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.

Objectives: This study aimed to present the Asia-Pacific consensus on long-term and sequential therapy for osteoporosis, offering evidence-based recommendations for the effective management of this chronic condition.The primary focus is on achieving optimal fracture prevention through a comprehensive, individualized approach. Methods: A panel of experts convened to develop consensus statements by synthesizing the current literature and leveraging clinical expertise. The review encompassed long-term anti-osteoporosis medication goals, first-line treatments for individuals at very high fracture risk, and the strategic integration of anabolic and anti resorptive agents in sequential therapy approaches. Results: The panelists reached a consensus on 12 statements. Key recommendations included advocating for anabolic agents as the first-line treatment for individuals at very high fracture risk and transitioning to anti resorptive agents following the completion of anabolic therapy. Anabolic therapy remains an option for in dividuals experiencing new fractures or persistent high fracture risk despite antiresorptive treatment. In cases of inadequate response, the consensus recommended considering a switch to more potent medications. The consensus also addressed the management of medication-related complications, proposing alternatives instead of discontinuation of treatment. Conclusions This consensus provides a comprehensive, cost-effective strategy for fracture prevention with an emphasis on shared decision-making and the incorporation of country-specific case management systems, such as fracture liaison services. It serves as a valuable guide for healthcare professionals in the Asia-Pacific region, contributing to the ongoing evolution of osteoporosis management.

Background: To compare risk of diabetic retinopathy (DR) between patients taking sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2is) and those taking glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1-RAs) in routine care. Methods: This retrospective cohort study emulating a target trial included patient data from the multi-institutional Chang Gung Research Database in Taiwan. Totally, 33,021 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus using SGLT2is and GLP1-RAs between 2016 and 2019 were identified. 3,249 patients were excluded due to missing demographics, age <40 years, prior use of any study drug, a diagnosis of retinal disorders, a history of receiving vitreoretinal procedure, no baseline glycosylated hemoglobin, or no follow-up data. Baseline characteristics were balanced using inverse probability of treatment weighting with propensity scores. DR diagnoses and vitreoretinal interventions served as the primary outcomes. Occurrence of proliferative DR and DR receiving vitreoretinal interventions were regarded as vision-threatening DR. Results: There were 21,491 SGLT2i and 1,887 GLP1-RA users included for the analysis. Patients receiving SGLT2is and GLP-1 RAs exhibited comparable rate of any DR (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR], 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.03), whereas the rate of proliferative DR (SHR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.68) was significantly lower in the SGLT2i group. Also, SGLT2i users showed significantly reduced risk of composite surgical outcome (SHR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.70). Conclusion Compared to those taking GLP1-RAs, patients receiving SGLT2is had a lower risk of proliferative DR and vitreoretinal interventions, although the rate of any DR was comparable between the SGLT2i and GLP1-RA groups. Thus, SGLT2is may be associated with a lower risk of vision-threatening DR but not DR development.

INTRODUCTION: Vaccination remains a key strategy to living endemically with COVID-19. The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine was first granted interim authorisation for use in Singapore in December 2020. With overseas studies published about the safety and side effect profiles of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines focusing mainly on non-Asian populations, we described the side effects of Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccination experienced by the healthcare workers (HCWs) in a tertiary hospital in Singapore. METHODS: Data were obtained from the Occupational Health Clinic (OHC) at the National University Hospital in Singapore, which monitored staff for any adverse effects within 30 minutes post vaccination on-site and any adverse effects after that. A cross-sectional study among the vaccinated HCWs was conducted using an online survey, which established basic demographics, histories of allergies or atopic disorders, and adverse events encountered after dose 1 and dose 2 of vaccination. RESULTS: No anaphylaxis was reported. Most common symptom was giddiness (32.7%) experienced by HCWs within 30 minutes. Adverse events attended post-vaccination by OHC were generally mild and self-limiting. From the survey, odds of experiencing an adverse event after dose 2 was significantly higher than after the first dose, especially for fever/chills (odds ratio [OR] 22.5). Fever/chills, injection site reactions, headache, aches and pains, and feeling unwell were significantly more common in HCWs below 60 years compared to those ≥60 years. An allergy to food (adjusted OR 2.7) and a history of eczema/sensitive skin (adjusted OR 2.6) were associated with a skin reaction not at injection site. CONCLUSION The side effects experienced after Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines are generally self-limiting and mild, with no anaphylaxis reported.
COVID-19 ; COVID-19 Vaccines ; Cross-Sectional Studies ; Health Personnel ; Humans ; SARS-CoV-2 ; Singapore/epidemiology* ; Tertiary Care Centers ; Vaccination

