Objective: To analyze costs and cost-effectiveness of transforaminal endoscopic thoracic discectomy (TETD) for the treatment of symptomatic thoracic disc herniation (TDH) and compare it with open microdiscectomy (MD). Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent TETD or MD for symptomatic TDH and had a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Cost analysis included direct costs (primary and secondary hospital costs), indirect costs (lost wages due to work absence), total costs (direct + indirect), and cost-effectiveness (cost per quality-adjusted life year [QALY] and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]). Clinical outcomes included patient-reported outcome measures (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], 36-item Short Form health survey [SF-36]), QALY gained, and reoperation and readmission rates at 1 year. TETD and MD groups were compared for outcome measures. Results: A total of 111 patients (57 TETD, 54 MD) were included. The direct ($6,270 TETD vs. $7,410 MD, p < 0.01), indirect costs ($1,250 TETD vs. $1,450 MD, p < 0.01), total costs ($7,520 TETD vs. $8,860 MD, p < 0.01), and cost per QALY ($31,333 TETD vs. $44,300 MD, p < 0.01) were significantly lower for TETD compared to MD. ICER of TETD was found to be -$33,500. At 1 year, TETD group showed significantly greater improvement in ODI (46% vs. 36%, p < 0.01) and SF-36 (64% vs. 53%, p < 0.01) and significantly greater QALY gained (0.24 vs. 0.2, p < 0.01) compared to MD group. No significant difference was found in reoperation and readmission rates. Conclusion TETD demonstrated significantly better clinical outcomes, lower overall costs, and better cost-effectiveness than MD in appropriately selected patients of symptomatic TDH.

Objective: To analyze costs and cost-effectiveness of transforaminal endoscopic thoracic discectomy (TETD) for the treatment of symptomatic thoracic disc herniation (TDH) and compare it with open microdiscectomy (MD). Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent TETD or MD for symptomatic TDH and had a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Cost analysis included direct costs (primary and secondary hospital costs), indirect costs (lost wages due to work absence), total costs (direct + indirect), and cost-effectiveness (cost per quality-adjusted life year [QALY] and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]). Clinical outcomes included patient-reported outcome measures (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], 36-item Short Form health survey [SF-36]), QALY gained, and reoperation and readmission rates at 1 year. TETD and MD groups were compared for outcome measures. Results: A total of 111 patients (57 TETD, 54 MD) were included. The direct ($6,270 TETD vs. $7,410 MD, p < 0.01), indirect costs ($1,250 TETD vs. $1,450 MD, p < 0.01), total costs ($7,520 TETD vs. $8,860 MD, p < 0.01), and cost per QALY ($31,333 TETD vs. $44,300 MD, p < 0.01) were significantly lower for TETD compared to MD. ICER of TETD was found to be -$33,500. At 1 year, TETD group showed significantly greater improvement in ODI (46% vs. 36%, p < 0.01) and SF-36 (64% vs. 53%, p < 0.01) and significantly greater QALY gained (0.24 vs. 0.2, p < 0.01) compared to MD group. No significant difference was found in reoperation and readmission rates. Conclusion TETD demonstrated significantly better clinical outcomes, lower overall costs, and better cost-effectiveness than MD in appropriately selected patients of symptomatic TDH.

Objective: To analyze costs and cost-effectiveness of transforaminal endoscopic thoracic discectomy (TETD) for the treatment of symptomatic thoracic disc herniation (TDH) and compare it with open microdiscectomy (MD). Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent TETD or MD for symptomatic TDH and had a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Cost analysis included direct costs (primary and secondary hospital costs), indirect costs (lost wages due to work absence), total costs (direct + indirect), and cost-effectiveness (cost per quality-adjusted life year [QALY] and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]). Clinical outcomes included patient-reported outcome measures (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], 36-item Short Form health survey [SF-36]), QALY gained, and reoperation and readmission rates at 1 year. TETD and MD groups were compared for outcome measures. Results: A total of 111 patients (57 TETD, 54 MD) were included. The direct ($6,270 TETD vs. $7,410 MD, p < 0.01), indirect costs ($1,250 TETD vs. $1,450 MD, p < 0.01), total costs ($7,520 TETD vs. $8,860 MD, p < 0.01), and cost per QALY ($31,333 TETD vs. $44,300 MD, p < 0.01) were significantly lower for TETD compared to MD. ICER of TETD was found to be -$33,500. At 1 year, TETD group showed significantly greater improvement in ODI (46% vs. 36%, p < 0.01) and SF-36 (64% vs. 53%, p < 0.01) and significantly greater QALY gained (0.24 vs. 0.2, p < 0.01) compared to MD group. No significant difference was found in reoperation and readmission rates. Conclusion TETD demonstrated significantly better clinical outcomes, lower overall costs, and better cost-effectiveness than MD in appropriately selected patients of symptomatic TDH.

