Objective: We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of buspirone as an adjunctive therapy for alleviating anxiety symptoms in patients with depressive disorders who are already taking antidepressants. Methods: This was an open-label prospective multicenter non-interventional observational study conducted over 12 weeks. We enrolled 180 patients diagnosed with depressive disorders according to DSM-5 criteria and Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAMA) scores ≥ 18. Participants were already taking selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or serotoninnorepinephrine reuptake inhibitors and were prescribed adjunctive buspirone. Efficacy was assessed using HAMA, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD), Clinical Global Impression Scale-Improvement, Clinical Global Impression Scale-Severity, Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS), and WHO-5 Well-Being Index. Results: The efficacy analysis included 161 patients. HAMA scores decreased significantly from 25.2 ± 6.7 at baseline to 15.4 ± 8.6 at 12 weeks (p ＜ 0.001), whereas HAMD scores decreased from 19.4 ± 4.6 to 12.7 ± 5.7 (p ＜ 0.001).WHO-5 and SDS scores showed significant improvements. The HAMA response rate was 39.1% and the remission rate was 13.7% at 12 weeks. Adverse drug reactions were reported in 3.7% of participants. Subgroup analyses showed no significant differences in treatment response based on buspirone dosage, baseline anxiety/depression severity, or benzodiazepine use. Conclusion Adjunctive buspirone therapy effectively improved anxiety symptoms in depressed patients taking antidepressants, regardless of baseline symptom severity or buspirone dosage. The treatment was well-tolerated with few adverse events. Future studies using a control group are needed.

Objective: We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of buspirone as an adjunctive therapy for alleviating anxiety symptoms in patients with depressive disorders who are already taking antidepressants. Methods: This was an open-label prospective multicenter non-interventional observational study conducted over 12 weeks. We enrolled 180 patients diagnosed with depressive disorders according to DSM-5 criteria and Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAMA) scores ≥ 18. Participants were already taking selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or serotoninnorepinephrine reuptake inhibitors and were prescribed adjunctive buspirone. Efficacy was assessed using HAMA, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD), Clinical Global Impression Scale-Improvement, Clinical Global Impression Scale-Severity, Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS), and WHO-5 Well-Being Index. Results: The efficacy analysis included 161 patients. HAMA scores decreased significantly from 25.2 ± 6.7 at baseline to 15.4 ± 8.6 at 12 weeks (p ＜ 0.001), whereas HAMD scores decreased from 19.4 ± 4.6 to 12.7 ± 5.7 (p ＜ 0.001).WHO-5 and SDS scores showed significant improvements. The HAMA response rate was 39.1% and the remission rate was 13.7% at 12 weeks. Adverse drug reactions were reported in 3.7% of participants. Subgroup analyses showed no significant differences in treatment response based on buspirone dosage, baseline anxiety/depression severity, or benzodiazepine use. Conclusion Adjunctive buspirone therapy effectively improved anxiety symptoms in depressed patients taking antidepressants, regardless of baseline symptom severity or buspirone dosage. The treatment was well-tolerated with few adverse events. Future studies using a control group are needed.

Objective: We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of buspirone as an adjunctive therapy for alleviating anxiety symptoms in patients with depressive disorders who are already taking antidepressants. Methods: This was an open-label prospective multicenter non-interventional observational study conducted over 12 weeks. We enrolled 180 patients diagnosed with depressive disorders according to DSM-5 criteria and Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAMA) scores ≥ 18. Participants were already taking selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or serotoninnorepinephrine reuptake inhibitors and were prescribed adjunctive buspirone. Efficacy was assessed using HAMA, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD), Clinical Global Impression Scale-Improvement, Clinical Global Impression Scale-Severity, Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS), and WHO-5 Well-Being Index. Results: The efficacy analysis included 161 patients. HAMA scores decreased significantly from 25.2 ± 6.7 at baseline to 15.4 ± 8.6 at 12 weeks (p ＜ 0.001), whereas HAMD scores decreased from 19.4 ± 4.6 to 12.7 ± 5.7 (p ＜ 0.001).WHO-5 and SDS scores showed significant improvements. The HAMA response rate was 39.1% and the remission rate was 13.7% at 12 weeks. Adverse drug reactions were reported in 3.7% of participants. Subgroup analyses showed no significant differences in treatment response based on buspirone dosage, baseline anxiety/depression severity, or benzodiazepine use. Conclusion Adjunctive buspirone therapy effectively improved anxiety symptoms in depressed patients taking antidepressants, regardless of baseline symptom severity or buspirone dosage. The treatment was well-tolerated with few adverse events. Future studies using a control group are needed.

