Background: Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is called ‘smoker’s disease’ because it is strongly associated with smoking and most cases occur in smokers. However, it can also occur in never smokers. We investigated the clinical features of never smokers with SCLC and compared their treatment outcomes with those of smokers with SCLC. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of patients who had proven SCLC and had received chemotherapy at a single cancer center between July 2002 and April 2021. Results: Of 1,643 patients, 1,416 (86.2%) were enrolled in this study. A total of 162 (11.4%) and 1,254 (88.6%) patients were never smokers and smokers, respectively. There were more female never smokers than smokers (n=130; 80.2% vs. 79, 6.3%, p=0.000), and the incidence of ischemic heart disease was lower among never smokers than among smokers (4/1,416, [2.5%] vs. 83/1,416 [6.6%], p=0.036). Never smokers showed less symptoms at diagnosis than smokers (80.9% vs. 87.2%, p=0.037); however, they showed more toxicity after first-line treatment (61.7% vs. 47.8%, p=0.001). The objective response rate (ORR) was significantly higher in never smokers (74.1% vs. 59.6%, p=0.000). In the multivariate analysis, never smoking and second-line treatment were associated with a better ORR. However, progression-free survival and overall survival were not significantly different between never smokers and smokers. Conclusion In conclusion, never smokers accounted for 11.4% of patients with SCLC. They had distinguishing clinical characteristics and showed better chemotherapeutic responses than smokers.

Background: Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is called ‘smoker’s disease’ because it is strongly associated with smoking and most cases occur in smokers. However, it can also occur in never smokers. We investigated the clinical features of never smokers with SCLC and compared their treatment outcomes with those of smokers with SCLC. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of patients who had proven SCLC and had received chemotherapy at a single cancer center between July 2002 and April 2021. Results: Of 1,643 patients, 1,416 (86.2%) were enrolled in this study. A total of 162 (11.4%) and 1,254 (88.6%) patients were never smokers and smokers, respectively. There were more female never smokers than smokers (n=130; 80.2% vs. 79, 6.3%, p=0.000), and the incidence of ischemic heart disease was lower among never smokers than among smokers (4/1,416, [2.5%] vs. 83/1,416 [6.6%], p=0.036). Never smokers showed less symptoms at diagnosis than smokers (80.9% vs. 87.2%, p=0.037); however, they showed more toxicity after first-line treatment (61.7% vs. 47.8%, p=0.001). The objective response rate (ORR) was significantly higher in never smokers (74.1% vs. 59.6%, p=0.000). In the multivariate analysis, never smoking and second-line treatment were associated with a better ORR. However, progression-free survival and overall survival were not significantly different between never smokers and smokers. Conclusion In conclusion, never smokers accounted for 11.4% of patients with SCLC. They had distinguishing clinical characteristics and showed better chemotherapeutic responses than smokers.

Background: Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is called ‘smoker’s disease’ because it is strongly associated with smoking and most cases occur in smokers. However, it can also occur in never smokers. We investigated the clinical features of never smokers with SCLC and compared their treatment outcomes with those of smokers with SCLC. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of patients who had proven SCLC and had received chemotherapy at a single cancer center between July 2002 and April 2021. Results: Of 1,643 patients, 1,416 (86.2%) were enrolled in this study. A total of 162 (11.4%) and 1,254 (88.6%) patients were never smokers and smokers, respectively. There were more female never smokers than smokers (n=130; 80.2% vs. 79, 6.3%, p=0.000), and the incidence of ischemic heart disease was lower among never smokers than among smokers (4/1,416, [2.5%] vs. 83/1,416 [6.6%], p=0.036). Never smokers showed less symptoms at diagnosis than smokers (80.9% vs. 87.2%, p=0.037); however, they showed more toxicity after first-line treatment (61.7% vs. 47.8%, p=0.001). The objective response rate (ORR) was significantly higher in never smokers (74.1% vs. 59.6%, p=0.000). In the multivariate analysis, never smoking and second-line treatment were associated with a better ORR. However, progression-free survival and overall survival were not significantly different between never smokers and smokers. Conclusion In conclusion, never smokers accounted for 11.4% of patients with SCLC. They had distinguishing clinical characteristics and showed better chemotherapeutic responses than smokers.

