Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

Background: s/Aims: Reported incidence of extrahepatic bile duct cancer is higher in Asians than in Western populations. Korea, in particular, is one of the countries with the highest incidence rates of extrahepatic bile duct cancer in the world. Although research and innovative therapeutic modalities for extrahepatic bile duct cancer are emerging, clinical guidelines are currently unavailable in Korea. The Korean Society of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery in collaboration with related societies (Korean Pancreatic and Biliary Surgery Society, Korean Society of Abdominal Radiology, Korean Society of Medical Oncology, Korean Society of Radiation Oncology, Korean Society of Pathologists, and Korean Society of Nuclear Medicine) decided to establish clinical guideline for extrahepatic bile duct cancer in June 2021. Methods: Contents of the guidelines were developed through subgroup meetings for each key question and a preliminary draft was finalized through a Clinical Guidelines Committee workshop. Results: In November 2021, the finalized draft was presented for public scrutiny during a formal hearing. Conclusions The extrahepatic guideline committee believed that this guideline could be helpful in the treatment of patients.

Background: To investigate the prevalence, incidence, comorbidities, and management status of diabetic kidney disease (DKD) and diabetes-related end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) in South Korea. Methods: We used the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data (2019 to 2021, n=2,665) for the evaluation of prevalence, comorbidities, control rate of glycemia and comorbidities in DKD, and the Korean Health Insurance Service-customized database (2008 to 2019, n=3,950,857) for the evaluation of trends in the incidence and prevalence rate of diabetes-related ESKD, renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockers and sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors use for DKD, and the risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and mortality according to DKD stages. DKD was defined as albuminuria or low estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 in patients with diabetes mellitus. Results: The prevalence of DKD was 25.4% (albuminuria, 22.0%; low eGFR, 6.73%) in patients with diabetes mellitus aged ≥30 years. Patients with DKD had a higher rate of comorbidities, including hypertension, dyslipidemia, and central obesity; however, their control rates were lower than those without DKD. Prescription rate of SGLT2 inhibitors with reduced eGFR increased steadily, reaching 5.94% in 2019. Approximately 70% of DKD patients were treated with RAS blockers. The prevalence rate of diabetesrelated ESKD has been steadily increasing, with a higher rate in older adults. ASCVD and mortality were significantly associated with an in increase in DKD stage. Conclusion DKD is prevalent among Korean patients with diabetes and is an independent risk factor for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, which requiring intensive management of diabetes and comorbidities. The prevalence of diabetes-related ESKD has been increasing, especially in the older adults, during past decade.

In May 2023, the Committee of Clinical Practice Guidelines of the Korean Diabetes Association published the revised clinical practice guidelines for Korean adults with diabetes and prediabetes. We incorporated the latest clinical research findings through a comprehensive systematic literature review and applied them in a manner suitable for the Korean population. These guidelines are designed for all healthcare providers nationwide, including physicians, diabetes experts, and certified diabetes educators who manage patients with diabetes or individuals at risk of developing diabetes. Based on recent changes in international guidelines and the results of a Korean epidemiological study, the recommended age for diabetes screening has been lowered. In collaboration with the relevant Korean medical societies, recently revised guidelines for managing hypertension and dyslipidemia in patients with diabetes have been incorporated into this guideline. An abridgment containing practical information on patient education and systematic management in the clinic was published separately.

Objectives: This study used the Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES) to determine the association between fractures and low muscle mass. Methods: This cross-sectional study used the 2010–2011 KNHANES data. Low muscle mass was defined as (appendicular skeletal muscle mass [kg]/Height2 [m2 ]) < 5.45 kg/m2 , which is < 2 SD below the sex-specific mean of a young reference group. Patients with T-scores between –1.0 and –2.5 indicated osteopenia, whereas those with T-scores lower than –2.5 indicated osteoporosis. Results: Out of 1,306 women enrolled in the study, 330 were diagnosed with low muscle mass according to the abovementioned diagnostic criterion. The prevalence of fractures at various sites was significantly higher in postmenopausal women with low muscle mass than in those without low muscle mass (relative risk [RR], 1.64; odds ratio [OR], 1.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06–2.48; P = 0.027). Furthermore, the prevalence of fractures was increased by the presence of osteopenia or osteoporosis in addition to low muscle mass (RR, 1.59; OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.02–2.49; P = 0.039) and by osteoporosis only (RR, 2.12; OR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.11–4.70; P = 0.025). Conclusions Fracture was more prevalent in postmenopausal women with low muscle mass than in those without low muscle mass.This finding is consistent in a subgroup analysis that included women who had osteoporosis or osteopenia. Moreover, the risk of fractures increased as low muscle mass worsened.

Objective: Dysphagia is a common clinical condition characterized by difficulty in swallowing. It is sub-classified into oropharyngeal dysphagia, which refers to problems in the mouth and pharynx, and esophageal dysphagia, which refers to problems in the esophageal body and esophagogastric junction. Dysphagia can have a significant negative impact one’s physical health and quality of life as its severity increases. Therefore, proper assessment and management of dysphagia are critical for improving swallowing function and preventing complications. Thus a guideline was developed to provide evidence-based recommendations for assessment and management in patients with dysphagia. Methods: Nineteen key questions on dysphagia were developed. These questions dealt with various aspects of problems related to dysphagia, including assessment, management, and complications. A literature search for relevant articles was conducted using Pubmed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and one domestic database of KoreaMed, until April 2021. The level of evidence and recommendation grade were established according to the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. Results: Early screening and assessment of videofluoroscopic swallowing were recommended for assessing the presence of dysphagia. Therapeutic methods, such as tongue and pharyngeal muscle strengthening exercises and neuromuscular electrical stimulation with swallowing therapy, were effective in improving swallowing function and quality of life in patients with dysphagia. Nutritional intervention and an oral care program were also recommended. Conclusion This guideline presents recommendations for the assessment and management of patients with oropharyngeal dysphagia, including rehabilitative strategies.