Background and Objectives: Lipid lowering therapy is essential to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events; however, limited evidence exists regarding the use of statin with ezetimibe as primary prevention strategy for middle-aged adults. We aimed to investigate the impact of single pill combination therapy on clinical outcomes in relatively healthy middleaged patients when compared with statin monotherapy. Methods: Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, a propensity score match analysis was performed for baseline characteristics of 92,156 patients categorized into combination therapy (n=46,078) and statin monotherapy (n=46,078) groups. Primary outcome was composite outcomes, including death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke. And secondary outcome was all-cause death. The mean follow-up duration was 2.9±0.3 years. Results: The 3-year composite outcomes of all-cause death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke demonstrated no significant difference between the 2 groups (10.3% vs.10.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.022; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.980–1.064; p=0.309).Meanwhile, the 3-year all-cause death rate was lower in the combination therapy group than in the statin monotherapy group (0.2% vs. 0.4%; p<0.001), with a significant HR of 0.595 (95% CI, 0.460–0.769; p<0.001). Single pill combination therapy exhibited consistently lower mortality rates across various subgroups. Conclusions Compared to the statin monotherapy, the combination therapy for primary prevention showed no difference in composite outcomes but may reduce mortality risk in relatively healthy middle-aged patients. However, since the study was observational, further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Background and Objectives: Lipid lowering therapy is essential to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events; however, limited evidence exists regarding the use of statin with ezetimibe as primary prevention strategy for middle-aged adults. We aimed to investigate the impact of single pill combination therapy on clinical outcomes in relatively healthy middleaged patients when compared with statin monotherapy. Methods: Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, a propensity score match analysis was performed for baseline characteristics of 92,156 patients categorized into combination therapy (n=46,078) and statin monotherapy (n=46,078) groups. Primary outcome was composite outcomes, including death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke. And secondary outcome was all-cause death. The mean follow-up duration was 2.9±0.3 years. Results: The 3-year composite outcomes of all-cause death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke demonstrated no significant difference between the 2 groups (10.3% vs.10.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.022; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.980–1.064; p=0.309).Meanwhile, the 3-year all-cause death rate was lower in the combination therapy group than in the statin monotherapy group (0.2% vs. 0.4%; p<0.001), with a significant HR of 0.595 (95% CI, 0.460–0.769; p<0.001). Single pill combination therapy exhibited consistently lower mortality rates across various subgroups. Conclusions Compared to the statin monotherapy, the combination therapy for primary prevention showed no difference in composite outcomes but may reduce mortality risk in relatively healthy middle-aged patients. However, since the study was observational, further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Background and Objectives: Lipid lowering therapy is essential to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events; however, limited evidence exists regarding the use of statin with ezetimibe as primary prevention strategy for middle-aged adults. We aimed to investigate the impact of single pill combination therapy on clinical outcomes in relatively healthy middleaged patients when compared with statin monotherapy. Methods: Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, a propensity score match analysis was performed for baseline characteristics of 92,156 patients categorized into combination therapy (n=46,078) and statin monotherapy (n=46,078) groups. Primary outcome was composite outcomes, including death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke. And secondary outcome was all-cause death. The mean follow-up duration was 2.9±0.3 years. Results: The 3-year composite outcomes of all-cause death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke demonstrated no significant difference between the 2 groups (10.3% vs.10.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.022; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.980–1.064; p=0.309).Meanwhile, the 3-year all-cause death rate was lower in the combination therapy group than in the statin monotherapy group (0.2% vs. 0.4%; p<0.001), with a significant HR of 0.595 (95% CI, 0.460–0.769; p<0.001). Single pill combination therapy exhibited consistently lower mortality rates across various subgroups. Conclusions Compared to the statin monotherapy, the combination therapy for primary prevention showed no difference in composite outcomes but may reduce mortality risk in relatively healthy middle-aged patients. However, since the study was observational, further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Background and Objectives: Lipid lowering therapy is essential to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events; however, limited evidence exists regarding the use of statin with ezetimibe as primary prevention strategy for middle-aged adults. We aimed to investigate the impact of single pill combination therapy on clinical outcomes in relatively healthy middleaged patients when compared with statin monotherapy. Methods: Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, a propensity score match analysis was performed for baseline characteristics of 92,156 patients categorized into combination therapy (n=46,078) and statin monotherapy (n=46,078) groups. Primary outcome was composite outcomes, including death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke. And secondary outcome was all-cause death. The mean follow-up duration was 2.9±0.3 years. Results: The 3-year composite outcomes of all-cause death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke demonstrated no significant difference between the 2 groups (10.3% vs.10.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.022; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.980–1.064; p=0.309).Meanwhile, the 3-year all-cause death rate was lower in the combination therapy group than in the statin monotherapy group (0.2% vs. 0.4%; p<0.001), with a significant HR of 0.595 (95% CI, 0.460–0.769; p<0.001). Single pill combination therapy exhibited consistently lower mortality rates across various subgroups. Conclusions Compared to the statin monotherapy, the combination therapy for primary prevention showed no difference in composite outcomes but may reduce mortality risk in relatively healthy middle-aged patients. However, since the study was observational, further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Purpose: This study aimed to describe adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) for acute liver failure and evaluate its clinical significance by comparing its surgical and survival outcomes with those of deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 267 consecutive patients (161 LDLT recipients and 106 DDLT recipients) aged 18 years or older who underwent liver transplantation between January 2006 and December 2020. Results: The mean periods from hepatic encephalopathy to liver transplantation were 5.85 days and 8.35 days for LDLT and DDLT, respectively (P = 0.091). Among these patients, 121 (45.3%) had grade III or IV hepatic encephalopathy (living, 34.8% vs. deceased, 61.3%; P < 0.001), and 38 (14.2%) had brain edema (living, 16.1% vs. deceased, 11.3%; P = 0.269) before liver transplantation. There were no significant differences in in-hospital mortality (living, 11.8% vs. deceased, 15.1%; P = 0.435), 10-year overall survival (living, 90.8% vs. deceased, 84.0%; P = 0.096), and graft survival (living, 83.5% vs. deceased, 71.3%;P = 0.051). However, postoperatively, the mean intensive care unit stay was shorter in the LDLT group (5.0 days vs. 9.5 days, P < 0.001). In-hospital mortality was associated with vasopressor use (odds ratio [OR], 3.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.45–7.96; P = 0.005) and brain edema (OR, 2.75; 95% CI, 1.16–6.52; P = 0.022) of recipient at the time of transplantation. However, LDLT (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.59–2.66; P = 0.553) was not independently associated with in-hospital mortality. Conclusion LDLT is feasible for acute liver failure when organs from deceased donors are not available.