Background: Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is called ‘smoker’s disease’ because it is strongly associated with smoking and most cases occur in smokers. However, it can also occur in never smokers. We investigated the clinical features of never smokers with SCLC and compared their treatment outcomes with those of smokers with SCLC. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of patients who had proven SCLC and had received chemotherapy at a single cancer center between July 2002 and April 2021. Results: Of 1,643 patients, 1,416 (86.2%) were enrolled in this study. A total of 162 (11.4%) and 1,254 (88.6%) patients were never smokers and smokers, respectively. There were more female never smokers than smokers (n=130; 80.2% vs. 79, 6.3%, p=0.000), and the incidence of ischemic heart disease was lower among never smokers than among smokers (4/1,416, [2.5%] vs. 83/1,416 [6.6%], p=0.036). Never smokers showed less symptoms at diagnosis than smokers (80.9% vs. 87.2%, p=0.037); however, they showed more toxicity after first-line treatment (61.7% vs. 47.8%, p=0.001). The objective response rate (ORR) was significantly higher in never smokers (74.1% vs. 59.6%, p=0.000). In the multivariate analysis, never smoking and second-line treatment were associated with a better ORR. However, progression-free survival and overall survival were not significantly different between never smokers and smokers. Conclusion In conclusion, never smokers accounted for 11.4% of patients with SCLC. They had distinguishing clinical characteristics and showed better chemotherapeutic responses than smokers.

Background: Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is called ‘smoker’s disease’ because it is strongly associated with smoking and most cases occur in smokers. However, it can also occur in never smokers. We investigated the clinical features of never smokers with SCLC and compared their treatment outcomes with those of smokers with SCLC. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical data of patients who had proven SCLC and had received chemotherapy at a single cancer center between July 2002 and April 2021. Results: Of 1,643 patients, 1,416 (86.2%) were enrolled in this study. A total of 162 (11.4%) and 1,254 (88.6%) patients were never smokers and smokers, respectively. There were more female never smokers than smokers (n=130; 80.2% vs. 79, 6.3%, p=0.000), and the incidence of ischemic heart disease was lower among never smokers than among smokers (4/1,416, [2.5%] vs. 83/1,416 [6.6%], p=0.036). Never smokers showed less symptoms at diagnosis than smokers (80.9% vs. 87.2%, p=0.037); however, they showed more toxicity after first-line treatment (61.7% vs. 47.8%, p=0.001). The objective response rate (ORR) was significantly higher in never smokers (74.1% vs. 59.6%, p=0.000). In the multivariate analysis, never smoking and second-line treatment were associated with a better ORR. However, progression-free survival and overall survival were not significantly different between never smokers and smokers. Conclusion In conclusion, never smokers accounted for 11.4% of patients with SCLC. They had distinguishing clinical characteristics and showed better chemotherapeutic responses than smokers.

Background: Patients with septic shock frequently require tracheal intubation in the emergency department (ED). However, the criteria for tracheal intubation are subjective, based on physician experience, or require serial evaluations over relatively long intervals to make accurate predictions, which might not be feasible in the ED. We used supervised learning approaches and features routinely available during the initial stages of evaluation and resuscitation to stratify the risks of tracheal intubation within a 24-hour time window. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the data of patients diagnosed with septic shock based on the SEPSIS-3 criteria across 21 university hospital EDs in the Republic of Korea. A principal component analysis revealed a complex, non-linear decision boundary with respect to the application of tracheal intubation within a 24-hour time window. Stratified five-fold cross validation and a grid search were used with extreme gradient boost. Shapley values were calculated to explain feature importance and preferences. Results: In total, data for 4,762 patients were analyzed; within that population, 1,486 (31%) were intubated within a 24-hour window, and 3,276 (69%) were not. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and F1 scores for intubation within a 24-hour window were 0.829 (95% CI, 0.801–0.878) and 0.654 (95% CI, 0.627–0.681), respectively. The Shapley values identified lactate level after initial fluids, suspected lung infection, initial pH, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score at enrollment, and respiratory rate at enrollment as important features for prediction. Conclusions An extreme gradient boosting machine can moderately discriminate whether intubation is warranted within 24 hours of the recognition of septic shock in the ED.

COVID-19 can lead to pulmonary complications, including organizing pneumonia.Steroids are essential in treating post-COVID-19 organizing pneumonia. However, research on the clinical benefits of initiating steroid treatment early for this condition is limited. To investigate the steroid initiation time in its association with treatment duration and corticosteroid dose for treating post-COVID-19 organizing pneumonia, we analyzed the data of 91 patients with post-COVID-19 organizing pneumonia at Chonnam National University Hospital between October 2020 and December 2022.Patients were categorized into early and late groups based on time from COVID-19 diagnosis to steroid initiation time for organizing pneumonia. The mean time interval between COVID-19 infection and steroid initiation time for treating organizing pneumonia, was 18.4±8.6 days. Within the early treatment group (treatment initiated ＜18.4 days after COVID-19), which included 55 patients, the mean duration of steroid treatment was 43.1±18.3days. In contrast, the late treatment group (initiated ≥18.4 days after COVID-19), which consisted of 36 patients, had a longer mean duration of steroid treatment 59.1±22.6 days) (p＜0.01). Regarding corticosteroid dosing, the early treatment group had an average dosage of 0.5±0.3 mg/kg/day, in contrast to the late group, which averaged 0.8±0.3 mg/kg/day (p＜0.01). Regression analysis showed steroid initiation time significantly influenced treatment duration (=0.80 , p＜0.01) and dosage (=0.03, p＜0.01). The clinical benefits of early steroid treatment for post-COVID-19 organizing pneumonia may lie in its association with reduced steroid treatment duration and dosage.

