Systemic corticosteroids play an essential role in the management of asthma. During acute exacerbation, the short-term use of systemic corticosteroids is recommended. For patients with uncontrolled asthma and severe asthma, long-term and low-dose oral corticosteroids (OCS) have frequently been advocated. However, both short-term and long-term use of systemic corticosteroids carry the risk of adverse events (AEs), including various morbidities and even mortality. Despite recent progress in adult severe asthma management and the availability of new treatment options, the current domestic guidelines for asthma do not provide specific recommendations for oral corticosteroid tapering in patients with severe asthma. Therefore, the task force team of the severe asthma working group in the Korean Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Clinical Immunology has proposed a tapering protocol for systemic corticosteroid use in severe asthma. This includes practical recommendations for monitoring OCS-related AE, particularly for adrenal insufficiency and osteoporosis, which suggests corticosteroid-sparing strategies that include alternative therapies, modifying treatable traits, timely specialist assessment, and shared decision-making with patients. However, further real-world research and collaboration with doctors from primary and academic institutes, patients, and policymakers are necessary to establish an OCS stewardship approach. This should include realistic OCS-tapering strategies for patients with severe asthma using regular OCS, education, and campaigns for patients, the public, and healthcare providers about the burden of severe asthma, as well as improving timely access to specialized severe asthma services for optimal management.

Systemic corticosteroids play an essential role in the management of asthma. During acute exacerbation, the short-term use of systemic corticosteroids is recommended. For patients with uncontrolled asthma and severe asthma, long-term and low-dose oral corticosteroids (OCS) have frequently been advocated. However, both short-term and long-term use of systemic corticosteroids carry the risk of adverse events (AEs), including various morbidities and even mortality. Despite recent progress in adult severe asthma management and the availability of new treatment options, the current domestic guidelines for asthma do not provide specific recommendations for oral corticosteroid tapering in patients with severe asthma. Therefore, the task force team of the severe asthma working group in the Korean Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Clinical Immunology has proposed a tapering protocol for systemic corticosteroid use in severe asthma. This includes practical recommendations for monitoring OCS-related AE, particularly for adrenal insufficiency and osteoporosis, which suggests corticosteroid-sparing strategies that include alternative therapies, modifying treatable traits, timely specialist assessment, and shared decision-making with patients. However, further real-world research and collaboration with doctors from primary and academic institutes, patients, and policymakers are necessary to establish an OCS stewardship approach. This should include realistic OCS-tapering strategies for patients with severe asthma using regular OCS, education, and campaigns for patients, the public, and healthcare providers about the burden of severe asthma, as well as improving timely access to specialized severe asthma services for optimal management.

Systemic corticosteroids play an essential role in the management of asthma. During acute exacerbation, the short-term use of systemic corticosteroids is recommended. For patients with uncontrolled asthma and severe asthma, long-term and low-dose oral corticosteroids (OCS) have frequently been advocated. However, both short-term and long-term use of systemic corticosteroids carry the risk of adverse events (AEs), including various morbidities and even mortality. Despite recent progress in adult severe asthma management and the availability of new treatment options, the current domestic guidelines for asthma do not provide specific recommendations for oral corticosteroid tapering in patients with severe asthma. Therefore, the task force team of the severe asthma working group in the Korean Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Clinical Immunology has proposed a tapering protocol for systemic corticosteroid use in severe asthma. This includes practical recommendations for monitoring OCS-related AE, particularly for adrenal insufficiency and osteoporosis, which suggests corticosteroid-sparing strategies that include alternative therapies, modifying treatable traits, timely specialist assessment, and shared decision-making with patients. However, further real-world research and collaboration with doctors from primary and academic institutes, patients, and policymakers are necessary to establish an OCS stewardship approach. This should include realistic OCS-tapering strategies for patients with severe asthma using regular OCS, education, and campaigns for patients, the public, and healthcare providers about the burden of severe asthma, as well as improving timely access to specialized severe asthma services for optimal management.

