Background: The Korean National Cancer Screening Program (NCSP) for gastric cancer requires economic evaluation due to the low sensitivity of upper gastrointestinal series (UGIs) and the associated low cancer survival rate. This study aimed to ascertain the most cost-effective strategy for the NCSP. Methods: The hypothetical target population of this study was aged 40 years or older, and no actual participants were involved. Markov simulation models were constructed for 25 strategies, combinations of 1) screening methods (UGIs or endoscopy vs. endoscopy-only), 2) screening intervals (one, two, or three-year), and 3) upper age limit of screening (69, 74, 79 years old, or “no limit”). Costs, utility, and other input parameters were extracted from various databases and previous studies. Cost-utility, sensitivity, and scenario analyses were conducted. Results: The endoscopy-only strategy with a three-year interval with an upper age limit of 69 was the most cost-effective strategy with an incremental cost-utility ratio of KRW 13,354,106 per quality-adjusted life years. According to the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the uncertainty of the result was significantly small. Scenario analysis is showed that as the screening rate increased, the endoscopy-only strategy saved more costs compared to the current NCSP. Therefore, it is important to maintain a high screening rate when altering the NCSP strategy. Conclusion Endoscopy-only screening was more cost-effective method than UGIs for the NCSP. Furthermore, a three-year interval with an upper-age limit of 69 years was the most cost-effective strategy. Efforts to improve cost-effective screening guidelines will support the efficient use of medical resources. Additionally, maintaining a higher screening rate may maximize the impact of the modification in strategy on cost-effectiveness.

Background: The Korean National Cancer Screening Program (NCSP) for gastric cancer requires economic evaluation due to the low sensitivity of upper gastrointestinal series (UGIs) and the associated low cancer survival rate. This study aimed to ascertain the most cost-effective strategy for the NCSP. Methods: The hypothetical target population of this study was aged 40 years or older, and no actual participants were involved. Markov simulation models were constructed for 25 strategies, combinations of 1) screening methods (UGIs or endoscopy vs. endoscopy-only), 2) screening intervals (one, two, or three-year), and 3) upper age limit of screening (69, 74, 79 years old, or “no limit”). Costs, utility, and other input parameters were extracted from various databases and previous studies. Cost-utility, sensitivity, and scenario analyses were conducted. Results: The endoscopy-only strategy with a three-year interval with an upper age limit of 69 was the most cost-effective strategy with an incremental cost-utility ratio of KRW 13,354,106 per quality-adjusted life years. According to the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the uncertainty of the result was significantly small. Scenario analysis is showed that as the screening rate increased, the endoscopy-only strategy saved more costs compared to the current NCSP. Therefore, it is important to maintain a high screening rate when altering the NCSP strategy. Conclusion Endoscopy-only screening was more cost-effective method than UGIs for the NCSP. Furthermore, a three-year interval with an upper-age limit of 69 years was the most cost-effective strategy. Efforts to improve cost-effective screening guidelines will support the efficient use of medical resources. Additionally, maintaining a higher screening rate may maximize the impact of the modification in strategy on cost-effectiveness.

Background: The Korean National Cancer Screening Program (NCSP) for gastric cancer requires economic evaluation due to the low sensitivity of upper gastrointestinal series (UGIs) and the associated low cancer survival rate. This study aimed to ascertain the most cost-effective strategy for the NCSP. Methods: The hypothetical target population of this study was aged 40 years or older, and no actual participants were involved. Markov simulation models were constructed for 25 strategies, combinations of 1) screening methods (UGIs or endoscopy vs. endoscopy-only), 2) screening intervals (one, two, or three-year), and 3) upper age limit of screening (69, 74, 79 years old, or “no limit”). Costs, utility, and other input parameters were extracted from various databases and previous studies. Cost-utility, sensitivity, and scenario analyses were conducted. Results: The endoscopy-only strategy with a three-year interval with an upper age limit of 69 was the most cost-effective strategy with an incremental cost-utility ratio of KRW 13,354,106 per quality-adjusted life years. According to the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the uncertainty of the result was significantly small. Scenario analysis is showed that as the screening rate increased, the endoscopy-only strategy saved more costs compared to the current NCSP. Therefore, it is important to maintain a high screening rate when altering the NCSP strategy. Conclusion Endoscopy-only screening was more cost-effective method than UGIs for the NCSP. Furthermore, a three-year interval with an upper-age limit of 69 years was the most cost-effective strategy. Efforts to improve cost-effective screening guidelines will support the efficient use of medical resources. Additionally, maintaining a higher screening rate may maximize the impact of the modification in strategy on cost-effectiveness.

