Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

Background: Guidelines for switching to triple combination therapy directly after monotherapy failure are limited. This study investigated the efficacy, long-term sustainability, and safety of either mono or dual add-on therapy using alogliptin and pioglitazone for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who did not achieve their target glycemic range with metformin monotherapy. Methods: The Practical Evidence of Antidiabetic Combination Therapy in Korea (PEAK) was a multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized trial. A total of 214 participants were randomized to receive alogliptin+pioglitazone (Alo+Pio group, n=70), alogliptin (Alo group, n=75), or pioglitazone (Pio group, n=69). The primary outcome was the difference in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels between the three groups at baseline to 24 weeks. For durability, the achievement of HbA1c levels <7% and <6.5% was compared in each group. The number of adverse events was investigated for safety. Results: After 24 weeks of treatment, the change of HbA1c in the Alo+Pio, Alo, and Pio groups were –1.38%±0.08%, –1.03%±0.08%, and –0.84%±0.08%, respectively. The Alo+Pio group had significantly lower HbA1c levels than the other groups (P=0.0063, P<0.0001) and had a higher proportion of patients with target HbA1c achievement. In addition, insulin sensitivity and β-cell function, lipid profiles, and other metabolic indicators were also improved. There were no significant safety issues in patients treated with triple combination therapy. Conclusion Early combination triple therapy showed better efficacy and durability than the single add-on (dual) therapy. Therefore, combination therapy with metformin, alogliptin, and pioglitazone is a valuable early treatment option for T2DM poorly controlled with metformin monotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular risk remains increased despite optimal low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level induced by intensive statin therapy. Therefore, recent guidelines recommend non-high density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) as a secondary target for preventing cardiovascular events. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and tolerability of omega-3 fatty acids (OM3-FAs) in combination with atorvastatin compared to atorvastatin alone in patients with mixed dyslipidemia. METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, and phase III multicenter study included adults with fasting triglyceride (TG) levels ≥200 and <500 mg/dL and LDL-C levels <110 mg/dL. Eligible subjects were randomized to ATOMEGA (OM3-FAs 4,000 mg plus atorvastatin calcium 20 mg) or atorvastatin 20 mg plus placebo groups. The primary efficacy endpoints were the percent changes in TG and non-HDL-C levels from baseline at the end of treatment. RESULTS: After 8 weeks of treatment, the percent changes from baseline in TG (−29.8% vs. 3.6%, P<0.001) and non-HDL-C (−10.1% vs. 4.9%, P<0.001) levels were significantly greater in the ATOMEGA group (n=97) than in the atorvastatin group (n=103). Moreover, the proportion of total subjects reaching TG target of <200 mg/dL in the ATOMEGA group was significantly higher than that in the atorvastatin group (62.9% vs. 22.3%, P<0.001). The incidence of adverse events did not differ between the two groups. CONCLUSION The addition of OM3-FAs to atorvastatin improved TG and non-HDL-C levels to a significant extent compared to atorvastatin alone in subjects with residual hypertriglyceridemia.

This clinical practice position statement, a product of the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association, proposes recommendations for the diagnosis, progression and/or severity assessment, management, and follow-up of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Patients with both T2DM and NAFLD have an increased risk of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and fibrosis and a higher risk of cardiovascular diseases and diabetic complications compared to those without NAFLD. With regards to the evaluation of patients with T2DM and NAFLD, ultrasonography-based stepwise approaches using noninvasive biomarker models such as fibrosis-4 or the NAFLD fibrosis score as well as imaging studies such as vibration-controlled transient elastography with controlled attenuation parameter or magnetic resonance imaging-proton density fat fraction are recommended. After the diagnosis of NAFLD, the stage of fibrosis needs to be assessed appropriately. For management, weight reduction achieved by lifestyle modification has proven beneficial and is recommended in combination with antidiabetic agent(s). Evidence that some antidiabetic agents improve NAFLD/NASH with fibrosis in patients with T2DM is emerging. However, there are currently no definite pharmacologic treatments for NAFLD in patients with T2DM. For specific cases, bariatric surgery may be an option if indicated.

