Objective: We conducted this study to assess the efficacy and safety of taltirelin hydrate (TH) in patients with ataxia due to spinocerebellar degeneration (SCD). Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to either the taltirelin group (5 mg orally, twice daily) or the control group. The primary endpoint was the change in the Korean version of the Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia (K-SARA) score at 24 weeks. The secondary endpoints included changes in the K-SARA score at 4 and 12 weeks as well as the Clinical Global Impression Scale, the five-level version of the EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire, the Tinetti balance test, and gait analysis at 4, 12, and 24 weeks. Results: A total of 149 patients (hereditary:nonhereditary=86:63) were enrolled. There were significant differences in the change in the K-SARA score at 24 weeks from baseline between the taltirelin group and the control group (-0.51±2.79 versus 0.36±2.62, respectively; p=0.0321). For the K-SARA items, the taltirelin group had significantly lower “Stance” and “Speech disturbance” subscores than the control group (-0.04±0.89 versus 0.23±0.79 and -0.07±0.74 versus 0.18±0.67; p=0.0270 and 0.0130, respectively). However, there were no significant differences in changes in other secondary efficacy outcome measures at 24 weeks from baseline between the two treatment arms (p>0.05). Conclusion Clinicians might consider the use of TH in the treatment of patients with ataxia due to SCD.

Objective: We conducted this study to assess the efficacy and safety of taltirelin hydrate (TH) in patients with ataxia due to spinocerebellar degeneration (SCD). Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to either the taltirelin group (5 mg orally, twice daily) or the control group. The primary endpoint was the change in the Korean version of the Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia (K-SARA) score at 24 weeks. The secondary endpoints included changes in the K-SARA score at 4 and 12 weeks as well as the Clinical Global Impression Scale, the five-level version of the EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire, the Tinetti balance test, and gait analysis at 4, 12, and 24 weeks. Results: A total of 149 patients (hereditary:nonhereditary=86:63) were enrolled. There were significant differences in the change in the K-SARA score at 24 weeks from baseline between the taltirelin group and the control group (-0.51±2.79 versus 0.36±2.62, respectively; p=0.0321). For the K-SARA items, the taltirelin group had significantly lower “Stance” and “Speech disturbance” subscores than the control group (-0.04±0.89 versus 0.23±0.79 and -0.07±0.74 versus 0.18±0.67; p=0.0270 and 0.0130, respectively). However, there were no significant differences in changes in other secondary efficacy outcome measures at 24 weeks from baseline between the two treatment arms (p>0.05). Conclusion Clinicians might consider the use of TH in the treatment of patients with ataxia due to SCD.

Objective: We conducted this study to assess the efficacy and safety of taltirelin hydrate (TH) in patients with ataxia due to spinocerebellar degeneration (SCD). Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to either the taltirelin group (5 mg orally, twice daily) or the control group. The primary endpoint was the change in the Korean version of the Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia (K-SARA) score at 24 weeks. The secondary endpoints included changes in the K-SARA score at 4 and 12 weeks as well as the Clinical Global Impression Scale, the five-level version of the EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire, the Tinetti balance test, and gait analysis at 4, 12, and 24 weeks. Results: A total of 149 patients (hereditary:nonhereditary=86:63) were enrolled. There were significant differences in the change in the K-SARA score at 24 weeks from baseline between the taltirelin group and the control group (-0.51±2.79 versus 0.36±2.62, respectively; p=0.0321). For the K-SARA items, the taltirelin group had significantly lower “Stance” and “Speech disturbance” subscores than the control group (-0.04±0.89 versus 0.23±0.79 and -0.07±0.74 versus 0.18±0.67; p=0.0270 and 0.0130, respectively). However, there were no significant differences in changes in other secondary efficacy outcome measures at 24 weeks from baseline between the two treatment arms (p>0.05). Conclusion Clinicians might consider the use of TH in the treatment of patients with ataxia due to SCD.

