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/Aims: Tegoprazan is a novel potassium-competitive acid blocker that has beneficial effects on acid-related disorders such as gastroesophageal reflux and peptic ulcer diseases.This study aimed to validate the effect of tegoprazan on endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD)-induced artificial ulcers. Methods: Patients from 16 centers in Korea who underwent ESD for gastric neoplasia were enrolled. After ESD, pantoprazole was administered intravenously for 48 hours. The patients were randomly allocated to either the tegoprazan or esomeprazole group. Tegoprazan 50 mg or esomeprazole 40 mg were administered for 4 weeks, after which gastroscopic evaluation was performed. If the artificial ulcer had not healed, the same dose of tegoprazan or esomeprazole was administered for an additional 4 weeks, and a gastroscopic evaluation was performed. Results: One hundred sixty patients were enrolled in this study. The healing rates of artificial ulcers at 4 weeks were 30.3% (23/76) and 22.1% (15/68) in the tegoprazan and esomeprazole groups, respectively (p=0.006). At 8 weeks after ESD, the cumulative ulcer healing rates were 73.7% (56/76) and 77.9% (53/68) in the tegoprazan and esomeprazole groups, respectively (p=0.210). Delayed bleeding occurred in two patients in the tegoprazan group (2.6%) and in one patient in the esomeprazole group (1.5%). Other adverse events were negligible in both groups. Conclusions Tegoprazan showed similar effects on post-ESD artificial ulcer healing in comparison with esomeprazole.

Objective: We investigated effects of serum serotonin and interleukin 18 levels on suicidal ideation (SI) at acute and chronic phases of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Methods: Recent-onset 969 ACS patients were evaluated for serum serotonin and interleukin 18 levels; and SI by the“suicidal thoughts” item of the Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale. After 1-year, 711 patients were re-evaluated for SI. Logistic regression models were used adjustment for potential covariates. Results: Associations between serum interleukin 18 and SI at both phases were significant only in the lower serotonin group. Conclusion By evaluating serum serotonin and interleukin 18 levels, the clinical prediction of SI of ACS may be improved.

Objectives: Gastrointestinal cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease is a major contributor to mortality in immunocompromised patients. Few studies have discussed upper gastrointestinal CMV (UGICMV) disease in immunocompetent patients. We compared the clinical outcomes of UGI-CMV between immunocompromised and immunocompetent patients. Methods: This retrospective study included patients with UGI-CMV disease from five tertiary hospitals across Korea (2010– 2022). Patients’ clinical data and outcomes were recorded. Results: UGI-CMV was diagnosed in 54 patients; 27 (50.0%) had esophageal, 24 (44.4%) had gastric, and 3 patients (5.6%) had duodenal involvement. Patients’ median age was 64 years (interquartile range 53–75 years), and the most common comorbidities included hypertension (57.4%) and diabetes (38.9%). The predominant symptom was abdominal pain (46.3%), and the most common endoscopic finding was ulcers (70.4%). Antiviral treatment was administered to 31 patients, and 23 patients underwent observation without treatment. We investigated 32 immunocompromised (59.3%) and 22 immunocompetent (40.7%) patients and observed no intergroup differences in comorbidities and in laboratory and endoscopic findings. Immunocompromised patients had longer length of hospitalization (median 46.2 days vs. 20.0 days, p=0.001). However, treatment outcomes, including the need for intensive care unit admission and mortality did not significantly differ. The overall mortality rate was 13.0%; one patient from the immunocompromised group died of UGI-CMV disease. The treatment success rate was higher in immunocompromised patients who received antiviral therapy (p=0.011). Conclusions UGI-CMV disease is not uncommon in immunocompetent patients, although symptoms are milder than those in immunocompromised patients. Our findings emphasize the importance of clinical vigilance for accurate diagnosis of CMV infection, particularly in susceptible symptomatic patients and highlight the need for active antiviral treatment for management of immunocompromised patients.

Attempts to lower rates of catheter-related bloodstream infection have led to the adoption of chlorhexidine-coated central venous catheters (CVCs) in several orthopedic surgeries. On the other hand, there is still some controversy regarding the advantage of reducing catheterrelated infections. This paper reports a case of severe anaphylaxis to chlorhexidine-coated CVCs when used in spine surgery. Before exposing the patients to chlorhexidine-coated CVCs, the risk of complications including anaphylaxis should be considered.

Background: To evaluate prescription trends and clinical factors of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) use according to the presence of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) or heart failure (HF) in Korean patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Methods: Prescription patterns of SGLT2i use between 2015 and 2019 were determined using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database of claims. Results: Of all patients with T2DM (n=4,736,493), the annual prescription rate of SGLT2i increased every year in patients with ASCVD (from 2.2% to 10.7%) or HF (from 2.0% to 11.1%). After the first hospitalization for ASCVD (n=518,572), 13.7% (n=71,259) of patients initiated SGLT2i with a median of 10.6 months. After hospitalization for HF (n=372,853), 11.2% (n=41,717) of patients initiated SGLT2i after a median of 8.8 months. In multivariate regression for hospitalization, older age (per 10 years, odds ratio [OR], 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56 to 0.57), lower household income (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.92 to 0.95), rural residents (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.93 to 0.97), and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP-4i) users (OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.81 to 0.84) were associated with lesser initiation of SGLT2i in ASCVD. Additionally, female gender (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95 to 0.99) was associated with lesser initiation of SGLT2i in HF. Conclusion The prescription rate of SGLT2i increased gradually up to 2019 but was suboptimal in patients with ASCVD or HF. After the first hospitalization for ASCVD or HF, older age, female gender, low household income, rural residents, and DPP-4i users were less likely to initiate SGLT2i.