Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in both Korea and worldwide. Since 2004, the Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer have been regularly updated, with the 4th edition published in 2022. The 4th edition was the result of a collaborative work by an interdisciplinary team, including experts in gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and guideline development methodology. The current guideline is the 5th version, an updated version of the 4th edition. In this guideline, 6 key questions (KQs) were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group, and 7 statements were developed, or revised, or discussed based on a systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed database. Over the past 2 years, there have been significant changes in systemic treatment, leading to major updates and revisions focused on this area.Additionally, minor modifications have been made in other sections, incorporating recent research findings. The level of evidence and grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Key factors for recommendation included the level of evidence, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability. The working group reviewed and discussed the recommendations to reach a consensus. The structure of this guideline remains similar to the 2022 version.Earlier sections cover general considerations, such as screening, diagnosis, and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. In the latter sections, statements are provided for each KQ based on clinical evidence, with flowcharts supporting these statements through meta-analysis and references. This multidisciplinary, evidence-based gastric cancer guideline aims to support clinicians in providing optimal care for gastric cancer patients.

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in both Korea and worldwide. Since 2004, the Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer have been regularly updated, with the 4th edition published in 2022. The 4th edition was the result of a collaborative work by an interdisciplinary team, including experts in gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and guideline development methodology. The current guideline is the 5th version, an updated version of the 4th edition. In this guideline, 6 key questions (KQs) were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group, and 7 statements were developed, or revised, or discussed based on a systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed database. Over the past 2 years, there have been significant changes in systemic treatment, leading to major updates and revisions focused on this area.Additionally, minor modifications have been made in other sections, incorporating recent research findings. The level of evidence and grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Key factors for recommendation included the level of evidence, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability. The working group reviewed and discussed the recommendations to reach a consensus. The structure of this guideline remains similar to the 2022 version.Earlier sections cover general considerations, such as screening, diagnosis, and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. In the latter sections, statements are provided for each KQ based on clinical evidence, with flowcharts supporting these statements through meta-analysis and references. This multidisciplinary, evidence-based gastric cancer guideline aims to support clinicians in providing optimal care for gastric cancer patients.

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in both Korea and worldwide. Since 2004, the Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer have been regularly updated, with the 4th edition published in 2022. The 4th edition was the result of a collaborative work by an interdisciplinary team, including experts in gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and guideline development methodology. The current guideline is the 5th version, an updated version of the 4th edition. In this guideline, 6 key questions (KQs) were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group, and 7 statements were developed, or revised, or discussed based on a systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed database. Over the past 2 years, there have been significant changes in systemic treatment, leading to major updates and revisions focused on this area.Additionally, minor modifications have been made in other sections, incorporating recent research findings. The level of evidence and grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Key factors for recommendation included the level of evidence, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability. The working group reviewed and discussed the recommendations to reach a consensus. The structure of this guideline remains similar to the 2022 version.Earlier sections cover general considerations, such as screening, diagnosis, and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. In the latter sections, statements are provided for each KQ based on clinical evidence, with flowcharts supporting these statements through meta-analysis and references. This multidisciplinary, evidence-based gastric cancer guideline aims to support clinicians in providing optimal care for gastric cancer patients.

One of the notable adverse effects of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor is diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) often characterized by euglycemia. In this retrospective review of patients with DKA from 2015 to 2023, 21 cases of SGLT2 inhibitorassociated DKA were identified. Twelve (57.1%) exhibited euglycemic DKA (euDKA) while nine (42.9%) had hyperglycemic DKA (hyDKA). More than 90% of these cases were patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Despite similar age, sex, body mass index, and diabetes duration, individuals with hyDKA showed poorer glycemic control and lower C-peptide levels compared with euDKA. Renal impairment and acidosis were worse in the hyDKA group, requiring hemodialysis in two patients. Approximately one-half of hyDKA patients had concurrent hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state. Common symptoms included nausea, vomiting, general weakness, and dyspnea. Seizure was the initial manifestation of DKA in two cases. Infection and volume depletion were major contributors, while carbohydrate restriction and inadequate insulin treatment also contributed to SGLT2 inhibitor-associated DKA. Despite their beneficial effects, clinicians should be vigilant for SGLT2 inhibitor risk associated with DKA.

One of the notable adverse effects of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor is diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) often characterized by euglycemia. In this retrospective review of patients with DKA from 2015 to 2023, 21 cases of SGLT2 inhibitorassociated DKA were identified. Twelve (57.1%) exhibited euglycemic DKA (euDKA) while nine (42.9%) had hyperglycemic DKA (hyDKA). More than 90% of these cases were patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Despite similar age, sex, body mass index, and diabetes duration, individuals with hyDKA showed poorer glycemic control and lower C-peptide levels compared with euDKA. Renal impairment and acidosis were worse in the hyDKA group, requiring hemodialysis in two patients. Approximately one-half of hyDKA patients had concurrent hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state. Common symptoms included nausea, vomiting, general weakness, and dyspnea. Seizure was the initial manifestation of DKA in two cases. Infection and volume depletion were major contributors, while carbohydrate restriction and inadequate insulin treatment also contributed to SGLT2 inhibitor-associated DKA. Despite their beneficial effects, clinicians should be vigilant for SGLT2 inhibitor risk associated with DKA.

