Background: Limited data are available on the adverse effects of new-onset diabetes after transplantation (NODAT) in solid organ transplantation (TPL) other than kidney. This study aimed to identify the risk of complications associated with NODAT in recipients of kidney, liver, or heart TPL. Methods: Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, recipients of kidney, liver, or heart TPL between 2009 and 2015 were identified. The incidence of coronary artery disease (CAD), cerebrovascular accident (CVA), and malignancy was compared across groups with NODAT, pretransplant diabetes mellitus (DM), and without DM using Cox regression analysis. Results: A total of 9,632 kidney, liver, or heart TPL recipients were included. During the median follow-up of 5.9 years, NODAT independently increased the incidence of CAD (hazard ratio [HR], 2.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.39 to 4.30) and overall mortality (HR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.14 to 1.95) compared to the reference group even after adjustment for confounders; this was more prominent in kidney TPL than in liver TPL. The risk of CVA was significantly increased by pretransplant DM but not by NODAT in both kidney and liver TPL (HR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.68 to 3.65; and HR, 3.18; 95% CI, 1.07 to 9.48, respectively). NODAT increased the risk of malignancy in the crude model, which lost its statistical significance after confounder adjustment. Conclusion NODAT independently increases the risk of CAD and mortality after TPL, which is more evident in kidney recipients. There was no additional increased risk of CVA or malignancy with NODAT in solid organ TPL.

Background: Limited data are available on the adverse effects of new-onset diabetes after transplantation (NODAT) in solid organ transplantation (TPL) other than kidney. This study aimed to identify the risk of complications associated with NODAT in recipients of kidney, liver, or heart TPL. Methods: Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, recipients of kidney, liver, or heart TPL between 2009 and 2015 were identified. The incidence of coronary artery disease (CAD), cerebrovascular accident (CVA), and malignancy was compared across groups with NODAT, pretransplant diabetes mellitus (DM), and without DM using Cox regression analysis. Results: A total of 9,632 kidney, liver, or heart TPL recipients were included. During the median follow-up of 5.9 years, NODAT independently increased the incidence of CAD (hazard ratio [HR], 2.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.39 to 4.30) and overall mortality (HR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.14 to 1.95) compared to the reference group even after adjustment for confounders; this was more prominent in kidney TPL than in liver TPL. The risk of CVA was significantly increased by pretransplant DM but not by NODAT in both kidney and liver TPL (HR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.68 to 3.65; and HR, 3.18; 95% CI, 1.07 to 9.48, respectively). NODAT increased the risk of malignancy in the crude model, which lost its statistical significance after confounder adjustment. Conclusion NODAT independently increases the risk of CAD and mortality after TPL, which is more evident in kidney recipients. There was no additional increased risk of CVA or malignancy with NODAT in solid organ TPL.

Background: Limited data are available on the adverse effects of new-onset diabetes after transplantation (NODAT) in solid organ transplantation (TPL) other than kidney. This study aimed to identify the risk of complications associated with NODAT in recipients of kidney, liver, or heart TPL. Methods: Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, recipients of kidney, liver, or heart TPL between 2009 and 2015 were identified. The incidence of coronary artery disease (CAD), cerebrovascular accident (CVA), and malignancy was compared across groups with NODAT, pretransplant diabetes mellitus (DM), and without DM using Cox regression analysis. Results: A total of 9,632 kidney, liver, or heart TPL recipients were included. During the median follow-up of 5.9 years, NODAT independently increased the incidence of CAD (hazard ratio [HR], 2.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.39 to 4.30) and overall mortality (HR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.14 to 1.95) compared to the reference group even after adjustment for confounders; this was more prominent in kidney TPL than in liver TPL. The risk of CVA was significantly increased by pretransplant DM but not by NODAT in both kidney and liver TPL (HR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.68 to 3.65; and HR, 3.18; 95% CI, 1.07 to 9.48, respectively). NODAT increased the risk of malignancy in the crude model, which lost its statistical significance after confounder adjustment. Conclusion NODAT independently increases the risk of CAD and mortality after TPL, which is more evident in kidney recipients. There was no additional increased risk of CVA or malignancy with NODAT in solid organ TPL.

