Background: This study aimed to determine whether a shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen is non-inferior to the standard 6-month tuberculosis regimen. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial enrolled participants with respiratory specimen positivity by Xpert MTB/RIF assay or Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture without rifampicin-resistance. Participants were randomized at 1:1 to the investigational or control group. The investigational group received high-dose rifampicin (30 mg/kg/day), isoniazid, and pyrazinamide until culture conversion, followed by high-dose rifampicin and isoniazid for 12 weeks. The control group received the standard 6-month regimen. The primary outcome was the rate of unfavorable outcomes at 18 months post-randomization. The non-inferiority margin was set at <6% difference in unfavorable outcomes rates. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04485156) Results: Between 4 November 2020 and 3 January 2022, 76 participants were enrolled. Of these, 58 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Unfavorable outcomes occurred in 10 (31.3%) of 32 in the control group and 10 (38.5%) of 26 in the investigational group. The difference was 7.2% (95% confidence interval, ∞ to 31.9%), failing to prove non-inferiority. Serious adverse events and grade 3 or higher adverse events did not differ between the groups. Conclusion The shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen failed to demonstrate non-inferiority but had an acceptable safety profile.

Background: This study aimed to determine whether a shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen is non-inferior to the standard 6-month tuberculosis regimen. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial enrolled participants with respiratory specimen positivity by Xpert MTB/RIF assay or Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture without rifampicin-resistance. Participants were randomized at 1:1 to the investigational or control group. The investigational group received high-dose rifampicin (30 mg/kg/day), isoniazid, and pyrazinamide until culture conversion, followed by high-dose rifampicin and isoniazid for 12 weeks. The control group received the standard 6-month regimen. The primary outcome was the rate of unfavorable outcomes at 18 months post-randomization. The non-inferiority margin was set at <6% difference in unfavorable outcomes rates. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04485156) Results: Between 4 November 2020 and 3 January 2022, 76 participants were enrolled. Of these, 58 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Unfavorable outcomes occurred in 10 (31.3%) of 32 in the control group and 10 (38.5%) of 26 in the investigational group. The difference was 7.2% (95% confidence interval, ∞ to 31.9%), failing to prove non-inferiority. Serious adverse events and grade 3 or higher adverse events did not differ between the groups. Conclusion The shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen failed to demonstrate non-inferiority but had an acceptable safety profile.

Background/Aims: Self-expandable metallic stents (SEMSs) are widely used as palliative or bridge to surgery treatments in patients with malignant colorectal obstruction (MCO). Stent occlusion is more common with uncovered stents, but stent migration is more common with covered stents. Our purpose was to compare the efficacy and safety of a newly designed covered SEMS with an uncovered proximal flared end (CSEMS-UPF) with that of the conventional uncovered SEMS (UCSEMS) in the treatment of MCO. Methods: This prospective randomized trial was conducted at a tertiary-care academic hospital. We enrolled 87 patients with stage 4 cancer and MCO: colorectal cancer in 60 patients and extracolonic cancer in 27 patients. Insertion of UCSEMS was randomly assigned to 43 patients, and 44 patients received the CSEMS-UPF. The primary outcome was the duration of stent patency after successful placement. The secondary outcomes were the number of patients with technical and clinical success and early and late complications from the stent insertion. Results: The median patency of the stent did not differ between the UCSEMS and CSEMS-UPF groups (484 [231–737] days vs. 216 [66–366] days, P= 0.242). The technical and clinical success rates did not differ significantly between the groups, either (100.0% vs. 93.2%, respectively, P= 0.241; 100.0% vs. 92.7%, respectively, P= 0.112), nor did the early (n = 2 [4.7%] vs. n = 4 [9.8%], P> 0.999) or late (n = 12 [27.9%] vs. n = 15 [36.6%], P> 0.999) stent complication rates differ between the groups. Conclusions The UCSEMS and newly developed CSEMS-UPF are similarly effective treatments for MCO, with no differences in the stent migration or occlusion rates (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02640781).

