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.

Background: Limited data are available on the mortality rates of patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We aimed to analyze the relationship between COVID-19 and clinical outcomes for patients receiving ECMO. Methods: We retrospectively investigated patients with COVID-19 pneumonia requiring ECMO in 19 hospitals across Korea from January 1, 2020 to August 31, 2021. The primary outcome was the 90-day mortality after ECMO initiation. We performed multivariate analysis using a logistic regression model to estimate the odds ratio (OR) of 90-day mortality. Survival differences were analyzed using the Kaplan–Meier (KM) method. Results: Of 127 patients with COVID-19 pneumonia who received ECMO, 70 patients (55.1%) died within 90 days of ECMO initiation. The median age was 64 years, and 63% of patients were male. The incidence of ECMO was increased with age but was decreased after 70 years of age. However, the survival rate was decreased linearly with age. In multivariate analysis, age (OR, 1.048; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.010–1.089; P = 0.014) and receipt of continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) (OR, 3.069; 95% CI, 1.312–7.180; P = 0.010) were significantly associated with an increased risk of 90-day mortality. KM curves showed significant differences in survival between groups according to age (65 years) (log-rank P = 0.021) and receipt of CRRT (log-rank P = 0.004). Conclusion Older age and receipt of CRRT were associated with higher mortality rates among patients with COVID-19 who received ECMO.

Objective: This study was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lurasidone (160 mg/day) compared to quetiapine XR (QXR; 600 mg/day) in the treatment of acutely psychotic patients with schizophrenia. Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to 6 weeks of double-blind treatment with lurasidone 160 mg/day (n=105) or QXR 600 mg/day (n=105). Primary efficacy measure was the change from baseline to week 6 in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score and Clinical Global Impressions severity (CGI-S) score. Adverse events, body measurements, and laboratory parameters were assessed. Results: Lurasidone demonstrated non-inferiority to QXR on the PANSS total score. Adjusted mean±standard error change at week 6 on the PANSS total score was -26.42±2.02 and -27.33±2.01 in the lurasidone and QXR group, respectively. The mean difference score was -0.91 (95% confidence interval -6.35–4.53). The lurasidone group showed a greater reduction in PANSS total and negative subscale on week 1 and a greater reduction in end-point CGI-S score compared to the QXR group. Body weight, body mass index, and waist circumference in the lurasidone group were reduced, with significantly lower mean change compared to QXR. Endpoint changes in glucose, cholesterol, triglycerides, and low-density lipoprotein levels were also significantly lower. The most common adverse drug reactions with lurasidone were akathisia and nausea. Conclusion Lurasidone 160 mg/day was found to be non-inferior to QXR 600 mg/day in the treatment of schizophrenia with comparable efficacy and tolerability. Adverse effects of lurasidone were generally tolerable, and beneficial effects on metabolic parameters can be expected.

Background: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, there was a shortage of medical resources and the need for proper treatment guidelines for brain tumor patients became more pressing. Thus, the Korean Society for Neuro-Oncology (KSNO), a multidisciplinary academic society, has undertaken efforts to develop a guideline that is tailored to the domestic situation and that can be used in similar crisis situations in the future. As part II of the guideline, this consensus survey is to suggest management options in specific clinical scenarios during the crisis period. Methods: The KSNO Guideline Working Group consisted of 22 multidisciplinary experts on neuro-oncology in Korea. In order to confirm a consensus reached by the experts, opinions on 5 specific clinical scenarios about the management of brain tumor patients during the crisis period were devised and asked. To build-up the consensus process, Delphi method was employed. Results: The summary of the final consensus from each scenario are as follows. For patients with newly diagnosed astrocytoma with isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH)-mutant and oligodendroglioma with IDH-mutant/1p19q codeleted, observation was preferred for patients with low-risk, World Health Organization (WHO) grade 2, and Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS) ≥60, while adjuvant radiotherapy alone was preferred for patients with high-risk, WHO grade 2, and KPS ≥60. For newly diagnosed patients with glioblastoma, the most preferred adjuvant treatment strategy after surgery was radiotherapy plus temozolomide except for patients aged ≥70 years with KPS of 60 and unmethylated MGMT promoters. In patients with symptomatic brain metastasis, the preferred treatment differed according to the number of brain metastasis and performance status. For patients with newly diagnosed atypical meningioma, adjuvant radiation was deferred in patients with older age, poor performance status, complete resection, or low mitotic count. Conclusion It is imperative that proper medical care for brain tumor patients be sustained and provided, even during the crisis period. The findings of this consensus survey will be a useful reference in determining appropriate treatment options for brain tumor patients in the specific clinical scenarios covered by the survey during the future crisis.

