Objective: As the demand for community mental health services continues to grow, the need for well-equipped and organized services has become apparent. This study aimed to optimize the roles and infrastructure of mental health services, by establishing, among other initiatives, standardized operating models. Methods: The study was conducted in multiple phases from May 12, 2021, to December 29, 2021. Stakeholders within South Korea and metropolitan mental health welfare centers were targeted, but addiction management support centers, including officials, patients, and their families, were integrated as well. A literature review and survey, focus group interviews, a Delphi survey, and expert consultation contributed to comprehensive revisions and improvements of the mental health service model. Results: The proposed model for community mental health welfare centers emphasizes the expansion of personnel and infrastructure, with a focus on severe mental illnesses and suicide prevention. The model for metropolitan mental health welfare centers delineates essential tasks in areas such as project planning and establishment, community research, and education about severe mental illnesses. The establishment of a 24-hour emergency intervention center was a crucial feature. In the integrated addiction support center model, the need to promote addiction management is defined as an essential task and the establishment of national governance for addiction policies is recommended. Conclusion This study proposed standard operating models for three types of mental health service centers. To meet the increasing need for community care, robust mental health service delivery systems are of primary importance.

Objective: As the demand for community mental health services continues to grow, the need for well-equipped and organized services has become apparent. This study aimed to optimize the roles and infrastructure of mental health services, by establishing, among other initiatives, standardized operating models. Methods: The study was conducted in multiple phases from May 12, 2021, to December 29, 2021. Stakeholders within South Korea and metropolitan mental health welfare centers were targeted, but addiction management support centers, including officials, patients, and their families, were integrated as well. A literature review and survey, focus group interviews, a Delphi survey, and expert consultation contributed to comprehensive revisions and improvements of the mental health service model. Results: The proposed model for community mental health welfare centers emphasizes the expansion of personnel and infrastructure, with a focus on severe mental illnesses and suicide prevention. The model for metropolitan mental health welfare centers delineates essential tasks in areas such as project planning and establishment, community research, and education about severe mental illnesses. The establishment of a 24-hour emergency intervention center was a crucial feature. In the integrated addiction support center model, the need to promote addiction management is defined as an essential task and the establishment of national governance for addiction policies is recommended. Conclusion This study proposed standard operating models for three types of mental health service centers. To meet the increasing need for community care, robust mental health service delivery systems are of primary importance.

Objective: As the demand for community mental health services continues to grow, the need for well-equipped and organized services has become apparent. This study aimed to optimize the roles and infrastructure of mental health services, by establishing, among other initiatives, standardized operating models. Methods: The study was conducted in multiple phases from May 12, 2021, to December 29, 2021. Stakeholders within South Korea and metropolitan mental health welfare centers were targeted, but addiction management support centers, including officials, patients, and their families, were integrated as well. A literature review and survey, focus group interviews, a Delphi survey, and expert consultation contributed to comprehensive revisions and improvements of the mental health service model. Results: The proposed model for community mental health welfare centers emphasizes the expansion of personnel and infrastructure, with a focus on severe mental illnesses and suicide prevention. The model for metropolitan mental health welfare centers delineates essential tasks in areas such as project planning and establishment, community research, and education about severe mental illnesses. The establishment of a 24-hour emergency intervention center was a crucial feature. In the integrated addiction support center model, the need to promote addiction management is defined as an essential task and the establishment of national governance for addiction policies is recommended. Conclusion This study proposed standard operating models for three types of mental health service centers. To meet the increasing need for community care, robust mental health service delivery systems are of primary importance.

Objective: As the demand for community mental health services continues to grow, the need for well-equipped and organized services has become apparent. This study aimed to optimize the roles and infrastructure of mental health services, by establishing, among other initiatives, standardized operating models. Methods: The study was conducted in multiple phases from May 12, 2021, to December 29, 2021. Stakeholders within South Korea and metropolitan mental health welfare centers were targeted, but addiction management support centers, including officials, patients, and their families, were integrated as well. A literature review and survey, focus group interviews, a Delphi survey, and expert consultation contributed to comprehensive revisions and improvements of the mental health service model. Results: The proposed model for community mental health welfare centers emphasizes the expansion of personnel and infrastructure, with a focus on severe mental illnesses and suicide prevention. The model for metropolitan mental health welfare centers delineates essential tasks in areas such as project planning and establishment, community research, and education about severe mental illnesses. The establishment of a 24-hour emergency intervention center was a crucial feature. In the integrated addiction support center model, the need to promote addiction management is defined as an essential task and the establishment of national governance for addiction policies is recommended. Conclusion This study proposed standard operating models for three types of mental health service centers. To meet the increasing need for community care, robust mental health service delivery systems are of primary importance.

Objective: As the demand for community mental health services continues to grow, the need for well-equipped and organized services has become apparent. This study aimed to optimize the roles and infrastructure of mental health services, by establishing, among other initiatives, standardized operating models. Methods: The study was conducted in multiple phases from May 12, 2021, to December 29, 2021. Stakeholders within South Korea and metropolitan mental health welfare centers were targeted, but addiction management support centers, including officials, patients, and their families, were integrated as well. A literature review and survey, focus group interviews, a Delphi survey, and expert consultation contributed to comprehensive revisions and improvements of the mental health service model. Results: The proposed model for community mental health welfare centers emphasizes the expansion of personnel and infrastructure, with a focus on severe mental illnesses and suicide prevention. The model for metropolitan mental health welfare centers delineates essential tasks in areas such as project planning and establishment, community research, and education about severe mental illnesses. The establishment of a 24-hour emergency intervention center was a crucial feature. In the integrated addiction support center model, the need to promote addiction management is defined as an essential task and the establishment of national governance for addiction policies is recommended. Conclusion This study proposed standard operating models for three types of mental health service centers. To meet the increasing need for community care, robust mental health service delivery systems are of primary importance.