Purpose: Smoking cessation intervention is one of the key components of successful lung cancer screening program. We investigated the effectiveness and related factors of smoking cessation services provided to the participants in a population-based lung cancer screening trial. Materials and Methods: The Korean Lung Cancer Screening Project (K-LUCAS) is a nationwide, multi-center lung cancer screening trial that evaluates the feasibility of implementing population-based lung cancer screening. All 5,144 current smokers who participated in the K-LUCAS received a mandatory smoking cessation counseling. Changes in smoking status were followed up using a telephone survey in 6 months after lung cancer screening participation. The lung cancer screening’s impact on smoking cessation is analyzed by variations in the smoking cessation interventions provided in screening units. Results: Among 4,136 survey responders, participant’s motivation to quit smoking increased by 9.4% on average after lung cancer screening. After 6 months from the initial screening, 24.3% of participants stopped smoking, and 10.6% of participants had not smoked continuously for at least 6 months after screening. Over 80% of quitters stated that participation in lung cancer screening motivated them to quit smoking. Low-cost public smoking cessation program combined with lung cancer screening increased the abstinence rates. The smokers were three times more likely to quit smoking when the smoking cessation counseling was provided simultaneously with low-dose computed tomography screening results than when provided separately. Conclusion A mandatory smoking cessation intervention integrated with screening result counselling by a physician after participation in lung cancer screening could be effective for increasing smoking cessation attempts.

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.

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, conclusively evaluating possible associations between COVID-19 vaccines and potential adverse events was of critical importance. The National Academy of Medicine of Korea established the COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Research Center (CoVaSC) with support from the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency to investigate the scientific relationship between COVID-19 vaccines and suspected adverse events. Although determining whether the COVID-19 vaccine was responsible for any suspected adverse event necessitated a systematic approach, traditional causal inference theories, such as Hill's criteria, encountered certain limitations and criticisms. To facilitate a systematic and evidence-based evaluation, the United States Institute of Medicine, at the request of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, offered a detailed causality assessment framework in 2012, which was updated in the recent report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) in 2024.This framework, based on a weight-of-evidence approach, allows the independent evaluation of both epidemiological and mechanistic evidence, culminating in a comprehensive conclusion about causality. Epidemiological evidence derived from population studies is categorized into four levels—high, moderate, limited, or insufficient—while mechanistic evidence, primarily from biological and clinical studies in animals and individuals, is classified as strong, intermediate, weak, or lacking. The committee then synthesizes these two types of evidence to draw a conclusion about the causal relationship, which can be described as “convincingly supports” (“evidence established” in the 2024 NASEM report), “favors acceptance,” “favors rejection,” or “inadequate to accept or reject.” The CoVaSC has established an independent committee to conduct causality assessments using the weightof-evidence framework, specifically for evaluating the causality of adverse events associated with COVID-19 vaccines. The aim of this study is to provide an overview of the weight-ofevidence framework and to detail the considerations involved in its practical application in the CoVaSC.

The COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Research Committee (CoVaSC) was established in November 2021 to address the growing need for independent, in-depth scientific evidence on adverse events (AEs) following coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination. This initiative was requested by the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency and led by the National Academy of Medicine of Korea. In September 2022, the COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Research Center was established, strengthening CoVaSC’s initiatives. The center has conducted various studies on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. During CoVaSC’s second research year, from September 29, 2022 to July 19, 2023, the center was restructured into 4 departments: Epidemiological Research, Clinical Research, Communication & Education, and International Cooperation & Policy Research. Its main activities include (1) managing CoVaSC and the COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Research Center, (2) surveying domestic and international trends in AE causality investigation, (3) assessing AEs following COVID-19 vaccination, (4) fostering international collaboration and policy research, and (5) organizing regular fora and training sessions for the public and clinicians. Causality assessments have been conducted for 27 diseases, and independent research has been conducted after organizing ad hoc committees comprising both epidemiologists and clinical experts on each AE of interest. The research process included protocol development, data analysis, interpretation of results, and causality assessment. These research outcomes have been shared transparently with the public and healthcare experts through various fora. The COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Research Center plans to continue strengthening and expanding its research activities to provide reliable, high-quality safety information to the public.