Background: Limited data are available on the adverse effects of new-onset diabetes after transplantation (NODAT) in solid organ transplantation (TPL) other than kidney. This study aimed to identify the risk of complications associated with NODAT in recipients of kidney, liver, or heart TPL. Methods: Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, recipients of kidney, liver, or heart TPL between 2009 and 2015 were identified. The incidence of coronary artery disease (CAD), cerebrovascular accident (CVA), and malignancy was compared across groups with NODAT, pretransplant diabetes mellitus (DM), and without DM using Cox regression analysis. Results: A total of 9,632 kidney, liver, or heart TPL recipients were included. During the median follow-up of 5.9 years, NODAT independently increased the incidence of CAD (hazard ratio [HR], 2.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.39 to 4.30) and overall mortality (HR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.14 to 1.95) compared to the reference group even after adjustment for confounders; this was more prominent in kidney TPL than in liver TPL. The risk of CVA was significantly increased by pretransplant DM but not by NODAT in both kidney and liver TPL (HR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.68 to 3.65; and HR, 3.18; 95% CI, 1.07 to 9.48, respectively). NODAT increased the risk of malignancy in the crude model, which lost its statistical significance after confounder adjustment. Conclusion NODAT independently increases the risk of CAD and mortality after TPL, which is more evident in kidney recipients. There was no additional increased risk of CVA or malignancy with NODAT in solid organ TPL.

Differentiated thyroid cancer demonstrates a wide range of clinical presentations, from very indolent cases to those with an aggressive prognosis. Therefore, diagnosing and treating each cancer appropriately based on its risk status is important. The Korean Thyroid Association (KTA) has provided and amended the clinical guidelines for thyroid cancer management since 2007. The main changes in this revised 2024 guideline include 1) individualization of surgical extent according to pathological tests and clinical findings, 2) application of active surveillance in low-risk papillary thyroid microcarcinoma, 3) indications for minimally invasive surgery, 4) adoption of World Health Organization pathological diagnostic criteria and definition of terminology in Korean, 5) update on literature evidence of recurrence risk for initial risk stratification, 6) addition of the role of molecular testing, 7) addition of definition of initial risk stratification and targeting thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) concentrations according to ongoing risk stratification (ORS), 8) addition of treatment of perioperative hypoparathyroidism, 9) update on systemic chemotherapy, and 10) addition of treatment for pediatric patients with thyroid cancer.

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, conclusively evaluating possible associations between COVID-19 vaccines and potential adverse events was of critical importance. The National Academy of Medicine of Korea established the COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Research Center (CoVaSC) with support from the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency to investigate the scientific relationship between COVID-19 vaccines and suspected adverse events. Although determining whether the COVID-19 vaccine was responsible for any suspected adverse event necessitated a systematic approach, traditional causal inference theories, such as Hill's criteria, encountered certain limitations and criticisms. To facilitate a systematic and evidence-based evaluation, the United States Institute of Medicine, at the request of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, offered a detailed causality assessment framework in 2012, which was updated in the recent report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) in 2024.This framework, based on a weight-of-evidence approach, allows the independent evaluation of both epidemiological and mechanistic evidence, culminating in a comprehensive conclusion about causality. Epidemiological evidence derived from population studies is categorized into four levels—high, moderate, limited, or insufficient—while mechanistic evidence, primarily from biological and clinical studies in animals and individuals, is classified as strong, intermediate, weak, or lacking. The committee then synthesizes these two types of evidence to draw a conclusion about the causal relationship, which can be described as “convincingly supports” (“evidence established” in the 2024 NASEM report), “favors acceptance,” “favors rejection,” or “inadequate to accept or reject.” The CoVaSC has established an independent committee to conduct causality assessments using the weightof-evidence framework, specifically for evaluating the causality of adverse events associated with COVID-19 vaccines. The aim of this study is to provide an overview of the weight-ofevidence framework and to detail the considerations involved in its practical application in the CoVaSC.

The COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Research Committee (CoVaSC) was established in November 2021 to address the growing need for independent, in-depth scientific evidence on adverse events (AEs) following coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination. This initiative was requested by the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency and led by the National Academy of Medicine of Korea. In September 2022, the COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Research Center was established, strengthening CoVaSC’s initiatives. The center has conducted various studies on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. During CoVaSC’s second research year, from September 29, 2022 to July 19, 2023, the center was restructured into 4 departments: Epidemiological Research, Clinical Research, Communication & Education, and International Cooperation & Policy Research. Its main activities include (1) managing CoVaSC and the COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Research Center, (2) surveying domestic and international trends in AE causality investigation, (3) assessing AEs following COVID-19 vaccination, (4) fostering international collaboration and policy research, and (5) organizing regular fora and training sessions for the public and clinicians. Causality assessments have been conducted for 27 diseases, and independent research has been conducted after organizing ad hoc committees comprising both epidemiologists and clinical experts on each AE of interest. The research process included protocol development, data analysis, interpretation of results, and causality assessment. These research outcomes have been shared transparently with the public and healthcare experts through various fora. The COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Research Center plans to continue strengthening and expanding its research activities to provide reliable, high-quality safety information to the public.

