Background and Objectives: Inconsistencies in nasal nitric oxide (nNO) values, due to anatomical variations and comorbidities, challenge the accurate assessment of upper airway inflammation severity. We hypothesized that changes in nNO levels following treatment for chronic rhinitis would be consistent and provide relative value. This study aimed to evaluate the correlation between changes in nNO levels and symptomatic improvements following treatment for chronic rhinitis. Methods: This prospective observational study included 46 participants diagnosed with chronic rhinitis between December 2021 and November 2023. nNO measurements, evaluations of four nasal and two ocular symptoms, and quality of life questionnaires were conducted at baseline and after one month of treatment. Baseline laboratory tests included serum total immunoglobulin E levels, blood eosinophil percentages, and skin prick tests. Results: The Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS), TNSS with ocular symptoms (TNSS eye), and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) scores significantly decreased following treatment (all p<0.001). nNO levels also decreased significantly after treatment (p=0.036). Moreover, changes in nNO were significantly correlated with changes in TNSS, TNSS eye, and RQLQ scores (p=0.047, r=0.294; p=0.021, r=0.340; and p=0.004, r=0.419, respectively). Conclusion In patients with chronic rhinitis, changes in TNSS, TNSS eye, and RQLQ scores were correlated with changes in nNO levels after treatment. nNO may serve as a potential objective evaluation tool for chronic rhinitis, particularly in patients who have difficulty reporting symptoms.

Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

Background and Objectives: Inconsistencies in nasal nitric oxide (nNO) values, due to anatomical variations and comorbidities, challenge the accurate assessment of upper airway inflammation severity. We hypothesized that changes in nNO levels following treatment for chronic rhinitis would be consistent and provide relative value. This study aimed to evaluate the correlation between changes in nNO levels and symptomatic improvements following treatment for chronic rhinitis. Methods: This prospective observational study included 46 participants diagnosed with chronic rhinitis between December 2021 and November 2023. nNO measurements, evaluations of four nasal and two ocular symptoms, and quality of life questionnaires were conducted at baseline and after one month of treatment. Baseline laboratory tests included serum total immunoglobulin E levels, blood eosinophil percentages, and skin prick tests. Results: The Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS), TNSS with ocular symptoms (TNSS eye), and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) scores significantly decreased following treatment (all p<0.001). nNO levels also decreased significantly after treatment (p=0.036). Moreover, changes in nNO were significantly correlated with changes in TNSS, TNSS eye, and RQLQ scores (p=0.047, r=0.294; p=0.021, r=0.340; and p=0.004, r=0.419, respectively). Conclusion In patients with chronic rhinitis, changes in TNSS, TNSS eye, and RQLQ scores were correlated with changes in nNO levels after treatment. nNO may serve as a potential objective evaluation tool for chronic rhinitis, particularly in patients who have difficulty reporting symptoms.

Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

Background and Objectives: Inconsistencies in nasal nitric oxide (nNO) values, due to anatomical variations and comorbidities, challenge the accurate assessment of upper airway inflammation severity. We hypothesized that changes in nNO levels following treatment for chronic rhinitis would be consistent and provide relative value. This study aimed to evaluate the correlation between changes in nNO levels and symptomatic improvements following treatment for chronic rhinitis. Methods: This prospective observational study included 46 participants diagnosed with chronic rhinitis between December 2021 and November 2023. nNO measurements, evaluations of four nasal and two ocular symptoms, and quality of life questionnaires were conducted at baseline and after one month of treatment. Baseline laboratory tests included serum total immunoglobulin E levels, blood eosinophil percentages, and skin prick tests. Results: The Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS), TNSS with ocular symptoms (TNSS eye), and Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) scores significantly decreased following treatment (all p<0.001). nNO levels also decreased significantly after treatment (p=0.036). Moreover, changes in nNO were significantly correlated with changes in TNSS, TNSS eye, and RQLQ scores (p=0.047, r=0.294; p=0.021, r=0.340; and p=0.004, r=0.419, respectively). Conclusion In patients with chronic rhinitis, changes in TNSS, TNSS eye, and RQLQ scores were correlated with changes in nNO levels after treatment. nNO may serve as a potential objective evaluation tool for chronic rhinitis, particularly in patients who have difficulty reporting symptoms.

Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

Lecanemab (product name Leqembi ® ) is an anti-amyloid monoclonal antibody treatment approved for use in Korea for patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia due to Alzheimer's disease. The Korean Dementia Association has created recommendations for the appropriate use of lecanemab to assist clinicians. These recommendations include selecting patients for administration, necessary pre-administration tests and preparations,administration methods, monitoring for amyloid related imaging abnormalities (ARIA), and communication with patients and caregivers. Lecanemab is recommended for patients with MCI or mild dementia who confirmed positive amyloid biomarkers, and should not be administered to patients with severe hypersensitivity to lecanemab or those unable to undergo magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) evaluation. To predict the risk of ARIA before administration, apolipoprotein E genotyping is conducted, and regular brain MRI evaluations are recommended to monitor for ARIA during treatment. The most common adverse reactions are infusion-related reactions, which require appropriate management upon occurrence. Additional caution is needed when co-administering with anticoagulants or tissue plasminogen activator due to the risk of macrohemorrhage. Clinicians should consider the efficacy and necessary conditions for administration, as well as the safety of lecanemab, to make a comprehensive decision regarding its use.

Lecanemab (product name Leqembi ® ) is an anti-amyloid monoclonal antibody treatment approved for use in Korea for patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia due to Alzheimer's disease. The Korean Dementia Association has created recommendations for the appropriate use of lecanemab to assist clinicians. These recommendations include selecting patients for administration, necessary pre-administration tests and preparations,administration methods, monitoring for amyloid related imaging abnormalities (ARIA), and communication with patients and caregivers. Lecanemab is recommended for patients with MCI or mild dementia who confirmed positive amyloid biomarkers, and should not be administered to patients with severe hypersensitivity to lecanemab or those unable to undergo magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) evaluation. To predict the risk of ARIA before administration, apolipoprotein E genotyping is conducted, and regular brain MRI evaluations are recommended to monitor for ARIA during treatment. The most common adverse reactions are infusion-related reactions, which require appropriate management upon occurrence. Additional caution is needed when co-administering with anticoagulants or tissue plasminogen activator due to the risk of macrohemorrhage. Clinicians should consider the efficacy and necessary conditions for administration, as well as the safety of lecanemab, to make a comprehensive decision regarding its use.