Objective: To analyze costs and cost-effectiveness of transforaminal endoscopic thoracic discectomy (TETD) for the treatment of symptomatic thoracic disc herniation (TDH) and compare it with open microdiscectomy (MD). Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent TETD or MD for symptomatic TDH and had a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Cost analysis included direct costs (primary and secondary hospital costs), indirect costs (lost wages due to work absence), total costs (direct + indirect), and cost-effectiveness (cost per quality-adjusted life year [QALY] and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]). Clinical outcomes included patient-reported outcome measures (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], 36-item Short Form health survey [SF-36]), QALY gained, and reoperation and readmission rates at 1 year. TETD and MD groups were compared for outcome measures. Results: A total of 111 patients (57 TETD, 54 MD) were included. The direct ($6,270 TETD vs. $7,410 MD, p < 0.01), indirect costs ($1,250 TETD vs. $1,450 MD, p < 0.01), total costs ($7,520 TETD vs. $8,860 MD, p < 0.01), and cost per QALY ($31,333 TETD vs. $44,300 MD, p < 0.01) were significantly lower for TETD compared to MD. ICER of TETD was found to be -$33,500. At 1 year, TETD group showed significantly greater improvement in ODI (46% vs. 36%, p < 0.01) and SF-36 (64% vs. 53%, p < 0.01) and significantly greater QALY gained (0.24 vs. 0.2, p < 0.01) compared to MD group. No significant difference was found in reoperation and readmission rates. Conclusion TETD demonstrated significantly better clinical outcomes, lower overall costs, and better cost-effectiveness than MD in appropriately selected patients of symptomatic TDH.

Objective: To analyze costs and cost-effectiveness of transforaminal endoscopic thoracic discectomy (TETD) for the treatment of symptomatic thoracic disc herniation (TDH) and compare it with open microdiscectomy (MD). Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent TETD or MD for symptomatic TDH and had a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Cost analysis included direct costs (primary and secondary hospital costs), indirect costs (lost wages due to work absence), total costs (direct + indirect), and cost-effectiveness (cost per quality-adjusted life year [QALY] and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]). Clinical outcomes included patient-reported outcome measures (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], 36-item Short Form health survey [SF-36]), QALY gained, and reoperation and readmission rates at 1 year. TETD and MD groups were compared for outcome measures. Results: A total of 111 patients (57 TETD, 54 MD) were included. The direct ($6,270 TETD vs. $7,410 MD, p < 0.01), indirect costs ($1,250 TETD vs. $1,450 MD, p < 0.01), total costs ($7,520 TETD vs. $8,860 MD, p < 0.01), and cost per QALY ($31,333 TETD vs. $44,300 MD, p < 0.01) were significantly lower for TETD compared to MD. ICER of TETD was found to be -$33,500. At 1 year, TETD group showed significantly greater improvement in ODI (46% vs. 36%, p < 0.01) and SF-36 (64% vs. 53%, p < 0.01) and significantly greater QALY gained (0.24 vs. 0.2, p < 0.01) compared to MD group. No significant difference was found in reoperation and readmission rates. Conclusion TETD demonstrated significantly better clinical outcomes, lower overall costs, and better cost-effectiveness than MD in appropriately selected patients of symptomatic TDH.

The Korean Society of Infectious Diseases has been regularly publishing guidelines for adult immunization since 2007. Following the release of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination recommendations in 2023, significant changes have occurred due to the emergence of new variant strains and the waning immunity from previous vaccinations. This article provides a comprehensive update as of November 2024, incorporating the latest evidence and guidelines. Focusing on the 2024–2025 season, this article reviews vaccines currently authorized in Korea and assesses their effectiveness against the predominant JN.1 lineage variants. The updated recommendations prioritize high-risk groups, including adults aged 65 and older, individuals with underlying medical conditions, residents of facilities vulnerable to infection, pregnant women, and healthcare workers, for vaccination with updated vaccines targeting the JN.1 strain. Additionally, COVID-19 vaccination is available for all individuals aged 6 months and older. For most adults, a single-dose strategy is emphasized, while tailored schedules may be recommended for immunocompromised individuals. This update aims to optimize vaccination strategies in Korea to ensure comprehensive protection for high-risk populations.

