Purpose: To investigate whether using a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for the second time (2nd_CGM) would be effective after using it for the first time (1st_CGM), depending on age. Materials and Methods: This study included patients aged ≥40 years who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and had used a CGM at least twice between 2017 and 2021. Participants were divided into two groups based on their age: those aged <60 years and those aged ≥60 years. We assessed the glycemic control status of the 1st_CGM and 2nd_CGM, along with the glycemic variability. Results: Overall, 15 patients were included in the study. The mean glucose level in users aged <60 years significantly decreased (p<0.001) owing to the CGM use, while it did not increase in those aged ≥60 years. In users aged ≥60 years, the 1st_CGM group showed a significant decrease in blood glucose levels over time (p<0.05), whereas the 2nd_CGM group only showed a non-significant decreasing trend. The time in range tended to increase in those aged <60 years but decreased in those aged ≥60 years. In those aged <60 years, the mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (p<0.001), standard deviation (p<0.05), and coefficient of variation (p<0.001) significantly decreased. In those aged ≥60 years, these parameters exhibited a non-significant decreasing trend. Conclusion Glycemic effect and variability improved as expected with 1st_CGM use. However, 2nd_CGM did not significantly improve glycemic effect or variability in users aged ≥60 years, contrary to expectations. To address this issue, further investigation is needed to understand why, compared to 1st_CGM, 2nd_CGM fails to achieve better glycemic control in individuals aged ≥60 years.

Purpose: To investigate whether using a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for the second time (2nd_CGM) would be effective after using it for the first time (1st_CGM), depending on age. Materials and Methods: This study included patients aged ≥40 years who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and had used a CGM at least twice between 2017 and 2021. Participants were divided into two groups based on their age: those aged <60 years and those aged ≥60 years. We assessed the glycemic control status of the 1st_CGM and 2nd_CGM, along with the glycemic variability. Results: Overall, 15 patients were included in the study. The mean glucose level in users aged <60 years significantly decreased (p<0.001) owing to the CGM use, while it did not increase in those aged ≥60 years. In users aged ≥60 years, the 1st_CGM group showed a significant decrease in blood glucose levels over time (p<0.05), whereas the 2nd_CGM group only showed a non-significant decreasing trend. The time in range tended to increase in those aged <60 years but decreased in those aged ≥60 years. In those aged <60 years, the mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (p<0.001), standard deviation (p<0.05), and coefficient of variation (p<0.001) significantly decreased. In those aged ≥60 years, these parameters exhibited a non-significant decreasing trend. Conclusion Glycemic effect and variability improved as expected with 1st_CGM use. However, 2nd_CGM did not significantly improve glycemic effect or variability in users aged ≥60 years, contrary to expectations. To address this issue, further investigation is needed to understand why, compared to 1st_CGM, 2nd_CGM fails to achieve better glycemic control in individuals aged ≥60 years.

Purpose: To investigate whether using a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for the second time (2nd_CGM) would be effective after using it for the first time (1st_CGM), depending on age. Materials and Methods: This study included patients aged ≥40 years who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and had used a CGM at least twice between 2017 and 2021. Participants were divided into two groups based on their age: those aged <60 years and those aged ≥60 years. We assessed the glycemic control status of the 1st_CGM and 2nd_CGM, along with the glycemic variability. Results: Overall, 15 patients were included in the study. The mean glucose level in users aged <60 years significantly decreased (p<0.001) owing to the CGM use, while it did not increase in those aged ≥60 years. In users aged ≥60 years, the 1st_CGM group showed a significant decrease in blood glucose levels over time (p<0.05), whereas the 2nd_CGM group only showed a non-significant decreasing trend. The time in range tended to increase in those aged <60 years but decreased in those aged ≥60 years. In those aged <60 years, the mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (p<0.001), standard deviation (p<0.05), and coefficient of variation (p<0.001) significantly decreased. In those aged ≥60 years, these parameters exhibited a non-significant decreasing trend. Conclusion Glycemic effect and variability improved as expected with 1st_CGM use. However, 2nd_CGM did not significantly improve glycemic effect or variability in users aged ≥60 years, contrary to expectations. To address this issue, further investigation is needed to understand why, compared to 1st_CGM, 2nd_CGM fails to achieve better glycemic control in individuals aged ≥60 years.