Objective: We aimed to investigate the effectiveness of buspirone as an adjunctive therapy for alleviating anxiety symptoms in patients with depressive disorders who are already taking antidepressants. Methods: This was an open-label prospective multicenter non-interventional observational study conducted over 12 weeks. We enrolled 180 patients diagnosed with depressive disorders according to DSM-5 criteria and Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAMA) scores ≥ 18. Participants were already taking selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or serotoninnorepinephrine reuptake inhibitors and were prescribed adjunctive buspirone. Efficacy was assessed using HAMA, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD), Clinical Global Impression Scale-Improvement, Clinical Global Impression Scale-Severity, Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS), and WHO-5 Well-Being Index. Results: The efficacy analysis included 161 patients. HAMA scores decreased significantly from 25.2 ± 6.7 at baseline to 15.4 ± 8.6 at 12 weeks (p ＜ 0.001), whereas HAMD scores decreased from 19.4 ± 4.6 to 12.7 ± 5.7 (p ＜ 0.001).WHO-5 and SDS scores showed significant improvements. The HAMA response rate was 39.1% and the remission rate was 13.7% at 12 weeks. Adverse drug reactions were reported in 3.7% of participants. Subgroup analyses showed no significant differences in treatment response based on buspirone dosage, baseline anxiety/depression severity, or benzodiazepine use. Conclusion Adjunctive buspirone therapy effectively improved anxiety symptoms in depressed patients taking antidepressants, regardless of baseline symptom severity or buspirone dosage. The treatment was well-tolerated with few adverse events. Future studies using a control group are needed.

Objective: Effective triage of febrile patients in the emergency department is crucial during times of overcrowding to prioritize care and allocate resources, especially during pandemics. However, available triage tools often require laboratory data and lack accuracy. We aimed to develop a simple and accurate triage tool for febrile patients by modifying the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from 7,303 febrile patients and created modified versions of qSOFA using factors identified through multivariable analysis. The performance of these modified qSOFAs in predicting in-hospital mortality and intensive care unit (ICU) admission was compared using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Results: Through multivariable analysis, the identified factors were age (“A” factor), male sex (“M” factor), oxygen saturation measured by pulse oximetry (SpO2; “S” factor), and lactate level (“L” factor). The AUROCs of ASqSOFA (in-hospital mortality: 0.812 [95% confidence interval, 0.789–0.835]; ICU admission: 0.794 [95% confidence interval, 0.771–0.817]) were simple and not inferior to those of other more complex models (e.g., ASMqSOFA, ASLqSOFA, and ASMLqSOFA). ASqSOFA also displayed significantly higher AUROC than other triage scales, such as the Modified Early Warning Score and Korean Triage and Acuity Scale. The optimal cutoff score of ASqSOFA for the outcome was 2, and the score for redistribution to a lower level emergency department was 0. Conclusion We demonstrated that ASqSOFA can be employed as a simple and efficient triage tool for emergency febrile patients to aid in resource distribution during overcrowding. It also may be applicable in prehospital settings for febrile patient triage.

Objective: Effective triage of febrile patients in the emergency department is crucial during times of overcrowding to prioritize care and allocate resources, especially during pandemics. However, available triage tools often require laboratory data and lack accuracy. We aimed to develop a simple and accurate triage tool for febrile patients by modifying the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from 7,303 febrile patients and created modified versions of qSOFA using factors identified through multivariable analysis. The performance of these modified qSOFAs in predicting in-hospital mortality and intensive care unit (ICU) admission was compared using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Results: Through multivariable analysis, the identified factors were age (“A” factor), male sex (“M” factor), oxygen saturation measured by pulse oximetry (SpO2; “S” factor), and lactate level (“L” factor). The AUROCs of ASqSOFA (in-hospital mortality: 0.812 [95% confidence interval, 0.789–0.835]; ICU admission: 0.794 [95% confidence interval, 0.771–0.817]) were simple and not inferior to those of other more complex models (e.g., ASMqSOFA, ASLqSOFA, and ASMLqSOFA). ASqSOFA also displayed significantly higher AUROC than other triage scales, such as the Modified Early Warning Score and Korean Triage and Acuity Scale. The optimal cutoff score of ASqSOFA for the outcome was 2, and the score for redistribution to a lower level emergency department was 0. Conclusion We demonstrated that ASqSOFA can be employed as a simple and efficient triage tool for emergency febrile patients to aid in resource distribution during overcrowding. It also may be applicable in prehospital settings for febrile patient triage.