Background: This study aimed to determine whether a shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen is non-inferior to the standard 6-month tuberculosis regimen. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial enrolled participants with respiratory specimen positivity by Xpert MTB/RIF assay or Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture without rifampicin-resistance. Participants were randomized at 1:1 to the investigational or control group. The investigational group received high-dose rifampicin (30 mg/kg/day), isoniazid, and pyrazinamide until culture conversion, followed by high-dose rifampicin and isoniazid for 12 weeks. The control group received the standard 6-month regimen. The primary outcome was the rate of unfavorable outcomes at 18 months post-randomization. The non-inferiority margin was set at <6% difference in unfavorable outcomes rates. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04485156) Results: Between 4 November 2020 and 3 January 2022, 76 participants were enrolled. Of these, 58 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Unfavorable outcomes occurred in 10 (31.3%) of 32 in the control group and 10 (38.5%) of 26 in the investigational group. The difference was 7.2% (95% confidence interval, ∞ to 31.9%), failing to prove non-inferiority. Serious adverse events and grade 3 or higher adverse events did not differ between the groups. Conclusion The shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen failed to demonstrate non-inferiority but had an acceptable safety profile.

Background: This study aimed to determine whether a shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen is non-inferior to the standard 6-month tuberculosis regimen. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial enrolled participants with respiratory specimen positivity by Xpert MTB/RIF assay or Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture without rifampicin-resistance. Participants were randomized at 1:1 to the investigational or control group. The investigational group received high-dose rifampicin (30 mg/kg/day), isoniazid, and pyrazinamide until culture conversion, followed by high-dose rifampicin and isoniazid for 12 weeks. The control group received the standard 6-month regimen. The primary outcome was the rate of unfavorable outcomes at 18 months post-randomization. The non-inferiority margin was set at <6% difference in unfavorable outcomes rates. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04485156) Results: Between 4 November 2020 and 3 January 2022, 76 participants were enrolled. Of these, 58 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Unfavorable outcomes occurred in 10 (31.3%) of 32 in the control group and 10 (38.5%) of 26 in the investigational group. The difference was 7.2% (95% confidence interval, ∞ to 31.9%), failing to prove non-inferiority. Serious adverse events and grade 3 or higher adverse events did not differ between the groups. Conclusion The shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen failed to demonstrate non-inferiority but had an acceptable safety profile.

Background/Aims: Self-expandable metallic stents (SEMSs) are widely used as palliative or bridge to surgery treatments in patients with malignant colorectal obstruction (MCO). Stent occlusion is more common with uncovered stents, but stent migration is more common with covered stents. Our purpose was to compare the efficacy and safety of a newly designed covered SEMS with an uncovered proximal flared end (CSEMS-UPF) with that of the conventional uncovered SEMS (UCSEMS) in the treatment of MCO. Methods: This prospective randomized trial was conducted at a tertiary-care academic hospital. We enrolled 87 patients with stage 4 cancer and MCO: colorectal cancer in 60 patients and extracolonic cancer in 27 patients. Insertion of UCSEMS was randomly assigned to 43 patients, and 44 patients received the CSEMS-UPF. The primary outcome was the duration of stent patency after successful placement. The secondary outcomes were the number of patients with technical and clinical success and early and late complications from the stent insertion. Results: The median patency of the stent did not differ between the UCSEMS and CSEMS-UPF groups (484 [231–737] days vs. 216 [66–366] days, P= 0.242). The technical and clinical success rates did not differ significantly between the groups, either (100.0% vs. 93.2%, respectively, P= 0.241; 100.0% vs. 92.7%, respectively, P= 0.112), nor did the early (n = 2 [4.7%] vs. n = 4 [9.8%], P> 0.999) or late (n = 12 [27.9%] vs. n = 15 [36.6%], P> 0.999) stent complication rates differ between the groups. Conclusions The UCSEMS and newly developed CSEMS-UPF are similarly effective treatments for MCO, with no differences in the stent migration or occlusion rates (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02640781).

Background/Aims: Self-expandable metallic stents (SEMSs) are widely used as palliative or bridge to surgery treatments in patients with malignant colorectal obstruction (MCO). Stent occlusion is more common with uncovered stents, but stent migration is more common with covered stents. Our purpose was to compare the efficacy and safety of a newly designed covered SEMS with an uncovered proximal flared end (CSEMS-UPF) with that of the conventional uncovered SEMS (UCSEMS) in the treatment of MCO. Methods: This prospective randomized trial was conducted at a tertiary-care academic hospital. We enrolled 87 patients with stage 4 cancer and MCO: colorectal cancer in 60 patients and extracolonic cancer in 27 patients. Insertion of UCSEMS was randomly assigned to 43 patients, and 44 patients received the CSEMS-UPF. The primary outcome was the duration of stent patency after successful placement. The secondary outcomes were the number of patients with technical and clinical success and early and late complications from the stent insertion. Results: The median patency of the stent did not differ between the UCSEMS and CSEMS-UPF groups (484 [231–737] days vs. 216 [66–366] days, P= 0.242). The technical and clinical success rates did not differ significantly between the groups, either (100.0% vs. 93.2%, respectively, P= 0.241; 100.0% vs. 92.7%, respectively, P= 0.112), nor did the early (n = 2 [4.7%] vs. n = 4 [9.8%], P> 0.999) or late (n = 12 [27.9%] vs. n = 15 [36.6%], P> 0.999) stent complication rates differ between the groups. Conclusions The UCSEMS and newly developed CSEMS-UPF are similarly effective treatments for MCO, with no differences in the stent migration or occlusion rates (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02640781).