Purpose: To investigate whether using a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for the second time (2nd_CGM) would be effective after using it for the first time (1st_CGM), depending on age. Materials and Methods: This study included patients aged ≥40 years who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and had used a CGM at least twice between 2017 and 2021. Participants were divided into two groups based on their age: those aged <60 years and those aged ≥60 years. We assessed the glycemic control status of the 1st_CGM and 2nd_CGM, along with the glycemic variability. Results: Overall, 15 patients were included in the study. The mean glucose level in users aged <60 years significantly decreased (p<0.001) owing to the CGM use, while it did not increase in those aged ≥60 years. In users aged ≥60 years, the 1st_CGM group showed a significant decrease in blood glucose levels over time (p<0.05), whereas the 2nd_CGM group only showed a non-significant decreasing trend. The time in range tended to increase in those aged <60 years but decreased in those aged ≥60 years. In those aged <60 years, the mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (p<0.001), standard deviation (p<0.05), and coefficient of variation (p<0.001) significantly decreased. In those aged ≥60 years, these parameters exhibited a non-significant decreasing trend. Conclusion Glycemic effect and variability improved as expected with 1st_CGM use. However, 2nd_CGM did not significantly improve glycemic effect or variability in users aged ≥60 years, contrary to expectations. To address this issue, further investigation is needed to understand why, compared to 1st_CGM, 2nd_CGM fails to achieve better glycemic control in individuals aged ≥60 years.

Purpose: To investigate whether using a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for the second time (2nd_CGM) would be effective after using it for the first time (1st_CGM), depending on age. Materials and Methods: This study included patients aged ≥40 years who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and had used a CGM at least twice between 2017 and 2021. Participants were divided into two groups based on their age: those aged <60 years and those aged ≥60 years. We assessed the glycemic control status of the 1st_CGM and 2nd_CGM, along with the glycemic variability. Results: Overall, 15 patients were included in the study. The mean glucose level in users aged <60 years significantly decreased (p<0.001) owing to the CGM use, while it did not increase in those aged ≥60 years. In users aged ≥60 years, the 1st_CGM group showed a significant decrease in blood glucose levels over time (p<0.05), whereas the 2nd_CGM group only showed a non-significant decreasing trend. The time in range tended to increase in those aged <60 years but decreased in those aged ≥60 years. In those aged <60 years, the mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (p<0.001), standard deviation (p<0.05), and coefficient of variation (p<0.001) significantly decreased. In those aged ≥60 years, these parameters exhibited a non-significant decreasing trend. Conclusion Glycemic effect and variability improved as expected with 1st_CGM use. However, 2nd_CGM did not significantly improve glycemic effect or variability in users aged ≥60 years, contrary to expectations. To address this issue, further investigation is needed to understand why, compared to 1st_CGM, 2nd_CGM fails to achieve better glycemic control in individuals aged ≥60 years.

Background/Aims: Quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) is believed to identify patients at risk of poor outcomes in those with suspected infection. We aimed to evaluate the ability of modified qSOFA (m-qSOFA) to identify high-risk patients among those with acutely deteriorated chronic liver disease (CLD), especially those with acute-onchronic liver failure (ACLF). Methods: We used data from both the Korean Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure (KACLiF) and the Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver ACLF Research Consortium (AARC) cohorts. qSOFA was modified by replacing the Glasgow Coma Scale with hepatic encephalopathy, and an m-qSOFA ≥2 was considered high. Results: Patients with high m-qSOFA had a significantly lower 1-month transplant-free survival (TFS) in both cohorts and higher organ failure development in KACLiF than those with low m-qSOFA (Ps<0.05). Subgroup analysis by ACLF showed that patients with high m-qSOFA had lower TFS than those with low m-qSOFA. m-qSOFA was an independent prognostic factor (hazard ratios, HR=2.604, 95% confidence interval, CI 1.353–5.013, P=0.004 in KACLiF and HR=1.904, 95% CI 1.484– 2.442, P<0.001 in AARC). The patients with low m-qSOFA at baseline but high m-qSOFA on day 7 had a significantly lower 1-month TFS than those with high m-qSOFA at baseline but low m-qSOFA on day 7 (52.6% vs. 89.4%, P<0.001 in KACLiF and 26.9% vs. 61.5%, P<0.001 in AARC). Conclusions Baseline and dynamic changes in m-qSOFA may identify patients with a high risk of developing organ failure and short-term mortality among CLD patients with acute deterioration.

