Background: This study aimed to determine whether a shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen is non-inferior to the standard 6-month tuberculosis regimen. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial enrolled participants with respiratory specimen positivity by Xpert MTB/RIF assay or Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture without rifampicin-resistance. Participants were randomized at 1:1 to the investigational or control group. The investigational group received high-dose rifampicin (30 mg/kg/day), isoniazid, and pyrazinamide until culture conversion, followed by high-dose rifampicin and isoniazid for 12 weeks. The control group received the standard 6-month regimen. The primary outcome was the rate of unfavorable outcomes at 18 months post-randomization. The non-inferiority margin was set at <6% difference in unfavorable outcomes rates. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04485156) Results: Between 4 November 2020 and 3 January 2022, 76 participants were enrolled. Of these, 58 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Unfavorable outcomes occurred in 10 (31.3%) of 32 in the control group and 10 (38.5%) of 26 in the investigational group. The difference was 7.2% (95% confidence interval, ∞ to 31.9%), failing to prove non-inferiority. Serious adverse events and grade 3 or higher adverse events did not differ between the groups. Conclusion The shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen failed to demonstrate non-inferiority but had an acceptable safety profile.

Background: This study aimed to determine whether a shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen is non-inferior to the standard 6-month tuberculosis regimen. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial enrolled participants with respiratory specimen positivity by Xpert MTB/RIF assay or Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture without rifampicin-resistance. Participants were randomized at 1:1 to the investigational or control group. The investigational group received high-dose rifampicin (30 mg/kg/day), isoniazid, and pyrazinamide until culture conversion, followed by high-dose rifampicin and isoniazid for 12 weeks. The control group received the standard 6-month regimen. The primary outcome was the rate of unfavorable outcomes at 18 months post-randomization. The non-inferiority margin was set at <6% difference in unfavorable outcomes rates. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04485156) Results: Between 4 November 2020 and 3 January 2022, 76 participants were enrolled. Of these, 58 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Unfavorable outcomes occurred in 10 (31.3%) of 32 in the control group and 10 (38.5%) of 26 in the investigational group. The difference was 7.2% (95% confidence interval, ∞ to 31.9%), failing to prove non-inferiority. Serious adverse events and grade 3 or higher adverse events did not differ between the groups. Conclusion The shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen failed to demonstrate non-inferiority but had an acceptable safety profile.

Background: This study aimed to determine whether a shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen is non-inferior to the standard 6-month tuberculosis regimen. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial enrolled participants with respiratory specimen positivity by Xpert MTB/RIF assay or Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture without rifampicin-resistance. Participants were randomized at 1:1 to the investigational or control group. The investigational group received high-dose rifampicin (30 mg/kg/day), isoniazid, and pyrazinamide until culture conversion, followed by high-dose rifampicin and isoniazid for 12 weeks. The control group received the standard 6-month regimen. The primary outcome was the rate of unfavorable outcomes at 18 months post-randomization. The non-inferiority margin was set at <6% difference in unfavorable outcomes rates. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04485156) Results: Between 4 November 2020 and 3 January 2022, 76 participants were enrolled. Of these, 58 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Unfavorable outcomes occurred in 10 (31.3%) of 32 in the control group and 10 (38.5%) of 26 in the investigational group. The difference was 7.2% (95% confidence interval, ∞ to 31.9%), failing to prove non-inferiority. Serious adverse events and grade 3 or higher adverse events did not differ between the groups. Conclusion The shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen failed to demonstrate non-inferiority but had an acceptable safety profile.

Heart failure (HF) is a major cause of mortality and morbidity in South Korea, imposing substantial physical, emotional, and financial burdens on patients and society. Despite the high burden of symptom and complex care needs of HF patients, palliative care and hospice services remain underutilized in South Korea due to cultural, institutional, and knowledge-related barriers. This position statement from the Korean Society of Heart Failure emphasizes the need for integrating palliative and hospice care into HF management to improve quality of life and support holistic care for patients and their families. By clarifying the role of palliative care in HF and proposing practical referral criteria, this position statement aims to bridge the gap between HF and palliative care services in South Korea, ultimately improving patient-centered outcomes and aligning treatment with the goals and values of HF patients.

Background: This study aimed to determine whether a shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen is non-inferior to the standard 6-month tuberculosis regimen. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial enrolled participants with respiratory specimen positivity by Xpert MTB/RIF assay or Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture without rifampicin-resistance. Participants were randomized at 1:1 to the investigational or control group. The investigational group received high-dose rifampicin (30 mg/kg/day), isoniazid, and pyrazinamide until culture conversion, followed by high-dose rifampicin and isoniazid for 12 weeks. The control group received the standard 6-month regimen. The primary outcome was the rate of unfavorable outcomes at 18 months post-randomization. The non-inferiority margin was set at <6% difference in unfavorable outcomes rates. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04485156) Results: Between 4 November 2020 and 3 January 2022, 76 participants were enrolled. Of these, 58 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Unfavorable outcomes occurred in 10 (31.3%) of 32 in the control group and 10 (38.5%) of 26 in the investigational group. The difference was 7.2% (95% confidence interval, ∞ to 31.9%), failing to prove non-inferiority. Serious adverse events and grade 3 or higher adverse events did not differ between the groups. Conclusion The shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen failed to demonstrate non-inferiority but had an acceptable safety profile.