This study aims to provide basic data for developing home meal replacement (HMR) products and establishing marketing strategies in Thailand. A survey was conducted targeting Thai consumers who have experience using HMR regularly. The food consumption values were used to segment the Thai consumer market, and the differences in HMR purchase behavior were analyzed according to segment. Thai consumers were divided into three types: high, medium, and low interest in food habits. The main reasons for using HMR among Thai consumers were time-saving, convenience, and cost-effectiveness, with a strong preference for products with high convenience. Among the HMR selection attributes, items such as quality, expiration date, hygiene, safety, taste, nutrition, and freshness are generally important factors for consumers. Among the HMR selection attributes, the items that require improvement first were identified most frequently in the high-interest food lifestyle group and include quality, quantity, additives, ingredients, expiration date, and nutrients. This study is significant because it was conducted targeting the Thai HMR market, where research has been limited, and it revealed the characteristics of segmented markets by reflecting the food consumption value characteristics of Thai consumers. The characteristics of each market segment can be used to develop HMR and marketing strategies that fit the market.

The Korean Society of Infectious Diseases has been regularly publishing guidelines for adult immunization since 2007. Following the release of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination recommendations in 2023, significant changes have occurred due to the emergence of new variant strains and the waning immunity from previous vaccinations. This article provides a comprehensive update as of November 2024, incorporating the latest evidence and guidelines. Focusing on the 2024–2025 season, this article reviews vaccines currently authorized in Korea and assesses their effectiveness against the predominant JN.1 lineage variants. The updated recommendations prioritize high-risk groups, including adults aged 65 and older, individuals with underlying medical conditions, residents of facilities vulnerable to infection, pregnant women, and healthcare workers, for vaccination with updated vaccines targeting the JN.1 strain. Additionally, COVID-19 vaccination is available for all individuals aged 6 months and older. For most adults, a single-dose strategy is emphasized, while tailored schedules may be recommended for immunocompromised individuals. This update aims to optimize vaccination strategies in Korea to ensure comprehensive protection for high-risk populations.

This study aims to provide basic data for developing home meal replacement (HMR) products and establishing marketing strategies in Thailand. A survey was conducted targeting Thai consumers who have experience using HMR regularly. The food consumption values were used to segment the Thai consumer market, and the differences in HMR purchase behavior were analyzed according to segment. Thai consumers were divided into three types: high, medium, and low interest in food habits. The main reasons for using HMR among Thai consumers were time-saving, convenience, and cost-effectiveness, with a strong preference for products with high convenience. Among the HMR selection attributes, items such as quality, expiration date, hygiene, safety, taste, nutrition, and freshness are generally important factors for consumers. Among the HMR selection attributes, the items that require improvement first were identified most frequently in the high-interest food lifestyle group and include quality, quantity, additives, ingredients, expiration date, and nutrients. This study is significant because it was conducted targeting the Thai HMR market, where research has been limited, and it revealed the characteristics of segmented markets by reflecting the food consumption value characteristics of Thai consumers. The characteristics of each market segment can be used to develop HMR and marketing strategies that fit the market.

The Korean Society of Infectious Diseases has been regularly publishing guidelines for adult immunization since 2007. Following the release of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination recommendations in 2023, significant changes have occurred due to the emergence of new variant strains and the waning immunity from previous vaccinations. This article provides a comprehensive update as of November 2024, incorporating the latest evidence and guidelines. Focusing on the 2024–2025 season, this article reviews vaccines currently authorized in Korea and assesses their effectiveness against the predominant JN.1 lineage variants. The updated recommendations prioritize high-risk groups, including adults aged 65 and older, individuals with underlying medical conditions, residents of facilities vulnerable to infection, pregnant women, and healthcare workers, for vaccination with updated vaccines targeting the JN.1 strain. Additionally, COVID-19 vaccination is available for all individuals aged 6 months and older. For most adults, a single-dose strategy is emphasized, while tailored schedules may be recommended for immunocompromised individuals. This update aims to optimize vaccination strategies in Korea to ensure comprehensive protection for high-risk populations.