One of the notable adverse effects of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor is diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) often characterized by euglycemia. In this retrospective review of patients with DKA from 2015 to 2023, 21 cases of SGLT2 inhibitorassociated DKA were identified. Twelve (57.1%) exhibited euglycemic DKA (euDKA) while nine (42.9%) had hyperglycemic DKA (hyDKA). More than 90% of these cases were patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Despite similar age, sex, body mass index, and diabetes duration, individuals with hyDKA showed poorer glycemic control and lower C-peptide levels compared with euDKA. Renal impairment and acidosis were worse in the hyDKA group, requiring hemodialysis in two patients. Approximately one-half of hyDKA patients had concurrent hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state. Common symptoms included nausea, vomiting, general weakness, and dyspnea. Seizure was the initial manifestation of DKA in two cases. Infection and volume depletion were major contributors, while carbohydrate restriction and inadequate insulin treatment also contributed to SGLT2 inhibitor-associated DKA. Despite their beneficial effects, clinicians should be vigilant for SGLT2 inhibitor risk associated with DKA.

One of the notable adverse effects of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor is diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) often characterized by euglycemia. In this retrospective review of patients with DKA from 2015 to 2023, 21 cases of SGLT2 inhibitorassociated DKA were identified. Twelve (57.1%) exhibited euglycemic DKA (euDKA) while nine (42.9%) had hyperglycemic DKA (hyDKA). More than 90% of these cases were patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Despite similar age, sex, body mass index, and diabetes duration, individuals with hyDKA showed poorer glycemic control and lower C-peptide levels compared with euDKA. Renal impairment and acidosis were worse in the hyDKA group, requiring hemodialysis in two patients. Approximately one-half of hyDKA patients had concurrent hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state. Common symptoms included nausea, vomiting, general weakness, and dyspnea. Seizure was the initial manifestation of DKA in two cases. Infection and volume depletion were major contributors, while carbohydrate restriction and inadequate insulin treatment also contributed to SGLT2 inhibitor-associated DKA. Despite their beneficial effects, clinicians should be vigilant for SGLT2 inhibitor risk associated with DKA.

Background: Enavogliflozin is a novel sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor currently under clinical development. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of enavogliflozin as an add-on to metformin in Korean patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) against dapagliflozin. Methods: In this multicenter, double-blind, randomized, phase 3 study, 200 patients were randomized to receive enavogliflozin 0.3 mg/day (n=101) or dapagliflozin 10 mg/day (n=99) in addition to ongoing metformin therapy for 24 weeks. The primary objective of the study was to prove the non-inferiority of enavogliflozin to dapagliflozin in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) change at week 24 (non-inferiority margin of 0.35%) (Clinical trial registration number: NCT04634500). Results: Adjusted mean change of HbA1c at week 24 was –0.80% with enavogliflozin and –0.75% with dapagliflozin (difference, –0.04%; 95% confidence interval, –0.21% to 0.12%). Percentages of patients achieving HbA1c <7.0% were 61% and 62%, respectively. Adjusted mean change of fasting plasma glucose at week 24 was –32.53 and –29.14 mg/dL. An increase in urine glucose-creatinine ratio (60.48 vs. 44.94, P<0.0001) and decrease in homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (–1.85 vs. –1.31, P=0.0041) were significantly greater with enavogliflozin than dapagliflozin at week 24. Beneficial effects of enavogliflozin on body weight (–3.77 kg vs. –3.58 kg) and blood pressure (systolic/diastolic, –5.93/–5.41 mm Hg vs. –6.57/–4.26 mm Hg) were comparable with those of dapagliflozin, and both drugs were safe and well-tolerated. Conclusion Enavogliflozin added to metformin significantly improved glycemic control in patients with T2DM and was non-inferior to dapagliflozin 10 mg, suggesting enavogliflozin as a viable treatment option for patients with inadequate glycemic control on metformin alone.

Background: Data illustrating the impact of atopic dermatitis (AD) on lives of adults with AD in South Korea are limited. Objective: To assess the AD disease severity and its impact on quality of life (QoL) in patients with AD from South Korea. Methods: Patients with AD utilizing the specialist dermatology services of major hospitals in South Korea were assessed for disease severity using Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score, for QoL using Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) (for QoL), and for comorbidities and treatment experience via retrospective review of 12-month medical records. Clinical and sociodemographic characteristics were also measured. Results: Of the 1,163 patients, 695 (59.8%) were men (mean age [years]±standard deviation: 31.6±12.1). Overall, 52.9% (n=615) patients had moderate-to-severe disease (EASI>7).The QoL of 72.3% (n=840) patients was affected moderately-to-severely (DLQI score: 6~30).Systemic immunosuppressants were used ≥1 over past 12 months in 51.9% (n=603) patients, and the most commonly used were cyclosporines (45.7%, n=531) and systemic corticosteroids (40.5%, n=471). Approximately, 10.8% (n=126) patients consulted or received treatment for AD-related eye problem. Of these, 40% (n=50) patients reported poor, very poor, or completely blind status; approximately, 16.7% patients (n=192) reported having depression or anxiety; and 35.5% (n=410) reported suicidal ideation or suicidal attempt. Conclusion A large proportion of patients had moderate-to-severe AD, a compromised QoL, and ocular or mental health comorbidities, indicating a high disease burden despite systemic treatment. These findings highlight the importance of a holistic approach for the evaluation and treatment of patients with AD.