Objective: Effective triage of febrile patients in the emergency department is crucial during times of overcrowding to prioritize care and allocate resources, especially during pandemics. However, available triage tools often require laboratory data and lack accuracy. We aimed to develop a simple and accurate triage tool for febrile patients by modifying the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from 7,303 febrile patients and created modified versions of qSOFA using factors identified through multivariable analysis. The performance of these modified qSOFAs in predicting in-hospital mortality and intensive care unit (ICU) admission was compared using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Results: Through multivariable analysis, the identified factors were age (“A” factor), male sex (“M” factor), oxygen saturation measured by pulse oximetry (SpO2; “S” factor), and lactate level (“L” factor). The AUROCs of ASqSOFA (in-hospital mortality: 0.812 [95% confidence interval, 0.789–0.835]; ICU admission: 0.794 [95% confidence interval, 0.771–0.817]) were simple and not inferior to those of other more complex models (e.g., ASMqSOFA, ASLqSOFA, and ASMLqSOFA). ASqSOFA also displayed significantly higher AUROC than other triage scales, such as the Modified Early Warning Score and Korean Triage and Acuity Scale. The optimal cutoff score of ASqSOFA for the outcome was 2, and the score for redistribution to a lower level emergency department was 0. Conclusion We demonstrated that ASqSOFA can be employed as a simple and efficient triage tool for emergency febrile patients to aid in resource distribution during overcrowding. It also may be applicable in prehospital settings for febrile patient triage.

Objective: This study was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lurasidone (160 mg/day) compared to quetiapine XR (QXR; 600 mg/day) in the treatment of acutely psychotic patients with schizophrenia. Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to 6 weeks of double-blind treatment with lurasidone 160 mg/day (n=105) or QXR 600 mg/day (n=105). Primary efficacy measure was the change from baseline to week 6 in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score and Clinical Global Impressions severity (CGI-S) score. Adverse events, body measurements, and laboratory parameters were assessed. Results: Lurasidone demonstrated non-inferiority to QXR on the PANSS total score. Adjusted mean±standard error change at week 6 on the PANSS total score was -26.42±2.02 and -27.33±2.01 in the lurasidone and QXR group, respectively. The mean difference score was -0.91 (95% confidence interval -6.35–4.53). The lurasidone group showed a greater reduction in PANSS total and negative subscale on week 1 and a greater reduction in end-point CGI-S score compared to the QXR group. Body weight, body mass index, and waist circumference in the lurasidone group were reduced, with significantly lower mean change compared to QXR. Endpoint changes in glucose, cholesterol, triglycerides, and low-density lipoprotein levels were also significantly lower. The most common adverse drug reactions with lurasidone were akathisia and nausea. Conclusion Lurasidone 160 mg/day was found to be non-inferior to QXR 600 mg/day in the treatment of schizophrenia with comparable efficacy and tolerability. Adverse effects of lurasidone were generally tolerable, and beneficial effects on metabolic parameters can be expected.

Purpose: The purpose of this phase II trial was to evaluate whether the addition of simvastatin, a synthetic 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitor, to preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) with capecitabine confers a clinical benefit to patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). Materials and Methods: Patients with LARC (defined by clinical stage T3/4 and/or lymph node positivity) received preoperative radiation (45-50.4 Gy in 25-28 daily fractions) with concomitant capecitabine (825 mg/m2 twice per day) and simvastatin (80 mg, daily). Curative surgery was planned 4-8 weeks after completion of the CRT regimen. The primary endpoint was pathologic complete response (pCR). The secondary endpoints included sphincter-sparing surgery, R0 resection, disease-free survival, overall survival, the pattern of failure, and toxicity. Results: Between October 2014 and July 2017, 61 patients were enrolled; 53 patients completed CRT regimen and underwent total mesorectal excision. The pCR rate was 18.9% (n=10) by per-protocol analysis. Sphincter-sparing surgery was performed in 51 patients (96.2%). R0 resection was achieved in 51 patients (96.2%). One patient experienced grade 3 liver enzyme elevation. No patient experienced additional toxicity caused by simvastatin. Conclusion The combination of 80 mg simvastatin with CRT and capecitabine did not improve pCR in patients with LARC, although it did not increase toxicity.

In the 2022 series, we summarized the major clinical research advances in gynecologic oncology based on communications at the conference of Asian Society of Gynecologic Oncology Review Course. The review consisted of 1) Ovarian cancer: long-term follow-up data, new poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, overall survival (OS) issues with PARP inhibitor monotherapy, hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and antibody-drug conjugate; 2) Cervical cancer: surgery in early stage disease, therapy for locally advanced stage and advanced, metastatic, or recurrent setting; and 3) Corpus cancer: follow-up regimen, immune checkpoint inhibitor, WEE1 inhibitor, selective inhibitor of nuclear export. A special note was made on the withdrawal of PARP inhibitor from the market for heavily pretreated ovarian cancer patients based on the final OS results of ARIEL-4 and SOLO-3 due to concerns of increased risk of death.