This review article investigates solid organ transplantation-induced osteoporosis, a critical yet often overlooked issue, emphasizing its significance in post-transplant care. The initial sections provide a comprehensive understanding of the prevalence and multifactorial pathogenesis of transplantation osteoporosis, including factors such as deteriorating post-transplantation health, hormonal changes, and the impact of immunosuppressive medications. Furthermore, the review is dedicated to organ-specific considerations in transplantation osteoporosis, with separate analyses for kidney, liver, heart, and lung transplantations. Each section elucidates the unique challenges and management strategies pertinent to transplantation osteoporosis in relation to each organ type, highlighting the necessity of an organ-specific approach to fully understand the diverse manifestations and implications of transplantation osteoporosis. This review underscores the importance of this topic in transplant medicine, aiming to enhance awareness and knowledge among clinicians and researchers. By comprehensively examining transplantation osteoporosis, this study contributes to the development of improved management and care strategies, ultimately leading to improved patient outcomes in this vulnerable group. This detailed review serves as an essential resource for those involved in the complex multidisciplinary care of transplant recipients.

This comprehensive review critically examines the detrimental impacts of endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) on bone health, with a specific focus on substances such as bisphenol A (BPA), per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs), phthalates, and dioxins. These EDCs, by interfering with the endocrine system’s normal functioning, pose a significant risk to bone metabolism, potentially leading to a heightened susceptibility to bone-related disorders and diseases. Notably, BPA has been shown to inhibit the differentiation of osteoblasts and promote the apoptosis of osteoblasts, which results in altered bone turnover status. PFASs, known for their environmental persistence and ability to bioaccumulate in the human body, have been linked to an increased osteoporosis risk. Similarly, phthalates, which are widely used in the production of plastics, have been associated with adverse bone health outcomes, showing an inverse relationship between phthalate exposure and bone mineral density. Dioxins present a more complex picture, with research findings suggesting both potential benefits and adverse effects on bone structure and density, depending on factors such as the timing and level of exposure. This review underscores the urgent need for further research to better understand the specific pathways through which EDCs affect bone health and to develop targeted strategies for mitigating their potentially harmful impacts.

The Korean Society of Infectious Diseases has been regularly publishing guidelines for adult immunization since 2007. Following the release of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination recommendations in 2023, significant changes have occurred due to the emergence of new variant strains and the waning immunity from previous vaccinations. This article provides a comprehensive update as of November 2024, incorporating the latest evidence and guidelines. Focusing on the 2024–2025 season, this article reviews vaccines currently authorized in Korea and assesses their effectiveness against the predominant JN.1 lineage variants. The updated recommendations prioritize high-risk groups, including adults aged 65 and older, individuals with underlying medical conditions, residents of facilities vulnerable to infection, pregnant women, and healthcare workers, for vaccination with updated vaccines targeting the JN.1 strain. Additionally, COVID-19 vaccination is available for all individuals aged 6 months and older. For most adults, a single-dose strategy is emphasized, while tailored schedules may be recommended for immunocompromised individuals. This update aims to optimize vaccination strategies in Korea to ensure comprehensive protection for high-risk populations.

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.

The Korean Society of Infectious Diseases has been regularly publishing guidelines for adult immunization since 2007. Following the release of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination recommendations in 2023, significant changes have occurred due to the emergence of new variant strains and the waning immunity from previous vaccinations. This article provides a comprehensive update as of November 2024, incorporating the latest evidence and guidelines. Focusing on the 2024–2025 season, this article reviews vaccines currently authorized in Korea and assesses their effectiveness against the predominant JN.1 lineage variants. The updated recommendations prioritize high-risk groups, including adults aged 65 and older, individuals with underlying medical conditions, residents of facilities vulnerable to infection, pregnant women, and healthcare workers, for vaccination with updated vaccines targeting the JN.1 strain. Additionally, COVID-19 vaccination is available for all individuals aged 6 months and older. For most adults, a single-dose strategy is emphasized, while tailored schedules may be recommended for immunocompromised individuals. This update aims to optimize vaccination strategies in Korea to ensure comprehensive protection for high-risk populations.

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.

The Korean Society of Infectious Diseases has been regularly publishing guidelines for adult immunization since 2007. Following the release of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination recommendations in 2023, significant changes have occurred due to the emergence of new variant strains and the waning immunity from previous vaccinations. This article provides a comprehensive update as of November 2024, incorporating the latest evidence and guidelines. Focusing on the 2024–2025 season, this article reviews vaccines currently authorized in Korea and assesses their effectiveness against the predominant JN.1 lineage variants. The updated recommendations prioritize high-risk groups, including adults aged 65 and older, individuals with underlying medical conditions, residents of facilities vulnerable to infection, pregnant women, and healthcare workers, for vaccination with updated vaccines targeting the JN.1 strain. Additionally, COVID-19 vaccination is available for all individuals aged 6 months and older. For most adults, a single-dose strategy is emphasized, while tailored schedules may be recommended for immunocompromised individuals. This update aims to optimize vaccination strategies in Korea to ensure comprehensive protection for high-risk populations.

Purpose: This subgroup analysis of the Korean subset of patients in the phase 3 LASER301 trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of lazertinib versus gefitinib as first-line therapy for epidermal growth factor receptor mutated (EGFRm) non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Materials and Methods: Patients with locally advanced or metastatic EGFRm NSCLC were randomized 1:1 to lazertinib (240 mg/day) or gefitinib (250 mg/day). The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Results: In total, 172 Korean patients were enrolled (lazertinib, n=87; gefitinib, n=85). Baseline characteristics were balanced between the treatment groups. One-third of patients had brain metastases (BM) at baseline. Median PFS was 20.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 16.7 to 26.1) for lazertinib and 9.6 months (95% CI, 8.2 to 12.3) for gefitinib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.41; 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.60). This was supported by PFS analysis based on blinded independent central review. Significant PFS benefit with lazertinib was consistently observed across predefined subgroups, including patients with BM (HR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.15 to 0.53) and those with L858R mutations (HR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.63). Lazertinib safety data were consistent with its previously reported safety profile. Common adverse events (AEs) in both groups included rash, pruritus, and diarrhoea. Numerically fewer severe AEs and severe treatment–related AEs occurred with lazertinib than gefitinib. Conclusion Consistent with results for the overall LASER301 population, this analysis showed significant PFS benefit with lazertinib versus gefitinib with comparable safety in Korean patients with untreated EGFRm NSCLC, supporting lazertinib as a new potential treatment option for this patient population.