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.

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.

This research group (forensic research via omics markers in environmental health vulnerable areas: FROM) aimed to develop biomarkers for exposure to environmental hazards and diseases, assess environmental diseases, and apply and verify these biomarkers in environmentally vulnerable areas. Environmentally vulnerable areas—including refineries, abandoned metal mines, coal-fired power plants, waste incinerators, cement factories, and areas with high exposure to particulate matter—along with control areas, were selected for epidemiological investigations. A total of 1,157 adults, who had resided in these areas for over 10 years, were recruited between June 2021 and September 2023. Personal characteristics of the study participants were gathered through a survey. Biological samples, specifically blood and urine, were collected during the field investigations, separated under refrigerated conditions, and then transported to the laboratory for biomarker analysis. Analyses of heavy metals, environmental hazards, and adducts were conducted on these blood and urine samples. Additionally, omics analyses of epigenomes, proteomes, and metabolomes were performed using the blood samples. The biomarkers identified in this study will be utilized to assess the risk of environmental disease occurrence and to evaluate the impact on the health of residents in environmentally vulnerable areas, following the validation of diagnostic accuracy for these diseases.

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) has been used for over a century and has been demonstrated to be effective in treating patients with various allergic diseases. AIT allergens can be administered through various routes, including subcutaneous, sublingual, intralymphatic, oral, or epicutaneous routes. Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) has recently gained clinical interest, and it is considered an alternative treatment for allergic rhinitis (AR) and asthma. This review provides an overview of the current evidence-based studies that address the use of SLIT for treating AR, including (1) mechanisms of action, (2) appropriate patient selection for SLIT, (3) the current available SLIT products in Korea, and (4) updated information on its efficacy and safety. Finally, this guideline aims to provide the clinician with practical considerations for SLIT.

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is a causative treatment of allergic diseases in which allergen extracts are regularly administered in a gradually escalated doses, leading to immune tolerance and consequent alleviation of allergic diseases. The need for uniform practice guidelines in AIT is continuously growing as the number of potential candidates for AIT increases and new therapeutic approaches are tried. This updated version of the Korean Academy of Asthma Allergy and Clinical Immunology recommendations for AIT, published in 2010, proposes an expert opinion by specialists in allergy, pediatrics, and otorhinolaryngology. This guideline deals with the basic knowledge of AIT, including mechanisms, clinical efficacy, allergen standardization, important allergens in Korea, and special consideration in pediatrics. The article also covers the methodological aspects of AIT, including patient selection, allergen selection, schedule and doses, follow-up care, efficacy measurements, and management of adverse reactions. Although this guideline suggests the optimal dosing schedule, an individualized approach and modifications are recommended considering the situation for each patient and clinic.

This research group (forensic research via omics markers in environmental health vulnerable areas: FROM) aimed to develop biomarkers for exposure to environmental hazards and diseases, assess environmental diseases, and apply and verify these biomarkers in environmentally vulnerable areas. Environmentally vulnerable areas—including refineries, abandoned metal mines, coal-fired power plants, waste incinerators, cement factories, and areas with high exposure to particulate matter—along with control areas, were selected for epidemiological investigations. A total of 1,157 adults, who had resided in these areas for over 10 years, were recruited between June 2021 and September 2023. Personal characteristics of the study participants were gathered through a survey. Biological samples, specifically blood and urine, were collected during the field investigations, separated under refrigerated conditions, and then transported to the laboratory for biomarker analysis. Analyses of heavy metals, environmental hazards, and adducts were conducted on these blood and urine samples. Additionally, omics analyses of epigenomes, proteomes, and metabolomes were performed using the blood samples. The biomarkers identified in this study will be utilized to assess the risk of environmental disease occurrence and to evaluate the impact on the health of residents in environmentally vulnerable areas, following the validation of diagnostic accuracy for these diseases.