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.

Purpose: The role of allogeneic stem cell transplantation (alloSCT) in multiple myeloma (MM) treatment remains controversial. We conducted a retrospective, multicenter, nationwide study in Korea to evaluate the outcomes of alloSCT in Asian patients with MM. Materials and Methods: Overall, 109 patients with MM who underwent alloSCT between 2003 and 2020 were included in this study. Data were collected from the Korean Multiple Myeloma Working Party Registry. Results: The overall response rate and stringent complete response plus complete response (CR) rates were 67.0 and 46.8%, respectively, after alloSCT. At a median follow-up of 32.5 months, the 3-year probability of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were 69.3% and 71.8%, respectively. The 3-year probabilities of OS rates in the upfront alloSCT, tandem auto-alloSCT, and later alloSCT groups were 75.0%, 88.9%, and 61.1%, respectively. Patients who achieved CR before or after alloSCT had significantly longer OS (89.8 vs. 18 months and 89.8 vs. 15.2 months, respectively). Even though patients who did not achieve CR prior to alloSCT, those who achieve CR after alloSCT had improved PFS and OS compared to those who had no achievement of CR both prior and after alloSCT. Patients who underwent alloSCT with 1-2 prior treatment lines had improved PFS (22.4 vs. 4.5 months) and OS (45.6 vs. 15.3 months) compared to those with three or more prior treatment lines. Conclusion AlloSCT may be a promising therapeutic option especially for younger, chemosensitive patients with earlier implementation from relapse.