Background: The Korean National Cancer Screening Program (NCSP) for gastric cancer requires economic evaluation due to the low sensitivity of upper gastrointestinal series (UGIs) and the associated low cancer survival rate. This study aimed to ascertain the most cost-effective strategy for the NCSP. Methods: The hypothetical target population of this study was aged 40 years or older, and no actual participants were involved. Markov simulation models were constructed for 25 strategies, combinations of 1) screening methods (UGIs or endoscopy vs. endoscopy-only), 2) screening intervals (one, two, or three-year), and 3) upper age limit of screening (69, 74, 79 years old, or “no limit”). Costs, utility, and other input parameters were extracted from various databases and previous studies. Cost-utility, sensitivity, and scenario analyses were conducted. Results: The endoscopy-only strategy with a three-year interval with an upper age limit of 69 was the most cost-effective strategy with an incremental cost-utility ratio of KRW 13,354,106 per quality-adjusted life years. According to the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the uncertainty of the result was significantly small. Scenario analysis is showed that as the screening rate increased, the endoscopy-only strategy saved more costs compared to the current NCSP. Therefore, it is important to maintain a high screening rate when altering the NCSP strategy. Conclusion Endoscopy-only screening was more cost-effective method than UGIs for the NCSP. Furthermore, a three-year interval with an upper-age limit of 69 years was the most cost-effective strategy. Efforts to improve cost-effective screening guidelines will support the efficient use of medical resources. Additionally, maintaining a higher screening rate may maximize the impact of the modification in strategy on cost-effectiveness.

Background and Objectives: Ultimaster™, a third-generation sirolimus-eluting stent using biodegradable polymer, has been introduced to overcome long term adverse vascular events, such as restenosis or stent thrombosis. In the present study, we aimed to evaluate the 12-month clinical outcomes of Ultimaster™ stents in Korean patients with coronary artery disease. Methods: This study is a multicenter, prospective, observational registry across 12 hospitals. To reflect real-world clinical evidence, non-selective subtypes of patients and lesions were included in this study. The study end point was target lesion failure (TLF) (the composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction [MI], and target lesion revascularization [TLR]) at 12-month clinical follow up. Results: A total of 576 patients were enrolled between November 2016 and May 2021. Most of the patients were male (76.5%), with a mean age of 66.0±11.2 years. Among the included patients, 40.1% had diabetes mellitus (DM) and 67.9% had acute coronary syndrome (ACS).At 12 months, the incidence of TLF was 4.1%. The incidence of cardiac death was 1.5%, MI was 1.0%, TLR was 2.7%, and stent thrombosis was 0.6%. In subgroup analysis based on the presence of ACS, DM, hypertension, dyslipidemia, or bifurcation, there were no major differences in the incidence of the primary endpoint. Conclusions The present registry shows that Ultimaster™ stent is safe and effective for routine real-world clinical practice in non-selective Korean patients, having a low rate of adverse events at least up to 12 months.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the participation and follow-up test compliance rates and key performance indicators of the National Cancer Screening Program (NCSP) for colorectal cancer (CRC) from 2004 to 2017. Materials and Methods: The overall outcomes of the NCSP for CRC were analyzed using the NCSP data collected from 2004 to 2017 and the Korean Central Cancer Registry for CRC from 2005 to 2017. We cross-sectionally analyzed the participation and follow-up test compliance rates and performance indicators for each year. The trend of participation rates as an annual percentage change was assessed, and other statistical analyses were performed. Results: The screening participation rates increased from 7.3% in 2004 to 30.5% in 2017. Additionally, the screening rates were higher among individuals aged 60-69 years and National Health Insurance Service beneficiaries of low-income status. However, the adherence to the follow-up test decreased from 63% in 2004 to 32% in 2017. The follow-up tests using the double-contrast barium enema method decreased from 42.2% in 2004 to 0.3% in 2017. However, follow-up tests by colonoscopy increased from 21.0% in 2004 to 31.8% in 2017. Furthermore, the positivity, false-positive, and interval CRC rates decreased, whereas the specificity increased from 2004 to 2016, indicating improved performance of CRC. Conclusion The participation rates and performance of the NCSP for CRC have steadily improved, whereas adherence to follow-up tests has decreased. Additionally, there is a rapid growth in colonoscopy volume as a follow-up test. Continued efforts are required to improve the follow-up rates.