Systemic corticosteroids play an essential role in the management of asthma. During acute exacerbation, the short-term use of systemic corticosteroids is recommended. For patients with uncontrolled asthma and severe asthma, long-term and low-dose oral corticosteroids (OCS) have frequently been advocated. However, both short-term and long-term use of systemic corticosteroids carry the risk of adverse events (AEs), including various morbidities and even mortality. Despite recent progress in adult severe asthma management and the availability of new treatment options, the current domestic guidelines for asthma do not provide specific recommendations for oral corticosteroid tapering in patients with severe asthma. Therefore, the task force team of the severe asthma working group in the Korean Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Clinical Immunology has proposed a tapering protocol for systemic corticosteroid use in severe asthma. This includes practical recommendations for monitoring OCS-related AE, particularly for adrenal insufficiency and osteoporosis, which suggests corticosteroid-sparing strategies that include alternative therapies, modifying treatable traits, timely specialist assessment, and shared decision-making with patients. However, further real-world research and collaboration with doctors from primary and academic institutes, patients, and policymakers are necessary to establish an OCS stewardship approach. This should include realistic OCS-tapering strategies for patients with severe asthma using regular OCS, education, and campaigns for patients, the public, and healthcare providers about the burden of severe asthma, as well as improving timely access to specialized severe asthma services for optimal management.

Systemic corticosteroids play an essential role in the management of asthma. During acute exacerbation, the short-term use of systemic corticosteroids is recommended. For patients with uncontrolled asthma and severe asthma, long-term and low-dose oral corticosteroids (OCS) have frequently been advocated. However, both short-term and long-term use of systemic corticosteroids carry the risk of adverse events (AEs), including various morbidities and even mortality. Despite recent progress in adult severe asthma management and the availability of new treatment options, the current domestic guidelines for asthma do not provide specific recommendations for oral corticosteroid tapering in patients with severe asthma. Therefore, the task force team of the severe asthma working group in the Korean Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Clinical Immunology has proposed a tapering protocol for systemic corticosteroid use in severe asthma. This includes practical recommendations for monitoring OCS-related AE, particularly for adrenal insufficiency and osteoporosis, which suggests corticosteroid-sparing strategies that include alternative therapies, modifying treatable traits, timely specialist assessment, and shared decision-making with patients. However, further real-world research and collaboration with doctors from primary and academic institutes, patients, and policymakers are necessary to establish an OCS stewardship approach. This should include realistic OCS-tapering strategies for patients with severe asthma using regular OCS, education, and campaigns for patients, the public, and healthcare providers about the burden of severe asthma, as well as improving timely access to specialized severe asthma services for optimal management.

Background: Flow cytometric immunophenotyping of hematolymphoid neoplasms (FCIHLN) is essential for diagnosis, classification, and minimal residual disease (MRD) monitoring. FCI-HLN is typically performed using in-house protocols, raising the need for standardization. Therefore, we surveyed the current status of FCI-HLN in Korea to obtain fundamental data for quality improvement and standardization. Methods: Eight university hospitals actively conducting FCI-HLN participated in our survey.We analyzed responses to a questionnaire that included inquiries regarding test items, reagent antibodies (RAs), fluorophores, sample amounts (SAs), reagent antibody amounts (RAAs), acquisition cell number (ACN), isotype control (IC) usage, positiveegative criteria, and reporting. Results: Most hospitals used acute HLN, chronic HLN, plasma cell neoplasm (PCN), and MRD panels. The numbers of RAs were heterogeneous, with a maximum of 32, 26, 12, 14, and 10 antibodies used for acute HLN, chronic HLN, PCN, ALL-MRD, and multiple myeloma-MRD, respectively. The number of fluorophores ranged from 4 to 10. RAs, SAs, RAAs, and ACN were diverse. Most hospitals used a positive criterion of 20%, whereas one used 10% for acute and chronic HLN panels. Five hospitals used ICs for the negative criterion. Positiveegative assignments, percentages, and general opinions were commonly reported. In MRD reporting, the limit of detection and lower limit of quantification were included. Conclusions This is the first comprehensive study on the current status of FCI-HLN in Korea, confirming the high heterogeneity and complexity of FCI-HLN practices. Standardization of FCI-HLN is urgently needed. The findings provide a reference for establishing standard FCI-HLN guidelines.

Background/Aims: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) play a crucial role in managing laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR), but the optimal dosing regimen remains unclear. We aim to compare the effectiveness of the same total PPI dose administered twice daily versus once daily in LPR patients. Methods: We conducted a prospective randomized controlled trial at a tertiary referral hospital, enrolling a total of 132 patients aged 19 to 79 with LPR. These patients were randomly assigned to receive either a 10 mg twice daily (BID) or a 20 mg once daily (QD) dose of ilaprazole for 12 weeks. The Reflux Symptom Index (RSI) and Reflux Finding Score (RFS) were assessed at 8 weeks and 16 weeks. The primary endpoint was the RSI response, defined as a reduction of 50% or more in the total RSI score from baseline. We also analyzed the efficacy of the dosing regimens and the impact of dosing and duration on treatment outcomes. Results: The BID group did not display a higher response rate for RSI than the QD group. The changes in total RSI scores at the 8-week and 16-week visits showed no significant differences between the 2 groups. Total RFS alterations were also comparable between both groups.Each dosing regimen demonstrated significant decreases in RSI and RFS. Conclusions Both BID and QD PPI dosing regimens improved subjective symptom scores and objective laryngoscopic findings. There was no significant difference in RSI improvement between the 2 dosing regimens, indicating that either dosing regimen could be considered a viable treatment option.

