Background and Objectives: Lipid lowering therapy is essential to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events; however, limited evidence exists regarding the use of statin with ezetimibe as primary prevention strategy for middle-aged adults. We aimed to investigate the impact of single pill combination therapy on clinical outcomes in relatively healthy middleaged patients when compared with statin monotherapy. Methods: Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, a propensity score match analysis was performed for baseline characteristics of 92,156 patients categorized into combination therapy (n=46,078) and statin monotherapy (n=46,078) groups. Primary outcome was composite outcomes, including death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke. And secondary outcome was all-cause death. The mean follow-up duration was 2.9±0.3 years. Results: The 3-year composite outcomes of all-cause death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke demonstrated no significant difference between the 2 groups (10.3% vs.10.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.022; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.980–1.064; p=0.309).Meanwhile, the 3-year all-cause death rate was lower in the combination therapy group than in the statin monotherapy group (0.2% vs. 0.4%; p<0.001), with a significant HR of 0.595 (95% CI, 0.460–0.769; p<0.001). Single pill combination therapy exhibited consistently lower mortality rates across various subgroups. Conclusions Compared to the statin monotherapy, the combination therapy for primary prevention showed no difference in composite outcomes but may reduce mortality risk in relatively healthy middle-aged patients. However, since the study was observational, further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Background and Objectives: Lipid lowering therapy is essential to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events; however, limited evidence exists regarding the use of statin with ezetimibe as primary prevention strategy for middle-aged adults. We aimed to investigate the impact of single pill combination therapy on clinical outcomes in relatively healthy middleaged patients when compared with statin monotherapy. Methods: Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, a propensity score match analysis was performed for baseline characteristics of 92,156 patients categorized into combination therapy (n=46,078) and statin monotherapy (n=46,078) groups. Primary outcome was composite outcomes, including death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke. And secondary outcome was all-cause death. The mean follow-up duration was 2.9±0.3 years. Results: The 3-year composite outcomes of all-cause death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke demonstrated no significant difference between the 2 groups (10.3% vs.10.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.022; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.980–1.064; p=0.309).Meanwhile, the 3-year all-cause death rate was lower in the combination therapy group than in the statin monotherapy group (0.2% vs. 0.4%; p<0.001), with a significant HR of 0.595 (95% CI, 0.460–0.769; p<0.001). Single pill combination therapy exhibited consistently lower mortality rates across various subgroups. Conclusions Compared to the statin monotherapy, the combination therapy for primary prevention showed no difference in composite outcomes but may reduce mortality risk in relatively healthy middle-aged patients. However, since the study was observational, further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Background and Objectives: Lipid lowering therapy is essential to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events; however, limited evidence exists regarding the use of statin with ezetimibe as primary prevention strategy for middle-aged adults. We aimed to investigate the impact of single pill combination therapy on clinical outcomes in relatively healthy middleaged patients when compared with statin monotherapy. Methods: Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, a propensity score match analysis was performed for baseline characteristics of 92,156 patients categorized into combination therapy (n=46,078) and statin monotherapy (n=46,078) groups. Primary outcome was composite outcomes, including death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke. And secondary outcome was all-cause death. The mean follow-up duration was 2.9±0.3 years. Results: The 3-year composite outcomes of all-cause death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke demonstrated no significant difference between the 2 groups (10.3% vs.10.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.022; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.980–1.064; p=0.309).Meanwhile, the 3-year all-cause death rate was lower in the combination therapy group than in the statin monotherapy group (0.2% vs. 0.4%; p<0.001), with a significant HR of 0.595 (95% CI, 0.460–0.769; p<0.001). Single pill combination therapy exhibited consistently lower mortality rates across various subgroups. Conclusions Compared to the statin monotherapy, the combination therapy for primary prevention showed no difference in composite outcomes but may reduce mortality risk in relatively healthy middle-aged patients. However, since the study was observational, further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Background and Objectives: Lipid lowering therapy is essential to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events; however, limited evidence