curability criteria for elderly (EL) patients have been proposed to stratify their risk of lymph node metastasis (LNM), following non-curative endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for early gastric cancer (EGC). Hence, this study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the EL criteria and compare them with those of the well-known eCura system. Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on 143 patients who did not meet the curative ESD criteria at a tertiary hospital in Korea between 2011 and 2022. Of these, 102 underwent additional surgery, while 41 were followed up without further treatment. The LNM rates based on the EL and eCura systems were stratified and compared. Results: In the surgery group, 29.4% (30/102) patients were classified as EL-low (EL-L) and 70.2% (72/102) as EL-high (EL-H). The LNM rates (95% confidence interval) were 0.0% (0.0–11.6) and 9.7% (4.0–19.0) for EL-L and EL-H, respectively (P=0.102). EL-L was closely aligned with the eCura low-risk category, with a similar patient proportion (32.4%) and an LNM rate of 0.0% (0.0–10.6). The eCura system classified 94.1% (48/51) of the EL-L patients as lowrisk, with an 86% concordance rate (123/143). Discordant cases included patients with positive vertical margins, but without other risk factors, who were classified as EL-H without LNM. Conclusions Patients with EL-L showed no LNM, and the EL criteria demonstrated high concordance with the eCura system. The EL criteria may be as effective as the eCura system in identifying low-risk patients after non-curative ESD for EGC.

Purpose: The novel curability criteria for elderly (EL) patients have been proposed to stratify their risk of lymph node metastasis (LNM), following non-curative endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for early gastric cancer (EGC). Hence, this study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the EL criteria and compare them with those of the well-known eCura system. Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on 143 patients who did not meet the curative ESD criteria at a tertiary hospital in Korea between 2011 and 2022. Of these, 102 underwent additional surgery, while 41 were followed up without further treatment. The LNM rates based on the EL and eCura systems were stratified and compared. Results: In the surgery group, 29.4% (30/102) patients were classified as EL-low (EL-L) and 70.2% (72/102) as EL-high (EL-H). The LNM rates (95% confidence interval) were 0.0% (0.0–11.6) and 9.7% (4.0–19.0) for EL-L and EL-H, respectively (P=0.102). EL-L was closely aligned with the eCura low-risk category, with a similar patient proportion (32.4%) and an LNM rate of 0.0% (0.0–10.6). The eCura system classified 94.1% (48/51) of the EL-L patients as lowrisk, with an 86% concordance rate (123/143). Discordant cases included patients with positive vertical margins, but without other risk factors, who were classified as EL-H without LNM. Conclusions Patients with EL-L showed no LNM, and the EL criteria demonstrated high concordance with the eCura system. The EL criteria may be as effective as the eCura system in identifying low-risk patients after non-curative ESD for EGC.

In the 2023–2024 season, the influenza epidemic in South Korea peaked earlier than in recent years. In this study, we aimed to estimate the interim vaccine effectiveness (VE) of the influenza vaccination to prevent influenza during the early season. From November 1, 2023, to December 31, 2023, we enrolled 2,632 subjects with influenza-like illness from eight hospitals participating in hospital-based influenza morbidity and mortality surveillance. A retrospective test-negative case-control study was conducted to estimate the VE. The results showed an adjusted VE of 22.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.6 to 35.8) for the total population. The adjusted VE was 22.3% (95% CI, 6.1 to 35.7) for influenza A and 9.4% (95% CI, −51.3 to 45.7) for influenza A/H1N1. Full results of the analysis will be reported.

Background: Bivalent booster mRNA vaccines containing the omicron-variant strains have been introduced worldwide in the autumn of 2022. Nevertheless, the omicron subvariants evoked another large coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic wave in late 2022 and early 2023. Methods: A retrospective, test-negative, case-control study was conducted to estimate the vaccine effectiveness (VE) of bivalent COVID-19 vaccines in 8 university hospitals between January and February 2023. The case and control groups were divided based on nasopharyngeal COVID-19 real-time polymerase chain reaction results and matched based on age, sex, hospital, and date (week) of the test performed. The VE of the BA.1- or BA.4/BA.5-based mRNA vaccines were estimated. VE was calculated using the 1−adjusted odds ratio from multivariable logistic regression. Results: In total, 949 patients and 947 controls were enrolled in this study. VE for the BA.4/ BA.5-based bivalent mRNA vaccine was 43% (95% confidence interval [CI], 17, 61%). In subgroup analysis based on age and underlying medical conditions, BA.4/BA.5-based bivalent mRNA vaccine was effective against old adults aged ≥ 65-years (VE, 55%; 95% CI, 23, 73%) and individuals with comorbidities (VE, 54%; 95% CI, 23, 73%). In comparison, the BA.1-based bivalent mRNA vaccine did not demonstrate statistically significant effectiveness (VE, 25%; 95% CI, −8, 49%). Conclusion The BA.4/BA.5-based bivalent mRNA booster vaccine provided significant protection against COVID-19 in the Korean adults, especially in the older adults aged ≥ 65 years and in individuals with underlying medical conditions.