The Korean Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Committee within the Korean Society of Surgical Metabolism and Nutrition was established to develop ERAS guidelines tailored to the Korean context. This guideline focuses on creating the most current evidence-based practice guidelines for ERAS purposes, based on systematic reviews. All key questions targeted randomized controlled trials exclusively, and if fewer than 2 were available, studies employing propensity score matching were also included. Recommendations for each key question were marked with strength of recommendation and level of evidence following internal and external review processes by the committee.

The Korean Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Committee within the Korean Society of Surgical Metabolism and Nutrition was established to develop ERAS guidelines tailored to the Korean context. This guideline focuses on creating the most current evidence-based practice guidelines for ERAS purposes, based on systematic reviews. All key questions targeted randomized controlled trials exclusively, and if fewer than 2 were available, studies employing propensity score matching were also included. Recommendations for each key question were marked with strength of recommendation and level of evidence following internal and external review processes by the committee.

The Korean Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Committee within the Korean Society of Surgical Metabolism and Nutrition was established to develop ERAS guidelines tailored to the Korean context. This guideline focuses on creating the most current evidence-based practice guidelines for ERAS purposes, based on systematic reviews. All key questions targeted randomized controlled trials exclusively, and if fewer than 2 were available, studies employing propensity score matching were also included. Recommendations for each key question were marked with strength of recommendation and level of evidence following internal and external review processes by the committee.

The Korean Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Committee within the Korean Society of Surgical Metabolism and Nutrition was established to develop ERAS guidelines tailored to the Korean context. This guideline focuses on creating the most current evidence-based practice guidelines for ERAS purposes, based on systematic reviews. All key questions targeted randomized controlled trials exclusively, and if fewer than 2 were available, studies employing propensity score matching were also included. Recommendations for each key question were marked with strength of recommendation and level of evidence following internal and external review processes by the committee.

The Korean Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Committee within the Korean Society of Surgical Metabolism and Nutrition was established to develop ERAS guidelines tailored to the Korean context. This guideline focuses on creating the most current evidence-based practice guidelines for ERAS purposes, based on systematic reviews. All key questions targeted randomized controlled trials exclusively, and if fewer than 2 were available, studies employing propensity score matching were also included. Recommendations for each key question were marked with strength of recommendation and level of evidence following internal and external review processes by the committee.

The Korean Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Committee within the Korean Society of Surgical Metabolism and Nutrition was established to develop ERAS guidelines tailored to the Korean context. This guideline focuses on creating the most current evidence-based practice guidelines for ERAS based on systematic reviews. All key questions targeted randomized controlled trials (RCTs) exclusively. If fewer than two RCTs were available, studies using propensity score matching were also included. Recommendations for each key question were marked with strength of recommendation and level of evidence following internal and external review processes by the committee.

Objective: We aimed to identify the expectations and preferences for medication and medical decision-making in patients with major psychiatric disorders. Methods: A survey was conducted among patients with major psychiatric disorders who visited psychiatric outpatient clinics at 15 hospitals between 2016 and 2018 in Korea. The survey consisted of 12 questions about demographic variables and opinions on their expectations for medication, important medical decision-makers, and preferred drug type. The most preferred value in each category in the total population was identified, and differences in the preference ratio of each item among the disease groups were compared. Results: A total of 707 participants were surveyed. In the total population, patients reported high efficacy (44.01%±21.44%) as the main wish for medication, themselves (37.39%±22.57%) and a doctor (35.27%±22.88%) as the main decision makers, and tablet/capsule (36.16%±30.69%) as the preferred type of drug. In the depressive disorders group, the preference ratio of high efficacy was significantly lower, and the preference ratio of a small amount was significantly higher than that of the psychotic disorder and bipolar disorder groups. The preference ratio of a doctor as an important decision maker in the bipolar disorder group was higher compared to the other groups. Conclusion This study revealed the preference for medications and showed differences among patients with psychiatric disorders. Providing personalized medicine that considers a patient’s preference for the drug may contribute to the improvement of drug compliance and outcomes.

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.

Plastic cannulae have attracted increasing interest as an alternative to traditional metal needles with the aim of reducing cannulation-related complications. We investigated whether the substitution volumes during hemodiafiltration differ using these two types of needles in dialysis patients. Methods: An intervention study involving 26 hemodialysis patients was conducted in Korea between March and September in 2021. Patients first received online hemodiafiltration using traditional metal needles, and thereafter plastic cannulae were used in a stepwise protocol. Repeated-measures design and linear mixed-effect models were used to compare substitution volumes between the two needle types with the same inner diameter. Results: The mean patient age was 62.7 years, and their mean dialysis vintage was 95.2 months. Most patients (92.3%) had an arteriovenous fistula as the vascular access. The substitution volume increased as blood flow and needle size increased for both plastic cannulae and metal needles. The substitution volume was significantly higher with 17-gauge (G) plastic cannulae than with 16-G metal needles at blood flow rates of 280, 300, and 330 mL/min. Similar results were obtained for 15-G metal needles and 16-G plastic cannulae at a blood flow rate of 330 mL/min. However, the patient ratings of pain on a visual analogue scale were higher for plastic cannulae. Conclusion: Higher substitution volumes were obtained at the same prescribed blood flow rate with plastic cannulae than with metal needles during online hemodiafiltration. Plastic cannulae are an option for achieving high-volume hemodiafiltration for patients with low blood flow rates.

Background/Aims: We aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) vs. biologic disease- modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD) in Korean patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) who had an inadequate response to conventional synthetic DMARDs. Methods: A quasi-experimental, multi-center, prospective, non-randomized study was conducted to compare response rates between JAKi and bDMARDs in patients with RA naïve to targeted therapy. An interim analysis was performed to estimate the proportion of patients achieving low disease activity (LDA) based on disease activity score (DAS)–28– erythroid sedimentation rate (ESR) (DAS28-ESR) at 24 weeks after treatment initiation and to evaluate the development of adverse events (AEs). Results: Among 506 patients enrolled from 17 institutions between April 2020 and August 2022, 346 (196 JAKi group and 150 bDMARD group) were included in the analysis. After 24 weeks of treatment, 49.0% of JAKi users and 48.7% of bDMARD users achieved LDA (p = 0.954). DAS28-ESR remission rates were also comparable between JAKi and bDMARD users (30.1% and 31.3%, respectively; p = 0.806). The frequency of AEs reported in the JAKi group was numerically higher than that in the bDMARDs group, but the frequencies of serious and severe AEs were comparable between the groups. Conclusions Our interim findings reveal JAKi have comparable effectiveness and safety to bDMARDs at 24 weeks after treatment initiation.