exists regarding the use of statin with ezetimibe as primary prevention strategy for middle-aged adults. We aimed to investigate the impact of single pill combination therapy on clinical outcomes in relatively healthy middleaged patients when compared with statin monotherapy. Methods: Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, a propensity score match analysis was performed for baseline characteristics of 92,156 patients categorized into combination therapy (n=46,078) and statin monotherapy (n=46,078) groups. Primary outcome was composite outcomes, including death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke. And secondary outcome was all-cause death. The mean follow-up duration was 2.9±0.3 years. Results: The 3-year composite outcomes of all-cause death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke demonstrated no significant difference between the 2 groups (10.3% vs.10.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.022; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.980–1.064; p=0.309).Meanwhile, the 3-year all-cause death rate was lower in the combination therapy group than in the statin monotherapy group (0.2% vs. 0.4%; p<0.001), with a significant HR of 0.595 (95% CI, 0.460–0.769; p<0.001). Single pill combination therapy exhibited consistently lower mortality rates across various subgroups. Conclusions Compared to the statin monotherapy, the combination therapy for primary prevention showed no difference in composite outcomes but may reduce mortality risk in relatively healthy middle-aged patients. However, since the study was observational, further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Background: The advent of the omicron variant and the formulation of diverse therapeutic strategies marked a new epoch in the realm of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Studies have compared the clinical outcomes between COVID-19 and seasonal influenza, but such studies were conducted during the early stages of the pandemic when effective treatment strategies had not yet been developed, which limits the generalizability of the findings.Therefore, an updated evaluation of the comparative analysis of clinical outcomes between COVID-19 and seasonal influenza is requisite. Methods: This study used data from the severe acute respiratory infection surveillance system of South Korea. We extracted data for influenza patients who were infected between 2018 and 2019 and COVID-19 patients who were infected in 2021 (pre-omicron period) and 2022 (omicron period). Comparisons of outcomes were conducted among the pre-omicron, omicron, and influenza cohorts utilizing propensity score matching. The adjusted covariates in the propensity score matching included age, sex, smoking, and comorbidities. Results: The study incorporated 1,227 patients in the pre-omicron cohort, 1,948 patients in the omicron cohort, and 920 patients in the influenza cohort. Following propensity score matching, 491 patients were included in each respective group. Clinical presentations exhibited similarities between the pre-omicron and omicron cohorts; however, COVID-19 patients demonstrated a higher prevalence of dyspnea and pulmonary infiltrates compared to their influenza counterparts. Both COVID-19 groups exhibited higher in-hospital mortality and longer hospital length of stay than the influenza group. The omicron group showed no significant improvement in clinical outcomes compared to the pre-omicron group. Conclusion The omicron group did not demonstrate better clinical outcomes than the pre-omicron group, and exhibited significant disease severity compared to the influenza group. Considering the likely persistence of COVID-19 infections, it is imperative to sustain comprehensive studies and ongoing policy support for the virus to enhance the prognosis for individuals affected by COVID-19.

Background: The benefits of transradial access (TRA) over transfemoral access (TFA) for bifurcation percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are uncertain because of the limited availability of device selection. This study aimed to compare the procedural differences and the in-hospital and long-term outcomes of TRA and TFA for bifurcation PCI using secondgeneration drug-eluting stents (DESs). Methods: Based on data from the Coronary Bifurcation Stenting Registry III, a retrospective registry of 2,648 patients undergoing bifurcation PCI with second-generation DES from 21 centers in South Korea, patients were categorized into the TRA group (n = 1,507) or the TFA group (n = 1,141). After propensity score matching (PSM), procedural differences, in-hospital outcomes, and device-oriented composite outcomes (DOCOs; a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization) were compared between the two groups (772 matched patients each group). Results: Despite well-balanced baseline clinical and lesion characteristics after PSM, the use of the two-stent strategy (14.2% vs. 23.7%, P = 0.001) and the incidence of in-hospital adverse outcomes, primarily driven by access site complications (2.2% vs. 4.4%, P = 0.015), were significantly lower in the TRA group than in the TFA group. At the 5-year follow-up, the incidence of DOCOs was similar between the groups (6.3% vs. 7.1%, P = 0.639). Conclusion The findings suggested that TRA may be safer than TFA for bifurcation PCI using second-generation DESs. Despite differences in treatment strategy, TRA was associated with similar long-term clinical outcomes as those of TFA. Therefore, TRA might be the preferred access for bifurcation PCI using second-generation DES.

