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.

Purpose: Mutations in the PIK3CA gene occur frequently in breast cancer patients. Activating PIK3CA mutations confer resistance to human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-targeted treatments. In this study, we investigated whether PIK3CA mutations were correlated with treatment response or duration in patients with HER2-positive (HER2+) breast cancer. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical information of patients with HER2+ breast cancer who received HER2-targeted therapy for early-stage or metastatic cancers. The pathologic complete response (pCR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival were compared between patients with wild-type PIK3CA (PIK3CAw) and those with mutated PIK3CA (PIK3CAm). Next-generation sequencing was combined with examination of PFS associated with anti-HER2 monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatment. Results: Data from 90 patients with HER2+ breast cancer were analyzed. Overall, 34 (37.8%) patients had pathogenic PIK3CA mutations. The pCR rate of the PIK3CAm group was lower than that of the PIK3CAw group among patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy for early-stage cancer. In the metastatic setting, the PIK3CAm group showed a significantly shorter mean PFS (mPFS) with first-line anti-HER2 mAb. The mPFS of second-line T-DM1 was lower in the PIK3CAm group than that in the PIK3CAw group. Sequencing revealed differences in the mutational landscape between PIK3CAm and PIK3CAw tumors. Conclusion Patients with HER2+ breast cancer with activating PIK3CA mutations had lower pCR rates and shorter PFS with palliative HER2-targeted therapy than those with wild-type PIK3CA. Precise targeted-therapy is needed to improve survival of patients with HER2+/PIK3CAm breast cancer.

Purpose: An increasing number of patients with cancers are interested in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), which lacks scientific evidence. This study aimed to determine how CAM was used and how media affected patients in online cancer support groups (OCSG). Materials and Methods: Between August 18 and September 12, 2021, an online survey was conducted among the members of OCSG. The survey consisted of five parts: baseline characteristics, attitudes toward and experience with CAM, source of information and reliabilities, experience with anthelmintics, and online health information literacy and usage. Results: Among the 644 responders, a total of 221 patients with cancer completed the survey, and 78.2% (173/221) used CAM. The users’ median age was 52 years; 46.8% were males, and 43.9% had metastatic disease. Fifty-three CAM users (30.6%) discussed their physicians about CAM. In addition, 16.2% (28/173) of CAM users had the experience of anthelmintics. The use of anthelmintics in patients with cancers was associated with younger age (odds ratio [OR], 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.84 to 0.95), metastatic disease (OR, 10.88; 95% CI, 3.39 to 34.86), previous exposure to CAM information (OR, 5.57; 95% CI, 1.01 to 30.72), experience with more types of CAM (OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.29 to 3.05), and side effects (OR, 5.10; 95% CI 1.46 to 17.75). Conclusion Use of anthelmintics, a CAM of which information is widespread online, is affected by several factors. This study will provide essential information for developing a CAM management strategy in this digital age.

Background/Aims: Cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF), as measured by maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max), is an important independent predictive factor of cardiovascular outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF). However, it is unclear whether conventional equations for estimating CRF are applicable to patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Methods: This study included 521 patients with HFpEF (EF ≥ 50%) whose CRF was directly measured by cardiopulmonary exercise test using a treadmill. We developed a new equation (Kor-HFpEF) for half of the patients in the HFpEF cohort (group A, n = 253) and validated it for the remaining half (group B, n = 268). The accuracy of the Kor-HFpEF equation was compared to that of the other equations in the validation group. Results: In the total HFpEF cohort, the directly measured VO2max was significantly overestimated by the FRIEND and ACSM equations (p < 0.001) and underestimated by the FRIEND-HF equation (p <0.001) (direct 21.2 ± 5.9 mL/kg/min; FRIEND 29.1 ± 11.8 mL/kg/min; ACSM 32.5 ± 13.4 mL/kg/min; FRIEND-HF 14.1 ± 4.9 mL/kg/min). However, the VO2max estimated by the Kor-HFpEF equation (21.3 ± 4.6 mL/kg/min) was similar to the directly measured VO2max (21.7 ± 5.9 mL/kg/min, p = 0.124), whereas the VO2max estimated by the other three equations was still significantly different from the directly measured VO2max in group B (all p < 0.001). Conclusions Traditional equations used to estimate VO2max were not applicable to patients with HFpEF. We developed and validated a new Kor-HFpEF equation for these patients, which had a high accuracy.

Background/Aims: Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are commonly-used medications, and ailments such as arthritis or heart disease, require long-term use of these drugs, which can induce gastroenteropathy with bleeding and ulcers. This study investigated the associations between efficacy, safety, and gastrointestinal symptoms linked to rebamipide and proton pump inhibitor administration in patients requiring long-term NSAID use. Methods: This study was a multi-center, randomized, open-labeled, pilot design. Results: Thirty-three patients were included. Of these, 15 were included in the study group and 18 were in the control group. NSAID-induced gastric ulcers, which were the primary outcome of this study, did not occur in either the study or control group. Changes in the number of small bowel erosions and ulcers were –0.6 ± 3.06 in the study group and 1.33 ± 4.71 in the control group. The number of subjects with mucosal breaks (defined as multiple erosions and/or ulcers) was three (20%) in the study group and six (40%) in the control group (p = 0.427). No serious adverse events occurred in either group. However, dyspepsia and skin rashes occurred in six patients (31.58%) in the study group and 13 (65%) in the control group (p = 0.036). Conclusions Although statistically significant differences were not generated, possibly as a result of the small sample size, mucosal breaks observed via capsule endoscopy revealed that rebamipide was likely to be more effective than lansoprazole in preventing small intestine damage caused by NSAIDs. Furthermore, fewer side-effects emerged with rebamipide.

Purpose: Atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with low to intermediate risk, defined as non-gender CHA2DS2-VASc score of 0–1, are still at risk of stroke. This study verified the usefulness of ABCD score [age (≥60 years), B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) or N-terminal pro-BNP (≥300 pg/mL), creatinine clearance (<50 mL/min/1.73 m2 ), and dimension of the left atrium (≥45 mm)] for stroke risk stratification in non-gender CHA2DS2-VASc score 0–1. Materials and Methods: This multi-center cohort study retrospectively analyzed AF patients with non-gender CHA2DS2-VASc score 0–1. The primary endpoint was the incidence of stroke with or without antithrombotic therapy (ATT). An ABCD score was validated. Results: Overall, 2694 patients [56.3±9.5 years; female, 726 (26.9%)] were followed-up for 4.0±2.8 years. The overall stroke rate was 0.84/100 person-years (P-Y), stratified as follows: 0.46/100 P-Y for an ABCD score of 0; 1.02/100 P-Y for an ABCD score ≥1. The ABCD score was superior to non-gender CHA2DS2-VASc score in the stroke risk stratification (C-index=0.618, p=0.015; net reclassification improvement=0.576, p=0.040; integrated differential improvement=0.033, p=0.066). ATT was prescribed in 2353 patients (86.5%), and the stroke rate was significantly lower in patients receiving non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC) therapy and an ABCD score ≥1 than in those without ATT (0.44/100 P–Y vs. 1.55/100 P-Y; hazard ratio=0.26, 95% confidence interval 0.11–0.63, p=0.003). Conclusion The biomarker-based ABCD score demonstrated improved stroke risk stratification in AF patients with non-gender CHA2DS2-VASc score 0–1. Furthermore, NOAC with an ABCD score ≥1 was associated with significantly lower stroke rate in AF patients with non-gender CHA2DS2-VASc score 0–1.