Background: Understanding disparities in severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes between people with disabilities (PwD) and people without disabilities (PwoD) is crucial, particularly when considering the heterogeneity within PwD and age differences.This study aimed to compare severe COVID-19 outcomes including deaths between PwD and PwoD with analyses stratified by age group and further examined by disability type. Methods: This retrospective, population-based cohort study used linked data from national COVID-19 cases and health insurance for individuals aged ≥ 19 years with COVID-19 from January 2020 to October 2022 in the Republic of Korea. Severe outcomes included severe cases and deaths, with logistic regression analysis of the risk disparities between PwD and PwoD based on age group and disability types. The subgroup analysis considered epidemic periods, accounting for the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 variant circulation. Results: The risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes and deaths among PwD varied by age and disability type. While severe outcomes were most prevalent in the older age groups for both PwD and PwoD, younger PwD faced a markedly higher risk—up to eightfold—compared to PwoD. The risk of disability status was greater than that of comorbidities in the 19–39 age group. Among disability types, individuals with internal organs-related and intellectual disabilities showed higher risk disparities with PwoD in severe outcomes than other types of disabilities. Throughout the pandemic, the disparity in death risk remained similar, with a slight increase in disparity during the omicron period for all severe outcomes in the age groups 19–39 and 40–64 years. Conclusion Prioritizing younger PwD, along with older age groups and people with comorbidities, is crucial in addressing public health crises. Risk-based prioritization is important to reduce overall risk. This includes prioritizing people with nternal organs-related and intellectural disabilities, who face higher health risks among PwD during a pandemic when resources are limited and time is of the essence.

Background: There are few safe effective ways to relieve osteoarthritis (OA) pain; as a result, off-label psychotropic drug prescriptions have increased worldwide. This study examined the change in psychotropic drug prescriptions for patients with OA from 2011 to 2020 using the Korean National Health Insurance Service dataset. Methods: The study population consisted of patients with hip or knee OA aged ≥ 65 years.Psychotropic drugs included opioids, benzodiazepines, non-benzodiazepine hypnotics (Z-drugs), anti-epileptics, tricyclic antidepressants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), typical antipsychotics, atypical antipsychotics, and anxiolytics. The prevalence and long-term (> 3 months) prescription rates of psychotropic drugs in OA patients were calculated. Results: The study included 1,821,158 patients with OA (mean age 71.7 years; 65.32% female).Of the cohort, 49% had comorbidities for which psychotropics were indicated. The prevalence of psychotropic prescriptions decreased from 58.2% to 52.0% in 2018 and then leveled off.The long-term prescription rate remained constant until 2018 and then increased slightly.The most commonly prescribed psychotropics were opioids and long- and short-acting benzodiazepines. The prescription rates of opioids and long-acting benzodiazepines decreased from 2011 to 2020. For those with psychiatric co-morbidities, the prescription rates of anti-epileptics and SNRIs increased, while the prescription rates of anti-epileptics, SSRIs, other antidepressants, and atypical psychotropics increased for those without such co-morbidities. The most commonly prescribed psychotropics were diazepam and alprazolam, excluding tramadol and tramadol–acetaminophen combination. For those with psychiatric co-morbidities, the prescription rates of gabapentin and fentanyl increased, while for those without such co-morbidities, the prescription rates of lorazepam, fentanyl, escitalopram and quetiapine increased. Conclusion A significant number of older Korean patients with OA were prescribed psychotropic drugs in the absence of comorbidities requiring such drugs, including drugs that have little effect on OA and unfavorable safety profiles in older adults.

The anticancer drugs have evolved significantly, spanning molecular targeted therapeutics (MTTs), immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy, and antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs). Complications associated with these drugs vary widely based on their mechanisms of action. MTTs that target angiogenesis can often lead to complications related to ischemia or endothelial damage across various organs, whereas non-anti-angiogenic MTTs present unique complications derived from their specific pharmacological actions. ICIs are predominantly associated with immunerelated adverse events, such as pneumonitis, colitis, hepatitis, thyroid disorders, hypophysitis, and sarcoid-like reactions. CAR-T therapy causes unique and severe complications including cytokine release syndrome and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome. ADCs tend to cause complications associated with cytotoxic payloads. A comprehensive understanding of these drug-specific toxicities, particularly using medical imaging, is essential for providing optimal patient care. Based on this knowledge, radiologists can play a pivotal role in multidisciplinary teams. Therefore, radiologists must stay up-to-date on the imaging characteristics of these complications and the mechanisms underlying novel anticancer drugs.