Background: Nonpharmacological interventions (NPIs) reduce the incidence of respiratory infections. After NPIs imposed during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic ceased, respiratory infections gradually increased worldwide. However, few studies have been conducted on severe respiratory infections requiring hospitalization in pediatric patients.This study compares epidemiological changes in severe respiratory infections during pre-NPI, NPI, and post-NPI periods in order to evaluate the effect of that NPI on severe respiratory infections in children. Methods: We retrospectively studied data collected at 13 Korean sentinel sites from January 2018 to October 2022 that were lodged in the national Severe Acute Respiratory Infections (SARIs) surveillance database. Results: A total of 9,631 pediatric patients were admitted with SARIs during the pre-NPI period, 579 during the NPI period, and 1,580 during the post-NPI period. During the NPI period, the number of pediatric patients hospitalized with severe respiratory infections decreased dramatically, thus from 72.1 per 1,000 to 6.6 per 1,000. However, after NPIs ceased, the number increased to 22.8 per 1,000. During the post-NPI period, the positive test rate increased to the level noted before the pandemic. Conclusion Strict NPIs including school and daycare center closures effectively reduced severe respiratory infections requiring hospitalization of children. However, childcare was severely compromised. To prepare for future respiratory infections, there is a need to develop a social consensus on NPIs that are appropriate for children.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreaks occur in hospitals in many parts of the world. In hospital settings, the possibility of airborne transmission needs to be investigated thoroughly. Materials and Methods: There was a nosocomial outbreak of COVID-19 in a hematologic ward in a tertiary hospital, Seoul, Korea. We found 11 patients and guardians with COVID-19 through vigorous contact tracing and closed-circuit television monitoring. We found one patient who probably had acquired COVID-19 through airborne-transmission. We performed airflow investigation with simulation software, whole-genome sequencing of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Results: Of the nine individuals with COVID-19 who had been in the hematologic ward, six stayed in one multi-patient room (Room 36), and other three stayed in different rooms (Room 1, 34, 35). Guardian in room 35 was close contact to cases in room 36, and patient in room 34 used the shared bathroom for teeth brushing 40 minutes after index used.Airflow simulation revealed that air was spread from the bathroom to the adjacent room 1 while patient in room 1 did not used the shared bathroom. Airflow was associated with poor ventilation in shared bathroom due to dysfunctioning air-exhaust, grill on the door of shared bathroom and the unintended negative pressure of adjacent room. Conclusion Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the hematologic ward occurred rapidly in the multi-patient room and shared bathroom settings. In addition, there was a case of possible airborne transmission due to unexpected airflow.

Background: Patient-centered management is becoming increasingly important in gout, but there are limited studies exploring patients' perspectives and preferences. We aimed to investigate patients' perspectives and preferences regarding gout and gout management, and their impacts on adherence to urate lowering therapy (ULT). Methods: A paper-based survey was performed in patients with gout seen at the rheumatology outpatient clinics of 16 tertiary hospitals. The survey included questions regarding demographics, comorbidities, gout attacks, current treatment and adherence, and patients' perspectives and preferences regarding gout and gout management. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to determine the factors associated with ULT adherence. Results: Of 809 surveyed patients with gout, 755 (94.5%) were using ULT. Among those using ULT, 89.1% had ≥ 80% adherence to ULT. Majority of the patients knew management strategies to some extent (94.8%), perceived gout as a life-long disease (91.2%), and were making efforts toward practicing at least one lifestyle modification (89.2%). Most patients (71.9%) obtained information about gout management during their clinic visits.Approximately half of the patients (53.6%) preferred managing their disease with both ULT and lifestyle modification, 28.4% preferred ULT only, and 17.4% preferred lifestyle modification only. Adherence was better in patients with older age (odds ratio [OR], 1.03), those with better knowledge of gout management strategies (OR, 3.56), and those who had preference for ULT (OR, 2.07). Conclusion Patients' perspectives and management preferences had high impacts on adherence to ULT in gout. Consideration of patients' perspectives and preferences is important for achieving the desired clinical outcome in gout.

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreaks occur in hospitals in many parts of the world. In hospital settings, the possibility of airborne transmission needs to be investigated thoroughly. Materials and Methods: There was a nosocomial outbreak of COVID-19 in a hematologic ward in a tertiary hospital, Seoul, Korea. We found 11 patients and guardians with COVID-19 through vigorous contact tracing and closed-circuit television monitoring. We found one patient who probably had acquired COVID-19 through airborne-transmission. We performed airflow investigation with simulation software, whole-genome sequencing of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Results: Of the nine individuals with COVID-19 who had been in the hematologic ward, six stayed in one multi-patient room (Room 36), and other three stayed in different rooms (Room 1, 34, 35). Guardian in room 35 was close contact to cases in room 36, and patient in room 34 used the shared bathroom for teeth brushing 40 minutes after index used.Airflow simulation revealed that air was spread from the bathroom to the adjacent room 1 while patient in room 1 did not used the shared bathroom. Airflow was associated with poor ventilation in shared bathroom due to dysfunctioning air-exhaust, grill on the door of shared bathroom and the unintended negative pressure of adjacent room. Conclusion Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the hematologic ward occurred rapidly in the multi-patient room and shared bathroom settings. In addition, there was a case of possible airborne transmission due to unexpected airflow.