With an aging population, the number of patients with difficulty swallowing due to medical conditions is gradually increasing. In such cases, enteral nutrition is administered through a temporary nasogastric tube. Long-term use of a nasogastric tube leads to various complications and a decreased quality of life. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is the percutaneous placement of a tube into the stomach, aided endoscopically, which may be an alternative to a nasogastric tube when enteral nutritional is required for 4 weeks or more. This paper is the first Korean clinical guideline for PEG. It was developed jointly by the Korean College of Helicobacter and Upper Gastrointestinal Research and led by the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. These guidelines aimed to provide physicians, including endoscopists, with the indications, use of prophylactic antibiotics, timing of enteric nutrition, tube placement methods, complications, replacement, and tubes removal for PEG based on the currently available clinical evidence.

Background: A decline in masticatory function may indicate brain dysfunction related to dementia, but the relationship between masticatory function and dementia risk remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate whether masticatory function is associated with the risk of cognitive decline and dementia. Methods: Data were obtained from the nationwide prospective cohort study of randomly sampled community-dwelling Koreans aged ≥ 60 years. The 5,064 non-demented participants, whose number of chewing cycles per bite was assessed by clinical interview, were followed for 8 years with biennial assessments of cognitive performance and clinical diagnoses of all-cause dementia and Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Structural brain magnetic resonance imaging was collected from a subset of cohort participants and their spouses for imaging analyses. Results: Males who chewed ≥ 30 cycles/bite had faster decline in global cognition and memory function and were at higher risk for incident all-cause dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 2.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18–7.18) and AD (HR, 3.22; 95% CI, 1.14–9.11) compared to males with less than 10 cycles/bite. Additionally, increased chewing cycles in males were associated with reduced brain volume, particularly in regions involved in compensatory cognitive control of mastication. There was no significant association between chewing cycles and the risk of dementia or brain volume in females. Conclusion Older men who frequently chew their meals could be considered a notable population at risk for dementia who should be carefully assessed for their cognitive trajectories.

Purpose: For the treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC), research on primary lesions with mesorectal fascia (MRF) involvement is lacking. This study analyzed the clinical outcomes and efficacy of dose-escalated neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) to patients with LARC involving MRF. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 301 patients who were diagnosed with LARC involving MRF and underwent NCRT followed by total mesorectal excision (TME). Patients who received radiotherapy (RT) doses of ≤50.4 Gy were defined as the non-boost group, while ≥54.0 Gy as the boost group. Pathological tumor response and survival outcomes, including intrapelvic recurrence-free survival (IPRFS), distant metastases-free survival (DMFS) and overall survival (OS), were analyzed. Results: A total of 269 patients (89.4%) achieved a negative pathological circumferential resection margin and 104 (34.6%) had good pathological tumor regression grades. With a median follow-up of 32.4 months, IPRFS, DMFS, and OS rates at 5-years were 88.6%, 78.0%, and 91.2%, respectively. In the subgroup analysis by RT dose, the boost group included more advanced clinical stages of patients. For the non-boost group and boost group, 5-year IPRFS rates were 90.3% and 87.0% (p = 0.242), 5-year DMFS rates were 82.0% and 71.3% (p = 0.105), and 5-year OS rates were 93.0% and 80.6% (p = 0.439), respectively. Treatment related toxicity was comparable between the two groups (p = 0.211). Conclusion Although this retrospective study failed to confirm the efficacy of dose-escalated NCRT, favorable IPRFS and pathological complete response was achieved with NCRT followed by TME. Further studies combining patient customized RT dose with systemic therapies are needed.