For patients with edentulous maxillae, creating a prosthetic treatment plan involves considering anatomical factors, aesthetics, the patient’s financial situation, and oral hygiene capabilities. In this case, CAD-CAM technology was used to accurately plan implant placements for a full arch fixed restoration based on the design of the final prosthesis. A customized surgical guide ensured precise implant placement and a provisional restoration was created using CAD-CAM. The definitive prosthesis was then created based on the second provisional restoration that has been previously used and adjusted by the patient. This approach achieved an excellent functional and aesthetic outcome, highlighting the benefits of digital approach and its potential for further clinical applications.

Background/Aims: Tracheostomy is a crucial intervention for severe pneumonia patients requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation (MV). However, debate persists regarding the influence of tracheostomy timing and performance on long-term survival outcomes. This study utilized propensity score matching to assess the impact of tracheostomy timing and performance on patient survival outcomes. Methods: A retrospective observational study employing propensity score matching was conducted of respiratory intensive care unit (ICU) patients who underwent prolonged acute MV due to severe pneumonia from 2008 to 2023. The primary outcome was the 90-day cumulative mortality rate, with secondary outcomes including ICU medical resource utilization rates. Results: Out of 1,078 patients, 545 underwent tracheostomy with a median timing of 7 days. The tracheostomy group exhibited lower 90-day cumulative mortality and a higher survival probability (hazard ratio [HR] 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.43–0.63) than the no-tracheostomy group. The tracheostomy group had higher ICU medical resource utilization rates and medical expenditures. The early tracheostomy group (≤ 7 days) had lower ICU medical resource utilization rates and medical expenditures than the late tracheostomy group (> 7 days). However, there were no significant differences in the 90-day cumulative mortality rate and survival probability based on tracheostomy timing (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.70–1.28). Conclusions Tracheostomy in patients with severe pneumonia requiring prolonged MV significantly reduced the 90-day mortality rate, and early tracheostomy may offer additional benefits for resource utilization efficiency. These findings underscore the importance of considering tracheostomy timing in optimizing patient outcomes and healthcare resource allocation.

Purpose: Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) has long been recognized as an effective treatment for depression and suicidality.Virtual reality (VR) technology is widely used for cognitive training for conditions such as anxiety disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder, but little research has considered VR-based CBT for depressive symptoms and suicidality. We tested the effectiveness and safety of a VR-based CBT program for depressive disorders. Materials and Methods: We recruited 57 participants from May 2022 through February 2023 using online advertisements. This multi-center, assessor-blinded, randomized, controlled exploratory trial used two groups: VR treatment group and treat as usual (TAU) group. VR treatment group received a VR mental health training/education program. TAU group received standard pharmacotherapy. Assessments were conducted at baseline, immediately after the 6-week treatment period, and 4 weeks after the end of the treatment period in each group. Results: Depression scores decreased significantly over time in both VR treatment and TAU groups, with no differences between the two groups. The suicidality score decreased significantly only in VR group. No group differences were found in the remission or response rate for depression, perceived stress, or clinical severity. No adverse events or motion sickness occurred during the VR treatment program. Conclusion VR CBT treatment for major depressive disorder has the potential to be equivalent to the gold-standard pharmacotherapy in reducing depressive symptoms, suicidality, and related clinical symptoms, with no difference in improvement found in this study. Thus, VR-based CBT might be an effective alternative to pharmacotherapy for depressive disorders.