Background: This study aimed to determine whether a shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen is non-inferior to the standard 6-month tuberculosis regimen. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial enrolled participants with respiratory specimen positivity by Xpert MTB/RIF assay or Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture without rifampicin-resistance. Participants were randomized at 1:1 to the investigational or control group. The investigational group received high-dose rifampicin (30 mg/kg/day), isoniazid, and pyrazinamide until culture conversion, followed by high-dose rifampicin and isoniazid for 12 weeks. The control group received the standard 6-month regimen. The primary outcome was the rate of unfavorable outcomes at 18 months post-randomization. The non-inferiority margin was set at <6% difference in unfavorable outcomes rates. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04485156) Results: Between 4 November 2020 and 3 January 2022, 76 participants were enrolled. Of these, 58 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Unfavorable outcomes occurred in 10 (31.3%) of 32 in the control group and 10 (38.5%) of 26 in the investigational group. The difference was 7.2% (95% confidence interval, ∞ to 31.9%), failing to prove non-inferiority. Serious adverse events and grade 3 or higher adverse events did not differ between the groups. Conclusion The shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen failed to demonstrate non-inferiority but had an acceptable safety profile.

Purpose: Behçet’s disease (BD) is a chronic inflammatory immune-mediated disease involving multiorgan systems. Gastrointestinal (GI) manifestations of BD include abdominal pain, vomiting, GI bleeding, fistula formation, obstruction, and perforation that might require surgery. Recently, anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha (anti-TNF-α) therapy has been shown to have favorable outcomes in patients with intestinal BD who are refractory to conventional therapy. This study sought to figure out the risk factors for undergoing surgery during anti-TNF-α therapy in patients with intestinal BD. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective analysis of intestinal BD patients who were treated with anti-TNF-α, we collected the baseline patient data including comorbidities, clinical, endoscopic, and radiologic characteristics, and the Disease Activity Index for Intestinal Behçet’s Disease at the time of anti-TNF-α initiation. Each potential risk factor was compared. For multivariate analysis, Cox regression was used. Results: A total of 62 patients were considered eligible for analysis, and 15 of them (24.1%) underwent surgery. In univariate analysis, the presence of extraintestinal manifestation, such as joint symptoms and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), were significantly associated with surgery during therapy. In multivariate analysis, drug response within 4 weeks [hazard ratio (HR), 64.59], skin and joint manifestation (HR, 10.23 and HR, 6.22), geographic ulcer (HR, 743.97), and ESR >42.5 mm/h (HR, 9.16) were found to be factors predictive of undergoing surgery during anti-TNF-α therapy. Conclusion We found five risk factors predictive of surgery in patients with intestinal BD receiving anti-TNF-α therapy, which can guide physicians in selecting appropriate patients between anti-TNF-α therapy and early surgery.

Objective: Dysphagia is a common clinical condition characterized by difficulty in swallowing. It is sub-classified into oropharyngeal dysphagia, which refers to problems in the mouth and pharynx, and esophageal dysphagia, which refers to problems in the esophageal body and esophagogastric junction. Dysphagia can have a significant negative impact one’s physical health and quality of life as its severity increases. Therefore, proper assessment and management of dysphagia are critical for improving swallowing function and preventing complications. Thus a guideline was developed to provide evidence-based recommendations for assessment and management in patients with dysphagia. Methods: Nineteen key questions on dysphagia were developed. These questions dealt with various aspects of problems related to dysphagia, including assessment, management, and complications. A literature search for relevant articles was conducted using Pubmed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and one domestic database of KoreaMed, until April 2021. The level of evidence and recommendation grade were established according to the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. Results: Early screening and assessment of videofluoroscopic swallowing were recommended for assessing the presence of dysphagia. Therapeutic methods, such as tongue and pharyngeal muscle strengthening exercises and neuromuscular electrical stimulation with swallowing therapy, were effective in improving swallowing function and quality of life in patients with dysphagia. Nutritional intervention and an oral care program were also recommended. Conclusion This guideline presents recommendations for the assessment and management of patients with oropharyngeal dysphagia, including rehabilitative strategies.