Given the progressive improvements in antithrombotic strategies, management of cardiovascular disease has become sophisticated/refined. However, the optimal perioperative management of antithrombotic therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome or who are scheduled for percutaneous coronary intervention remains unclear. Assessments of the thrombotic and hemorrhagic risks are essential to reduce the rates of mortality and major cardiac events. However, the existing guidelines do not mention these topics. This case-based consensus document deals with common clinical scenarios and offers evidence-based guidelines for individualized perioperative management of antithrombotic therapy in the real world.

The prevalence of ischemic heart disease is steadily growing as populations age. Antithrombotic treatment is a key therapeutic modality for the prevention of secondary cerebro-cardiovascular disease. Patients with acute coronary syndrome or who are undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention must be treated with dual antiplatelet therapy for a mandatory period. The optimal perioperative antithrombotic regimen remains debatable; antithrombotics can cause bleeding. Inadequate antithrombotic regimens are associated with perioperative ischemic events, but continuation of therapy may increase the risks of perioperative hemorrhagic complications (including mortality). Many guidelines on the perioperative management of antithrombotic agents have been established by academic societies. However, the existing guidelines do not cover all specialties, nor do they describe the thrombotic and hemorrhagic risks associated with various surgical interventions. Moreover, few practical recommendations on the modification of antithrombotic regimens in patients who require non-deferrable interventions/surgeries or procedures associated with a high risk of hemorrhage have appeared. Therefore, cardiologists, specialists performing invasive procedures, surgeons, dentists, and anesthesiologists have not come to a consensus on optimal perioperative antithrombotic regimens. The Korean Platelet-Thrombosis Research Group presented a positioning paper on perioperative antithrombotic management. We here discuss commonly encountered clinical scenarios and engage in evidence-based discussion to assist individualized, perioperative antithrombotic management in clinical practice.

Background: Early identification of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who are at high risk of mortality is of vital importance for appropriate clinical decision making and delivering optimal treatment. We aimed to develop and validate a clinical risk score for predicting mortality at the time of admission of patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Methods: Collaborating with the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (KCDC), we established a prospective consecutive cohort of 5,628 patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection who were admitted to 120 hospitals in Korea between January 20, 2020, and April 30, 2020. The cohort was randomly divided using a 7:3 ratio into a development (n = 3,940) and validation (n = 1,688) set. Clinical information and complete blood count (CBC) detected at admission were investigated using Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) and logistic regression to construct a predictive risk score (COVID-Mortality Score).The discriminative power of the risk model was assessed by calculating the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic curves. Results: The incidence of mortality was 4.3% in both the development and validation set.A COVID-Mortality Score consisting of age, sex, body mass index, combined comorbidity, clinical symptoms, and CBC was developed. AUCs of the scoring system were 0.96 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85–0.91) and 0.97 (95% CI, 0.84–0.93) in the development and validation set, respectively. If the model was optimized for > 90% sensitivity, accuracies were 81.0% and 80.2% with sensitivities of 91.7% and 86.1% in the development and validation set, respectively. The optimized scoring system has been applied to the public online risk calculator (https://www.diseaseriskscore.com). Conclusion This clinically developed and validated COVID-Mortality Score, using clinical data available at the time of admission, will aid clinicians in predicting in-hospital mortality.

Background: Early identification of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who are at high risk of mortality is of vital importance for appropriate clinical decision making and delivering optimal treatment. We aimed to develop and validate a clinical risk score for predicting mortality at the time of admission of patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Methods: Collaborating with the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (KCDC), we established a prospective consecutive cohort of 5,628 patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection who were admitted to 120 hospitals in Korea between January 20, 2020, and April 30, 2020. The cohort was randomly divided using a 7:3 ratio into a development (n = 3,940) and validation (n = 1,688) set. Clinical information and complete blood count (CBC) detected at admission were investigated using Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) and logistic regression to construct a predictive risk score (COVID-Mortality Score).The discriminative power of the risk model was assessed by calculating the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic curves. Results: The incidence of mortality was 4.3% in both the development and validation set.A COVID-Mortality Score consisting of age, sex, body mass index, combined comorbidity, clinical symptoms, and CBC was developed. AUCs of the scoring system were 0.96 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85–0.91) and 0.97 (95% CI, 0.84–0.93) in the development and validation set, respectively. If the model was optimized for > 90% sensitivity, accuracies were 81.0% and 80.2% with sensitivities of 91.7% and 86.1% in the development and validation set, respectively. The optimized scoring system has been applied to the public online risk calculator (https://www.diseaseriskscore.com). Conclusion This clinically developed and validated COVID-Mortality Score, using clinical data available at the time of admission, will aid clinicians in predicting in-hospital mortality.