Objective: This study was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lurasidone (160 mg/day) compared to quetiapine XR (QXR; 600 mg/day) in the treatment of acutely psychotic patients with schizophrenia. Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to 6 weeks of double-blind treatment with lurasidone 160 mg/day (n=105) or QXR 600 mg/day (n=105). Primary efficacy measure was the change from baseline to week 6 in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score and Clinical Global Impressions severity (CGI-S) score. Adverse events, body measurements, and laboratory parameters were assessed. Results: Lurasidone demonstrated non-inferiority to QXR on the PANSS total score. Adjusted mean±standard error change at week 6 on the PANSS total score was -26.42±2.02 and -27.33±2.01 in the lurasidone and QXR group, respectively. The mean difference score was -0.91 (95% confidence interval -6.35–4.53). The lurasidone group showed a greater reduction in PANSS total and negative subscale on week 1 and a greater reduction in end-point CGI-S score compared to the QXR group. Body weight, body mass index, and waist circumference in the lurasidone group were reduced, with significantly lower mean change compared to QXR. Endpoint changes in glucose, cholesterol, triglycerides, and low-density lipoprotein levels were also significantly lower. The most common adverse drug reactions with lurasidone were akathisia and nausea. Conclusion Lurasidone 160 mg/day was found to be non-inferior to QXR 600 mg/day in the treatment of schizophrenia with comparable efficacy and tolerability. Adverse effects of lurasidone were generally tolerable, and beneficial effects on metabolic parameters can be expected.

With the introduction of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines, the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency (KDCA) commissioned the National Academy of Medicine of Korea to gather experts to independently assess post-vaccination adverse events. Accordingly, the COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Research Committee (CoVaSC) was launched in November 2021 to perform safety studies and establish evidence for policy guidance. The CoVaSC established 3 committees for epidemiology, clinical research, and communication. The CoVaSC mainly utilizes pseudonymized data linking KDCA’s COVID-19 vaccination data and the National Health Insurance Service’s claims data. The CoVaSC’s 5-step research process involves defining the target diseases and organizing ad-hoc committees, developing research protocols, performing analyses, assessing causal relationships, and announcing research findings and utilizing them to guide compensation policies. As of 2022, the CoVaSC completed this research process for 15 adverse events. The CoVaSC launched the COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Research Center in September 2022 and has been reorganized into 4 divisions to promote research including international collaborative studies, long-/short-term follow-up studies, and education programs. Through these enhancements, the CoVaSC will continue to swiftly provide scientific evidence for COVID-19 vaccine research and compensation and may serve as a model for preparing for future epidemics of new diseases.

Purpose: Gastric cancer (GC) is among the most prevalent and fatal cancers worldwide.National cancer screening programs in countries with high incidences of this disease provide medical aid beneficiaries with free-of-charge screening involving upper endoscopy to detect early-stage GC. However, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused major disruptions to routine healthcare access. Thus, this study aimed to assess the impact of COVID-19 on the diagnosis, overall incidence, and stage distribution of GC. Materials and Methods: We identified patients in our hospital cancer registry who were diagnosed with GC between January 2018 and December 2021 and compared the cancer stage at diagnosis before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to age and sex. The years 2018 and 2019 were defined as the “before COVID” period, and the years 2020 and 2021 as the “during COVID” period. Results: Overall, 10,875 patients were evaluated; 6,535 and 4,340 patients were diagnosed before and during the COVID-19 period, respectively. The number of diagnoses was lower during the COVID-19 pandemic (189 patients/month vs. 264 patients/month) than before it.Notably, the proportion of patients with stages 3 or 4 GC in 2021 was higher among men and patients aged ≥40 years. Conclusions During the COVID-19 pandemic, the overall number of GC diagnoses decreased significantly in a single institute. Moreover, GCs were in more advanced stages at the time of diagnosis. Further studies are required to elucidate the relationship between the COVID-19 pandemic and the delay in the detection of GC worldwide.