Background/Aims: Fexuprazan, a novel potassium-competitive acid blocker, was developed for treating acid-related disorders. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of fexuprazan, unlike those of proton pump inhibitors, are independent of food effect. This study aims to evaluate differences in efficacy and safety of fexuprazan in patients with erosive esophagitis (EE) according to the timing of dosing. Methods: In this multicenter, open-label noninferiority study, patients who had typical reflux symptoms with endoscopically confirmed EE were randomized 1:1 to receive fexuprazan 40 mg daily 30 minutes before or after meal. Treatment was completed after 2 weeks or 4 weeks when healing was endoscopically confirmed. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with healed EE confirmed by endoscopy up to week 4. Safety endpoints included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Results: In the prior-to-meal group (n = 89) and after-meal group (n = 86), 4-week EE healing rates were 98.77% and 100.00% (difference, 0.01%; 95% CI, –0.01% to 0.04%) and 2-week EE healing rates were 95.77% and 97.14% (difference, 0.01%; 95% CI, –0.05% to 0.07%), respectively. TEAEs were 9.78% and 8.70% in the prior-to-meal group and the after-meal group, respectively. Conclusions Non-inferiority analysis revealed that taking fexuprazan after meal was non-inferior to taking fexuprazan before meals in patients with EE. The frequency of adverse events was similar between the 2 study groups. The drug is safe and effective for healing EE regardless of the timing of dosing.

Background: and Purpose Previous research on patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) has shown a 0.5% incidence of major gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) requiring blood transfusion during hospitalization. The existing literature has insufficiently explored the long-term incidence in this population despite the decremental impact of GIB on stroke outcomes. Methods: We analyzed the data from a cohort of patients with AIS admitted to 14 hospitals as part of a nationwide multicenter prospective stroke registry between 2011 and 2013. These patients were followed up for up to 6 years. The occurrence of major GIB events, defined as GIB necessitating at least two units of blood transfusion, was tracked using the National Health Insurance Service claims data. Results: Among 10,818 patients with AIS (male, 59%; mean age, 68±13 years), 947 (8.8%) experienced 1,224 episodes of major GIB over a median follow-up duration of 3.1 years. Remarkably, 20% of 947 patients experienced multiple episodes of major GIB. The incidence peaked in the first month after AIS, reaching 19.2 per 100 person-years, and gradually decreased to approximately one-sixth of this rate by the 2nd year with subsequent stabilization. Multivariable analysis identified the following predictors of major GIB: anemia, estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 , and a 3-month modified Rankin Scale score of ≥4. Conclusion Patients with AIS are susceptible to major GIB, particularly in the first month after the onset of AIS, with the risk decreasing thereafter. Implementing preventive strategies may be important, especially for patients with anemia and impaired renal function at stroke onset and those with a disabling stroke.

Background: Complete revascularization has demonstrated better outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and multivessel disease. However, in the case of left main (LM) culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease, there is limited evidence to suggest that complete revascularization is better. Methods: We reviewed 16,831 patients in the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry who were treated from July 2016 to June 2020, and 399 patients were enrolled with LM culprit lesion AMI treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. We categorized the patients as those treated with complete revascularization (n=295) or incomplete revascularization (n=104). The study endpoint was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven revascularization, stent thrombosis, and stroke. We performed propensity score matching (PSM) and analyzed the incidence of MACCE at 1 year. Results: After PSM, the two groups were well balanced. There was no significant difference between the two groups in MACCE at 1 year (12.1% vs. 15.2%; hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.60–2.74; p=0.524) after PSM. The components of MACCE and major bleeding were also not significantly different. Conclusion There was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between the groups treated with complete or incomplete revascularization for LM culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease.

Background: and Purpose: This clinical practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for treatment of dementia, focusing on cholinesterase inhibitors and N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and other types of dementia. Methods: Using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes (PICO) framework, we developed key clinical questions and conducted systematic literature reviews. A multidisciplinary panel of experts, organized by the Korean Dementia Association, evaluated randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Recommendations were graded for evidence quality and strength using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Results: Three main recommendations are presented: (1) For AD, cholinesterase inhibitors (donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine) are strongly recommended for improving cognition and daily function based on moderate evidence; (2) Cholinesterase inhibitors are conditionally recommended for vascular dementia and Parkinson’s disease dementia, with a strong recommendation for Lewy body dementia; (3) For moderate to severe AD, NMDA receptor antagonist (memantine) is strongly recommended, demonstrating significant cognitive and functional improvements. Both drug classes showed favorable safety profiles with manageable side effects. Conclusions This guideline offers standardized, evidence-based pharmacologic recommendations for dementia management, with specific guidance on cholinesterase inhibitors and NMDA receptor antagonists. It aims to support clinical decision-making and improve patient outcomes in dementia care. Further updates will address emerging treatments, including amyloid-targeting therapies, to reflect advances in dementia management.