The Korean Society of Infectious Diseases has been regularly developing guidelines for adult immunization since 2007. In 2023, the guidelines for the following seven vaccines were revised: influenza, herpes zoster, pneumococcal, tetanus-diphtheria-pertussis (Tdap), human papillomavirus (HPV), meningococcal, and rabies vaccines. For the influenza vaccine, a recommendation for enhanced vaccines for the elderly was added. For the herpes zoster vaccine, a recommendation for the recombinant zoster vaccine was added. For the pneumococcal vaccine, the current status of the 15-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine and 20-valent PCV was described. For the Tdap vaccine, the possibility of using Tdap instead of tetanus-diphtheria vaccine was described. For the HPV vaccine, the expansion of the eligible age for vaccination was described. For the meningococcal vaccine, a recommendation for the meningococcal B vaccine was added. For the rabies vaccine, the number of pre-exposure prophylaxis doses was changed. This manuscript documents the summary and rationale of the revisions for the seven vaccines. For the vaccines not mentioned in this manuscript, the recommendations in the 3rd edition of the Vaccinations for Adults textbook shall remain in effect.

Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (BCG) vaccine is the only licensed vaccine for tuberculosis (TB) prevention. Previously, our group demonstrated the vaccine potential of Rv0351 and Rv3628 against Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Mtb) infection by directing Th1-biased CD4 + T cells coexpressing IFN-γ, TNF-α, and IL-2 in the lungs. Here, we assessed immunogenicity and vaccine potential of the combined Ags (Rv0351/Rv3628) formulated in different adjuvants as subunit booster in BCG-primed mice against hypervirulent clinical Mtb strain K (Mtb K). Compared to BCG-only or subunit-only vaccine, BCG prime and subunit boost regimen exhibited significantly enhanced Th1 response. Next, we evaluated the immunogenicity to the combined Ags when formulated with four different types of monophosphoryl lipid A (MPL)-based adjuvants: 1) dimethyldioctadecylammonium bromide (DDA), MPL, and trehalose dicorynomycolate (TDM) in liposome form (DMT), 2) MPL and Poly I:C in liposome form (MP), 3) MPL, Poly I:C, and QS21 in liposome form (MPQ), and 4) MPL and Poly I:C in squalene emulsion form (MPS). MPQ and MPS displayed greater adjuvancity in Th1 induction than DMT or MP did. Especially, BCG prime and subunit-MPS boost regimen significantly reduced the bacterial loads and pulmonary inflammation against Mtb K infection when compared to BCG-only vaccine at a chronic stage of TB disease. Collectively, our findings highlighted the importance of adjuvant components and formulation to induce the enhanced protection with an optimal Th1 response.

The area of endoscopic application has been continuously expanded since its introduction in the last century and the frequency of its use also increased stiffly in the last decades. Because gastrointestinal endoscopy is naturally exposed to diseased internal organs and contact with pathogenic materials, endoscopy mediated infection or disease transmission becomes a major concern in this field. Gastrointestinal endoscopy is not for single use and the proper reprocessing process is a critical factor for safe and reliable endoscopy procedures. What needed in these circumstances is a practical guideline for reprocessing the endoscope and its accessories which is feasible in the real clinical field to guarantee acceptable prevention of pathogen transmission. This guideline contains principles and instructions of the reprocessing procedure according to the step by step. And it newly includes general information and updated knowledge about endoscopy-mediated infection and disinfection. Multiple societies and working groups participated to revise; Korean Association for the Study of the Liver, the Korean Society of Infectious Diseases, Korean College of Helicobacter and Upper Gastrointestinal Research, the Korean Society of Gastroenterology, Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Cancer, Korean Association for the Study of Intestinal Diseases, Korean Pancreatobiliary Association, the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Nurses and Associates and Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Through this cooperation, we enhanced communication and established a better concordance. We still need more researches in this field and fill up the unproven area. And our guidelines will be renewed accordingly.