Background: This study aimed to determine whether a shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen is non-inferior to the standard 6-month tuberculosis regimen. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial enrolled participants with respiratory specimen positivity by Xpert MTB/RIF assay or Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture without rifampicin-resistance. Participants were randomized at 1:1 to the investigational or control group. The investigational group received high-dose rifampicin (30 mg/kg/day), isoniazid, and pyrazinamide until culture conversion, followed by high-dose rifampicin and isoniazid for 12 weeks. The control group received the standard 6-month regimen. The primary outcome was the rate of unfavorable outcomes at 18 months post-randomization. The non-inferiority margin was set at <6% difference in unfavorable outcomes rates. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04485156) Results: Between 4 November 2020 and 3 January 2022, 76 participants were enrolled. Of these, 58 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Unfavorable outcomes occurred in 10 (31.3%) of 32 in the control group and 10 (38.5%) of 26 in the investigational group. The difference was 7.2% (95% confidence interval, ∞ to 31.9%), failing to prove non-inferiority. Serious adverse events and grade 3 or higher adverse events did not differ between the groups. Conclusion The shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen failed to demonstrate non-inferiority but had an acceptable safety profile.

Purpose: The diagnostic yield of transbronchial biopsy (TBB) using radial probe endobronchial ultrasound (RP-EBUS) is 71%, which is lower than that of transthoracic needle biopsy. We investigated the performance and safety of sequential transbronchial cryobiopsy (TBC) using a novel 1.1-mm diameter cryoprobe, after conventional TBB using RP-EBUS for the diagnosis of peripheral lung lesions (PLLs). Materials and Methods: From April 2021 to November 2021, 110 patients who underwent bronchoscopy using RP-EBUS for the diagnosis of PLL ≤ 30 mm were retrospectively included in our study. All records were followed until June 2022. Results: The overall diagnostic yield of combined TBB and TBC was 79.1%, which was higher than 60.9% of TBB alone (p=0.005). The diagnostic yield of sequential TBC was 65.5%, which increased the overall diagnostic yield by 18.2%. The surface area of tissues by TBC (mean area, 18.5 mm2) was significantly larger than those of TBB by 1.5-mm forceps (3.4 mm2, p < 0.001) and 1.9-mm forceps (3.7 mm2, p=0.011). In the multivariate analysis, PLLs with the longest diameter of ≤ 22 mm were found to be related to additional diagnostic benefits from sequential TBC (odds ratio, 3.51; 95% confidence interval, 1.043 to 11.775; p=0.042). Complications were found in 10.5% of the patients: pneumothorax (1.0%), infection (1.0%), and significant bleeding (8.6%). None of the patients developed any life-threatening complications. Conclusion Sequential TBC with a 1.1-mm cryoprobe improved the performance of conventional TBB using RP-EBUS without serious complications.

Background/Aims: Despite the obvious benefits of adding immune checkpoint inhibitors to platinum-etoposide chemotherapy in patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC), real-world data remain scarce. Methods: This retrospective study included 89 patients with ES-SCLC treated with platinum-etoposide chemotherapy alone (chemo-only group; n = 48) or in combination with atezolizumab (atezolizumab group; n = 41) and compared the survival outcomes between these two groups. Results: Overall survival (OS) was significantly longer in the atezolizumab group than in the chemo-only group (15.2 months vs. 8.5 months; p = 0.047), whereas the median progression-free survival was almost the same (5.1 months vs. 5.0 months) in both groups (p = 0.754). Subsequent multivariate analysis revealed that thoracic radiation (hazard ratio [HR], 0.223; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.092–0.537; p = 0.001) and atezolizumab administration (HR, 0.350; 95% CI, 0.184–0.668; p = 0.001) were favorable prognostic factors for OS. In the thoracic radiation subgroup, patients who received atezolizumab demonstrated favorable survival outcomes and no grade 3–4 adverse events (AEs). Conclusions The addition of atezolizumab to platinum-etoposide resulted in favorable outcomes in this real-world study. Thoracic radiation was associated with improved OS and acceptable AE risk in combination with immunotherapy in patients with ES-SCLC.

Background: The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) update 2023 proposed new definitions of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and COPD exacerbation. However, an agreement on the definitions has not been made, either internationally or domestically. This study aimed to reach an agreement between experts on the new definitions of COPD and COPD exacerbation in South Korea. Methods: A modified Delphi method was used to make an agreement on the definitions of COPD and COPD exacerbation proposed by the GOLD update 2023. We performed two rounds of the survey including 15 Korean experts on COPD, asthma, and tuberculosis. Results: More than two-thirds of the experts agreed on 12 of the 13 statements related to the definitions of COPD and COPD exacerbation in the two rounds of the survey. The experts agreed on the definitions of COPD and COPD exacerbation that should be revised in line with the definitions proposed by the GOLD update 2023. However, the experts showed an uncertain opinion on the statement that the definition of COPD includes patients with persistent airflow obstruction due to bronchiectasis. Conclusion Based on this Delphi survey, experts’ agreement was made on the definitions of COPD and COPD exacerbation proposed by the GOLD update 2023.