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Surgical resection or ablation is recommended for the treatment of early hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), whereas transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) is frequently used in early HCC ineligible for curative resection. We evaluated the clinical effects and safety of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) shortly after TACE in patients with Barcelona clinic liver cancer (BCLC) stage A HCC. METHODS: Sixty-seven BCLC stage A HCC patients who failed to achieve complete response to TACE as either a first line treatment and who subsequently received RFA at the Konkuk University Medical Center from January 2005 to December 2017 were included. Evaluation indices included treatment response, overall survival rate, recurrence-free survival, prognostic factors, and procedure-related complications. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 46.9 months. Fifty-four (80.6%) patients were of Child-Pugh class A, and 13 (19.4%) were of class B. Modified UICC stages were I in 10 (14.9%), II in 46 (68.7%), and III in 11 (16.4%) patients. In the 67 study subjects, cumulative recurrence-free survival rates were 86.8%, 55.9% and 29.7% at 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively, and overall survival rates were 100%, 93.4%, and 83.5% at 1, 3, and 5 years, respectively. Tumor size significantly predicted recurrence. No treatment-related death occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Combination of RFA was an efficient and safe treatment for BCLC stage A HCC patients that failed to achieve complete response to initial TACE. We suggest TACE plus RFA be considered as a curative option for early HCC patients ineligible for curative resection of RFA.
Academic Medical Centers ; Carcinoma, Hepatocellular ; Catheter Ablation ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Liver Neoplasms ; Liver ; Recurrence ; Survival Rate ; Treatment Outcome

Biportal endoscopic spinal surgery (BESS) is a minimally invasive spinal surgery, which is basically similar to microscopic spinal surgery in terms of the use of floating technique and technically similar to conventional percutaneous endoscopic spinal surgery in terms of the use of endoscopic or arthroscopic instruments. Using two independent portals (viewing and working) and maintaining a certain distance from the bony and neural structures allow closer access to the target lesion through a panoramic view by free handling of the scope and instruments rather than through a fixed view by docking into the Kambin's triangle. Minimally invasive surgery allows for reduced dissection and inevitable muscle injury, preserving stability and reducing risks of restabilization. The purpose of fusion surgery is the same as that of the three surgical techniques stated above. Its wider range of view helps to overcome limitations of conventional endoscopic spinal surgery and to supplement the weak points of microscopic spinal surgery, such as limited working space in a tubular retractor and difficulty in accessing the contralateral area. This technique provides an alternative to unilateral or bilateral decompression of lumbar central spinal stenosis, foraminal stenosis, low-grade spondylolisthesis, and adjacent segment degeneration. Early clinical outcomes are promising despite potential for complications, such as dural tearing and postoperative epidural hematoma, similar to other procedures. Merits of BESS include decreased postoperative infection rate due to continuous irrigation throughout the procedure and decreased need for fusion surgery for one- or two-level lumbar stenosis by wide sublaminar and foraminal decompression with minimal sacrifice of stabilizing structures.
Arthroscopy ; Constriction, Pathologic ; Decompression ; Endoscopy ; Hematoma ; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures ; Spinal Stenosis ; Spondylolisthesis ; Tears