BACKGROUND: To estimate and compare the trends of all-cause and cause-specific mortality rates for subjects with and without diabetes in South Korea, from 2003 to 2013. METHODS: Using a population-based cohort (2003 to 2013), we evaluated annual mortality rates in adults (≥30 years) with and without diabetes. The number of subjects in this analysis ranged from 585,795 in 2003 to 670,020 in 2013. RESULTS: Age- and sex-adjusted all-cause mortality rates decreased consistently in both groups from 2003 to 2013 (from 14.4 to 9.3/1,000 persons in subjects with diabetes and from 7.9 to 4.4/1,000 persons in those without diabetes). The difference in mortality rates between groups also decreased (6.61 per 1,000 persons in 2003 to 4.98 per 1,000 persons in 2013). The slope associated with the mortality rate exhibited a steeper decrease in subjects with diabetes than those without diabetes (regression coefficients of time: −0.50 and −0.33, respectively; P=0.004). In subjects with diabetes, the mortality rate from cardiovascular disease decreased by 53.5% (from 2.73 to 1.27 per 1,000 persons, P for trend < 0.001). Notably, the decrease in mortality from ischemic stroke (79.2%, from 1.20 to 0.25 per 1,000 persowns) was more profound than that from ischemic heart disease (28.3%, from 0.60 to 0.43 per 1,000 persons). CONCLUSION: All-cause and cardiovascular mortality rates decreased substantially from 2003 to 2013, and the decline in ischemic stroke mortality mainly contributed to the decreased cardiovascular mortality in Korean people with diabetes.
Adult* ; Cardiovascular Diseases ; Cohort Studies ; Diabetes Mellitus* ; Humans ; Korea* ; Mortality* ; Myocardial Ischemia ; Stroke

The Korean Diabetes Association (KDA) recently updated the Clinical Practice Guidelines on antihyperglycemic agent therapy for adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). In combination therapy of oral hypoglycemic agents (OHAs), general recommendations were not changed from those of the 2015 KDA guidelines. The Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines of the KDA has extensively reviewed and discussed the results of meta-analyses and systematic reviews of effectiveness and safety of OHAs and many clinical trials on Korean patients with T2DM for the update of guidelines. All OHAs were effective when added to metformin or metformin and sulfonylurea, although the effects of each agent on body weight and hypoglycemia were different. Therefore, selection of a second agent as a metformin add-on therapy or third agent as a metformin and sulfonylurea add-on therapy should be based on the patient’s clinical characteristics and the efficacy, side effects, mechanism of action, risk of hypoglycemia, effect on body weight, patient preference, and combined comorbidity. In this review, we address the results of meta-analyses and systematic reviews, comparing the effectiveness and safety among OHAs. It will help to choose the appropriate drug for an individual patient with T2DM.
Adult ; Body Weight ; Comorbidity ; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2* ; Humans ; Hypoglycemia ; Hypoglycemic Agents* ; Metformin ; Patient Preference

The Korean Diabetes Association (KDA) has regularly updated its Clinical Practice Guidelines. In 2017, the KDA published a position statement on the use of antihyperglycemic agents for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Growing evidence from new multinational clinical trials using novel and traditional insulin analogues has also been accumulated. Following global trends, many results of clinical trials, especially concerning the clinical efficacy and safety of insulin therapy, have been published about Korean patients with T2DM. After a systematic search of recent evidence, the KDA updated and modified its clinical practice recommendations regarding the initiation, choice, and intensification of insulin and created an insulin treatment algorithm for the first time to guide physicians caring for adult Korean patients with T2DM.
Adult* ; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2* ; Humans ; Hypoglycemic Agents ; Insulin* ; Korea ; Treatment Outcome