With the introduction of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines, the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency (KDCA) commissioned the National Academy of Medicine of Korea to gather experts to independently assess post-vaccination adverse events. Accordingly, the COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Research Committee (CoVaSC) was launched in November 2021 to perform safety studies and establish evidence for policy guidance. The CoVaSC established 3 committees for epidemiology, clinical research, and communication. The CoVaSC mainly utilizes pseudonymized data linking KDCA’s COVID-19 vaccination data and the National Health Insurance Service’s claims data. The CoVaSC’s 5-step research process involves defining the target diseases and organizing ad-hoc committees, developing research protocols, performing analyses, assessing causal relationships, and announcing research findings and utilizing them to guide compensation policies. As of 2022, the CoVaSC completed this research process for 15 adverse events. The CoVaSC launched the COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Research Center in September 2022 and has been reorganized into 4 divisions to promote research including international collaborative studies, long-/short-term follow-up studies, and education programs. Through these enhancements, the CoVaSC will continue to swiftly provide scientific evidence for COVID-19 vaccine research and compensation and may serve as a model for preparing for future epidemics of new diseases.

Purpose: This article was to collect data on the safety of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines in children with underlying medical conditions. Methods: We constructed a prospective cohort of children and adolescents aged 5 to 19 years who had received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine. Patients diagnosed with and treated for chronic kidney disease, autoimmune disease, or other chronic conditions at the Seoul National University Children’s Hospital were recruited from June to December 2022. A mobile survey questionnaire was sent to their guardians. The presence of adverse events on the day (day 0), 3 weeks (day 21), and 6 months (day 180) after the 1st dose of COVID-19 vaccine was recorded by the guardians. Results: A total of 73 children participated. The median age was 14 years, and 64.4% of the patients were male. On the day of immunization, 65.8% of the patients reported at least one adverse event. Pain at the injection site, fatigue, headache, arthralgia, and myalgia were the most common symptoms. The prevalence of adverse events decreased over time (65.8% on day 0, 27.4% between days 0 and 21, and 24.6% between days 21 and 180). Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection after the 1st dose occurred in 17 patients (23.3%) and one of the patients (5.88%) was hospitalized due to infection. Conclusions Adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination were generally mild in children and adolescents with underlying medical conditions. Our findings provide evidence for the safety of COVID-19 vaccination in the vulnerable pediatric population.

Background: We aimed to assess the risk of maternal severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and early abortive outcomes after the association between coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination during the preconceptional period and preclinical pregnancy, which are likely to be inadvertent vaccination. Methods: We used data from the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency-COVID19-National Health Insurance Service cohort from December 2020 to December 2021. The vaccinated pregnant women were matched to unvaccinated pregnant controls at a 1:4 ratio.The risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection and intensive care unit (ICU) admission within 14 days of infection were analyzed to assess its effectiveness. For safety measures, the adjusted relative risks (aRRs) of early abortive outcomes for the first COVID-19 vaccination during the preconceptional and preclinical periods were calculated considering covariates. We compared the risk of early abortion between mRNA and viral vector vaccines. Results: The overall COVID-19 vaccination rates during the preconceptional period and preclinical pregnancy were 3.1% (6,662/215,211) and 2.6% (5,702/215,211), respectively.The cumulative incidence of ICU admission within 14 days of SARS-CoV-2 infection was 6/100,000 in the unvaccinated group, whereas there were no ICU admissions in the vaccinated groups. The risks of early abortive outcomes were not significantly different between the preconceptional vaccination group and the unvaccinated group (aRR, 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI],0.99–1.10) or between preclinical pregnancy vaccination and their matched controls (1.02; 95% CI, 0.96–1.08). mRNA and viral vector vaccines have shown similar risks for early abortive outcomes and miscarriages. Conclusion Our findings have provided compelling evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccination prior to and during early pregnancy. Further research is required to extend the safety and efficacy profiles of COVID-19 vaccines to pregnant women and their babies.