Background/Aims: To eliminate hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) according to the World Health Organization (WHO) criteria in 2021, this study investigated the national core indicators representing the current status of viral hepatitis B and C in South Korea. Methods: We analyzed the incidence, linkage-to-care, treatment, and mortality rates of HBV and HCV infection using the integrated nationwide big data of South Korea. Results: According to data from 2018–2020, the incidence of acute HBV infection in South Korea was 0.71 cases per 100,000 population; tthe linkage-to-care rate was only 39.4%. Among those who need hepatitis B treatment, the treatment rate was 67.3%, which was less than 80% reported in the WHO program index. The annual liver-related mortality due to HBV was 18.85 cases per 100,000 population, exceeding the WHO target of four; the most frequent cause of death was liver cancer (54.1%). The annual incidence of newly diagnosed HCV infection was 11.9 cases per 100,000 population, which was higher than the WHO impact target of five. Among HCV-infected patients, the linkage-to-care rate was 65.5% while the treatment rate was 56.8%, which were below the targets of 90% and 80%, respectively. The liver-related annual mortality rate due to HCV infection was 2.02 cases per 100,000 population. Conclusions Many of the current indicators identified in the Korean population did not satisfy the WHO criteria for validation of viral hepatitis elimination. Hence, a comprehensive national strategy should be urgently developed with continuous monitoring of the targets in South Korea.

Background: /Aim: Abdominal ultrasonography (USG) is recommended as a surveillance test for high-risk groups for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This study aimed to analyze the current status of the national cancer surveillance program for HCC in South Korea and investigate the effects of patient-, physician-, and machine-related factors on HCC detection sensitivity. Methods: This multicenter retrospective cohort study collected surveillance USG data from the high-risk group for HCC (liver cirrhosis or chronic hepatitis B or C >40 years of age) at eight South Korean tertiary hospitals in 2017. Results: In 2017, 45 experienced hepatologists or radiologists performed 8,512 USG examinations. The physicians had a mean 15.0±8.3 years of experience; more hepatologists (61.4%) than radiologists (38.6%) participated. Each USG scan took a mean 12.2±3.4 minutes. The HCC detection rate by surveillance USG was 0.3% (n=23). Over 27 months of follow-up, an additional 135 patients (0.7%) developed new HCC. The patients were classified into three groups based on timing of HCC diagnosis since the 1st surveillance USG, and no significant intergroup difference in HCC characteristics was noted. HCC detection was significantly associated with patient-related factors, such as old age and advanced fibrosis, but not with physician- or machine-related factors. Conclusions This is the first study of the current status of USG as a surveillance method for HCC at tertiary hospitals in South Korea. It is necessary to develop quality indicators and quality assessment procedures for USG to improve the detection rate of HCC.

Thyroid hormone plays an important role in the process of implantation of a fertilized egg in the endometrium, as well as in the division and development of the fertilized egg. In addition, maternal thyroid hormone is essential for the formation and development of the fetal brain, nervous system, and bones. Therefore, when maternal thyroid hormone is insufficient, complications such as miscarriage, stillbirth, low birth weight and preeclampsia increase. Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of thyroid dysfunction during pregnancy were established and published by the American Endocrine Society, the American Thyroid Association, and the European Thyroid Society. The Korean Thyroid Society also published recommendations for diagnosis and treatment of thyroid disease during pregnancy and postpartum in 2014. However, since the revised guidelines of the American Thyroid Association were published in 2017, many studies, including large-scale randomized controlled trials, have been published in relation to thyroid and pregnancy, and the need to revise the existing recommendations has emerged in Korea.The main revisions of this recommendation are changes in the normal range of TSH during pregnancy, detailed description of treatment policies according to pregnant women’s autoantibodies and thyroid function status. Also, a description of the effect of thyroid autoantibodies on assisted reproductive procedures has been added.

This study aimed to investigate the association between Bacille Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccination and nontuberculous mycobacterial pulmonary disease (NTM-PD). Patients in the prospective NTM-PD cohort were matched to healthy controls to measure the association between BCG and NTM-PD development. The clinical course of NTM-PD patients was also evaluated to investigate the association between BCG and NTM-PD progression. BCG scars were not associated with NTM-PD development (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 2.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.96–4.34) or progression (adjusted OR, 1.61; 95% CI, 0.92–2.81).In conclusion, BCG vaccination was not associated with the development or progression of NTM-PD.