Background: Whether anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody levels post-third coronavirus disease (COVID-19) vaccination correlate with worse outcomes due to breakthrough infection is unclear. We evaluated the association between anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels and symptomatic breakthrough infection or hospitalization during the Omicron surge in kidney transplant recipients. Methods: In total, 287 kidney transplant recipients expected to receive a third vaccination were enrolled between November 2021 and February 2022. The Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG II Quant test (Abbott, Chicago, IL, USA) was performed within three weeks before and four weeks after the third vaccination. The incidence of symptomatic breakthrough infection and hospitalization from two weeks to four months post-third vaccination was recorded. Results: After the third vaccination, the seropositive rate and median antibody titer of the 287 patients increased from 57.1% to 82.2% and from 71.7 (interquartile range [IQR] 7.2– 402.8) to 1,612.1 (IQR 153.9–5,489.1) AU/mL, respectively. Sixty-four (22.3%) patients had symptomatic breakthrough infections, of whom 12 required hospitalization. Lower anti-receptor-binding domain (RBD) IgG levels ( < 400 AU/mL) post-third vaccination were a risk factor for symptomatic breakthrough infection (hazard ratio [HR] = 3.46, P < 0.001).Anti-RBD IgG levels < 200 AU/mL were a critical risk factor for hospitalization (HR = 36.4, P = 0.007). Conclusions Low anti-spike IgG levels after third vaccination in kidney transplant recipients were associated with symptomatic breakthrough infection and, particularly, with hospitalization during the Omicron surge. These data can be used to identify patients requiring additional protective measures, such as passive immunization using monoclonal antibodies.

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer in Korea and the third leading cause of death from cancer. Treatment outcomes for colon cancer are steadily improving due to national health screening programs with advances in diagnostic methods, surgical techniques, and therapeutic agents.. The Korea Colon Cancer Multidisciplinary (KCCM) Committee intends to provide professionals who treat colon cancer with the most up-to-date, evidence-based practice guidelines to improve outcomes and help them make decisions that reflect their patients’ values and preferences. These guidelines have been established by consensus reached by the KCCM Guideline Committee based on a systematic literature review and evidence synthesis and by considering the national health insurance system in real clinical practice settings. Each recommendation is presented with a recommendation strength and level of evidence based on the consensus of the committee.

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.

Background: Guidelines for switching to triple combination therapy directly after monotherapy failure are limited. This study investigated the efficacy, long-term sustainability, and safety of either mono or dual add-on therapy using alogliptin and pioglitazone for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who did not achieve their target glycemic range with metformin monotherapy. Methods: The Practical Evidence of Antidiabetic Combination Therapy in Korea (PEAK) was a multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized trial. A total of 214 participants were randomized to receive alogliptin+pioglitazone (Alo+Pio group, n=70), alogliptin (Alo group, n=75), or pioglitazone (Pio group, n=69). The primary outcome was the difference in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels between the three groups at baseline to 24 weeks. For durability, the achievement of HbA1c levels <7% and <6.5% was compared in each group. The number of adverse events was investigated for safety. Results: After 24 weeks of treatment, the change of HbA1c in the Alo+Pio, Alo, and Pio groups were –1.38%±0.08%, –1.03%±0.08%, and –0.84%±0.08%, respectively. The Alo+Pio group had significantly lower HbA1c levels than the other groups (P=0.0063, P<0.0001) and had a higher proportion of patients with target HbA1c achievement. In addition, insulin sensitivity and β-cell function, lipid profiles, and other metabolic indicators were also improved. There were no significant safety issues in patients treated with triple combination therapy. Conclusion Early combination triple therapy showed better efficacy and durability than the single add-on (dual) therapy. Therefore, combination therapy with metformin, alogliptin, and pioglitazone is a valuable early treatment option for T2DM poorly controlled with metformin monotherapy.

Background: Atherogenic dyslipidemia, which is frequently associated with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and insulin resistance, contributes to the development of vascular complications. Statin therapy is the primary approach to dyslipidemia management in T2D, however, the role of non-statin therapy remains unclear. Ezetimibe reduces cholesterol burden by inhibiting intestinal cholesterol absorption. Fibrates lower triglyceride levels and increase high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels via peroxisome proliferator- activated receptor alpha agonism. Therefore, when combined, these drugs effectively lower non-HDL-C levels. Despite this, few clinical trials have specifically targeted non-HDL-C, and the efficacy of triple combination therapies, including statins, ezetimibe, and fibrates, has yet to be determined. Methods: This is a multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label, active-comparator controlled trial involving 3,958 eligible participants with T2D, cardiovascular risk factors, and elevated non-HDL-C (≥100 mg/dL). Participants, already on moderate-intensity statins, will be randomly assigned to either Ezefeno (ezetimibe/fenofibrate) addition or statin dose-escalation. The primary end point is the development of a composite of major adverse cardiovascular and diabetic microvascular events over 48 months. Conclusion This trial aims to assess whether combining statins, ezetimibe, and fenofibrate is as effective as, or possibly superior to, statin monotherapy intensification in lowering cardiovascular and microvascular disease risk for patients with T2D. This could propose a novel therapeutic approach for managing dyslipidemia in T2D.