Background/Aims: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) play a crucial role in managing laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR), but the optimal dosing regimen remains unclear. We aim to compare the effectiveness of the same total PPI dose administered twice daily versus once daily in LPR patients. Methods: We conducted a prospective randomized controlled trial at a tertiary referral hospital, enrolling a total of 132 patients aged 19 to 79 with LPR. These patients were randomly assigned to receive either a 10 mg twice daily (BID) or a 20 mg once daily (QD) dose of ilaprazole for 12 weeks. The Reflux Symptom Index (RSI) and Reflux Finding Score (RFS) were assessed at 8 weeks and 16 weeks. The primary endpoint was the RSI response, defined as a reduction of 50% or more in the total RSI score from baseline. We also analyzed the efficacy of the dosing regimens and the impact of dosing and duration on treatment outcomes. Results: The BID group did not display a higher response rate for RSI than the QD group. The changes in total RSI scores at the 8-week and 16-week visits showed no significant differences between the 2 groups. Total RFS alterations were also comparable between both groups.Each dosing regimen demonstrated significant decreases in RSI and RFS. Conclusions Both BID and QD PPI dosing regimens improved subjective symptom scores and objective laryngoscopic findings. There was no significant difference in RSI improvement between the 2 dosing regimens, indicating that either dosing regimen could be considered a viable treatment option.

Viral load and the duration of viral shedding of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are important determinants of the transmission of coronavirus disease 2019.In this study, we examined the effects of viral doses on the lung and spleen of K18-hACE2 transgenic mice by temporal histological and transcriptional analyses. Approximately, 1×105 plaque-forming units (PFU) of SARS-CoV-2 induced strong host responses in the lungs from 2 days post inoculation (dpi) which did not recover until the mice died, whereas responses to the virus were obvious at 5 days, recovering to the basal state by 14 dpi at 1×102 PFU. Further, flow cytometry showed that number of CD8+ T cells continuously increased in 1×102 PFU-virusinfected lungs from 2 dpi, but not in 1×105 PFU-virus-infected lungs. In spleens, responses to the virus were prominent from 2 dpi, and number of B cells was significantly decreased at 1×105PFU; however, 1×102 PFU of virus induced very weak responses from 2 dpi which recovered by 10 dpi. Although the defense responses returned to normal and the mice survived, lung histology showed evidence of fibrosis, suggesting sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Our findings indicate that specific effectors of the immune response in the lung and spleen were either increased or depleted in response to doses of SARS-CoV-2. This study demonstrated that the response of local and systemic immune effectors to a viral infection varies with viral dose, which either exacerbates the severity of the infection or accelerates its elimination.

Background/Aims: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) play a crucial role in managing laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR), but the optimal dosing regimen remains unclear. We aim to compare the effectiveness of the same total PPI dose administered twice daily versus once daily in LPR patients. Methods: We conducted a prospective randomized controlled trial at a tertiary referral hospital, enrolling a total of 132 patients aged 19 to 79 with LPR. These patients were randomly assigned to receive either a 10 mg twice daily (BID) or a 20 mg once daily (QD) dose of ilaprazole for 12 weeks. The Reflux Symptom Index (RSI) and Reflux Finding Score (RFS) were assessed at 8 weeks and 16 weeks. The primary endpoint was the RSI response, defined as a reduction of 50% or more in the total RSI score from baseline. We also analyzed the efficacy of the dosing regimens and the impact of dosing and duration on treatment outcomes. Results: The BID group did not display a higher response rate for RSI than the QD group. The changes in total RSI scores at the 8-week and 16-week visits showed no significant differences between the 2 groups. Total RFS alterations were also comparable between both groups.Each dosing regimen demonstrated significant decreases in RSI and RFS. Conclusions Both BID and QD PPI dosing regimens improved subjective symptom scores and objective laryngoscopic findings. There was no significant difference in RSI improvement between the 2 dosing regimens, indicating that either dosing regimen could be considered a viable treatment option.