Background: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the need for appropriate treatment guidelines for patients with brain tumors was indispensable due to the lack and limitations of medical resources. Thus, the Korean Society for Neuro-Oncology (KSNO), a multidisciplinary academic society, has undertaken efforts to develop a guideline that is tailored to the domestic situation and that can be used in similar crisis situations in the future. Methods: The KSNO Guideline Working Group was composed of 22 multidisciplinary experts on neuro-oncology in Korea. In order to reach consensus among the experts, the Delphi method was used to build up the final recommendations. Results: All participating experts completed the series of surveys, and the results of final survey were used to draft the current consensus recommendations. Priority levels of surgery and radiotherapy during crises were proposed using appropriate time window-based criteria for management outcome. The highest priority for surgery is assigned to patients who are life-threatening or have a risk of significant impact on a patient’s prognosis unless immediate intervention is given within 24–48 hours. As for the radiotherapy, patients who are at risk of compromising their overall survival or neurological status within 4–6 weeks are assigned to the highest priority. Curative-intent chemotherapy has the highest priority, followed by neoadjuvant/adjuvant and palliative chemotherapy during a crisis period. Telemedicine should be actively considered as a management tool for brain tumor patients during the mass infection crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusion It is crucial that adequate medical care for patients with brain tumors is maintained and provided, even during times of crisis. This guideline will serve as a valuable resource, assisting in the delivery of treatment to brain tumor patients in the event of any future crisis.

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in Korea and the world. Since 2004, this is the 4th gastric cancer guideline published in Korea which is the revised version of previous evidence-based approach in 2018. Current guideline is a collaborative work of the interdisciplinary working group including experts in the field of gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology and guideline development methodology. Total of 33 key questions were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group and 40 statements were developed according to the systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and KoreaMed database. The level of evidence and the grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation proposition. Evidence level, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability was considered as the significant factors for recommendation. The working group reviewed recommendations and discussed for consensus. In the earlier part, general consideration discusses screening, diagnosis and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. Flowchart is depicted with statements which is supported by meta-analysis and references. Since clinical trial and systematic review was not suitable for postoperative oncologic and nutritional follow-up, working group agreed to conduct a nationwide survey investigating the clinical practice of all tertiary or general hospitals in Korea. The purpose of this survey was to provide baseline information on follow up. Herein we present a multidisciplinary-evidence based gastric cancer guideline.

Intramuscular myxoma is a rare benign myxoid tumor that is difficult to differentiate from other benign soft tissue tumors and sarcoma, and as a result, intramuscular myxoma is commonly misdiagnosed as another type of soft tissue tumor. Accordingly, awareness of the existence of this condition is a fundamental requirement for treatment decision-making. Furthermore, although intramuscular myxoma appears grossly to be well-circumscribed, it can infiltrate adjacent soft tissue microscopically. Tumor resection is the recommended treatment, but appropriate surgical margin sizes remain controversial. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first South Korean report to be issued on the treatment of intramuscular myxoma of the foot.

Background: and Purpose Moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe versus high-intensity statin alone may provide a greater low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) reduction in patients with recent ischemic stroke. Methods: This randomized, open-label, controlled trial assigned patients with recent ischemic stroke <90 days to rosuvastatin/ezetimibe 10/10 mg once daily (ROS10/EZT10) or to rosuvastatin 20 mg once daily (ROS20). The primary endpoint was LDL-C reduction ≥50% from baseline at 90 days. Key secondary endpoints were LDL-C <70 mg/dL and multiple lipid goal achievement, and composite of major vascular events. Results: Of 584 randomized, 530 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. The baseline LDL-C level was 130.2±34.7 mg/dL in the ROS10/EZT10 group and 131.0±33.9 mg/dL in the ROS20 group. The primary endpoint was achieved in 198 patients (72.5%) in the ROS10/EZT10 group and 148 (57.6%) in the ROS20 group (odds ratio [95% confidence interval], 1.944 [1.352–2.795]; P= 0.0003). LDL-C level <70 mg/dL was achieved in 80.2% and 65.4% in the ROS10/EZT10 and ROS20 groups (P=0.0001). Multiple lipid goal achievement rate was 71.1% and 53.7% in the ROS10/EZT10 and ROS20 groups (P<0.0001). Major vascular events occurred in 1 patient in the ROS10/EZT10 group and 9 in the ROS20 group (P=0.0091). The adverse event rates did not differ between the two groups. Conclusion Moderate-intensity rosuvastatin plus ezetimibe was superior to high-intensity rosuvastatin alone for intensive LDL-C reduction in patients with recent ischemic stroke. With the combination therapy, more than 70% of patients achieved LDL-C reduction ≥50% and 80% had an LDL-C <70 mg/dL at 90 days.