Purpose: Several types of dermal fillers have been recently introduced and used for penile augmentation (PA). However, few studies have compared outcomes after the injection of different fillers. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of hyaluronic acid (HLA), polylactic acid (PLA), and polymethyl methacrylate (PMA) filler injections, which are the most commonly used for aesthetic purposes. Materials and Methods: This prospective study was conducted for 24 weeks after a filler injection by a surgeon between March 2017 and December 2021. Healthy adult men complaining of small penis were enrolled. Penile girth, satisfaction, and injection-associated adverse events (AEs) were assessed at baseline and 4, 12, and 24 weeks after injection. Results: Of the 301 men who received filler injections, 125, 134, and 42 received HLA, PLA, and PMA fillers, respectively. The augmentation effect was in the order of PMA, HLA, and PLA, respectively, at 24 weeks (PMA vs. HLA, p<0.001; HLA vs. PLA, p=0.006). Satisfaction levels increased significantly at 24 weeks in all groups (each with p<0.001). However, the increase in satisfaction levels was smaller in the PMA group (PMA vs. HLA or PLA, p<0.05, for both penile appearance and sexual life). No serious or systemic AEs were recorded. Filler injection-associated local AEs in the HLA, PLA, and PMA groups occurred in 9 (7.2%), 16 (11.9%), and 6 (14.3%) men, respectively. There was no significant difference in AEs among the groups (p=0.299). Conclusions The augmentative effect was greater in the PMA group than in the HLA and PLA groups, whereas the increase in satisfaction levels was smaller in the PMA group. Our study demonstrated the clinical course of different types of fillers and suggests that the filler type should be selected after detailed counseling considering individual characteristics and preferences.

Purpose: Several types of dermal fillers have been recently introduced and used for penile augmentation (PA). However, few studies have compared outcomes after the injection of different fillers. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of hyaluronic acid (HLA), polylactic acid (PLA), and polymethyl methacrylate (PMA) filler injections, which are the most commonly used for aesthetic purposes. Materials and Methods: This prospective study was conducted for 24 weeks after a filler injection by a surgeon between March 2017 and December 2021. Healthy adult men complaining of small penis were enrolled. Penile girth, satisfaction, and injection-associated adverse events (AEs) were assessed at baseline and 4, 12, and 24 weeks after injection. Results: Of the 301 men who received filler injections, 125, 134, and 42 received HLA, PLA, and PMA fillers, respectively. The augmentation effect was in the order of PMA, HLA, and PLA, respectively, at 24 weeks (PMA vs. HLA, p<0.001; HLA vs. PLA, p=0.006). Satisfaction levels increased significantly at 24 weeks in all groups (each with p<0.001). However, the increase in satisfaction levels was smaller in the PMA group (PMA vs. HLA or PLA, p<0.05, for both penile appearance and sexual life). No serious or systemic AEs were recorded. Filler injection-associated local AEs in the HLA, PLA, and PMA groups occurred in 9 (7.2%), 16 (11.9%), and 6 (14.3%) men, respectively. There was no significant difference in AEs among the groups (p=0.299). Conclusions The augmentative effect was greater in the PMA group than in the HLA and PLA groups, whereas the increase in satisfaction levels was smaller in the PMA group. Our study demonstrated the clinical course of different types of fillers and suggests that the filler type should be selected after detailed counseling considering individual characteristics and preferences.

Purpose: Several types of dermal fillers have been recently introduced and used for penile augmentation (PA). However, few studies have compared outcomes after the injection of different fillers. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of hyaluronic acid (HLA), polylactic acid (PLA), and polymethyl methacrylate (PMA) filler injections, which are the most commonly used for aesthetic purposes. Materials and Methods: This prospective study was conducted for 24 weeks after a filler injection by a surgeon between March 2017 and December 2021. Healthy adult men complaining of small penis were enrolled. Penile girth, satisfaction, and injection-associated adverse events (AEs) were assessed at baseline and 4, 12, and 24 weeks after injection. Results: Of the 301 men who received filler injections, 125, 134, and 42 received HLA, PLA, and PMA fillers, respectively. The augmentation effect was in the order of PMA, HLA, and PLA, respectively, at 24 weeks (PMA vs. HLA, p<0.001; HLA vs. PLA, p=0.006). Satisfaction levels increased significantly at 24 weeks in all groups (each with p<0.001). However, the increase in satisfaction levels was smaller in the PMA group (PMA vs. HLA or PLA, p<0.05, for both penile appearance and sexual life). No serious or systemic AEs were recorded. Filler injection-associated local AEs in the HLA, PLA, and PMA groups occurred in 9 (7.2%), 16 (11.9%), and 6 (14.3%) men, respectively. There was no significant difference in AEs among the groups (p=0.299). Conclusions The augmentative effect was greater in the PMA group than in the HLA and PLA groups, whereas the increase in satisfaction levels was smaller in the PMA group. Our study demonstrated the clinical course of different types of fillers and suggests that the filler type should be selected after detailed counseling considering individual characteristics and preferences.

Purpose: Several types of dermal fillers have been recently introduced and used for penile augmentation (PA). However, few studies have compared outcomes after the injection of different fillers. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of hyaluronic acid (HLA), polylactic acid (PLA), and polymethyl methacrylate (PMA) filler injections, which are the most commonly used for aesthetic purposes. Materials and Methods: This prospective study was conducted for 24 weeks after a filler injection by a surgeon between March 2017 and December 2021. Healthy adult men complaining of small penis were enrolled. Penile girth, satisfaction, and injection-associated adverse events (AEs) were assessed at baseline and 4, 12, and 24 weeks after injection. Results: Of the 301 men who received filler injections, 125, 134, and 42 received HLA, PLA, and PMA fillers, respectively. The augmentation effect was in the order of PMA, HLA, and PLA, respectively, at 24 weeks (PMA vs. HLA, p<0.001; HLA vs. PLA, p=0.006). Satisfaction levels increased significantly at 24 weeks in all groups (each with p<0.001). However, the increase in satisfaction levels was smaller in the PMA group (PMA vs. HLA or PLA, p<0.05, for both penile appearance and sexual life). No serious or systemic AEs were recorded. Filler injection-associated local AEs in the HLA, PLA, and PMA groups occurred in 9 (7.2%), 16 (11.9%), and 6 (14.3%) men, respectively. There was no significant difference in AEs among the groups (p=0.299). Conclusions The augmentative effect was greater in the PMA group than in the HLA and PLA groups, whereas the increase in satisfaction levels was smaller in the PMA group. Our study demonstrated the clinical course of different types of fillers and suggests that the filler type should be selected after detailed counseling considering individual characteristics and preferences.

Purpose: Several types of dermal fillers have been recently introduced and used for penile augmentation (PA). However, few studies have compared outcomes after the injection of different fillers. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of hyaluronic acid (HLA), polylactic acid (PLA), and polymethyl methacrylate (PMA) filler injections, which are the most commonly used for aesthetic purposes. Materials and Methods: This prospective study was conducted for 24 weeks after a filler injection by a surgeon between March 2017 and December 2021. Healthy adult men complaining of small penis were enrolled. Penile girth, satisfaction, and injection-associated adverse events (AEs) were assessed at baseline and 4, 12, and 24 weeks after injection. Results: Of the 301 men who received filler injections, 125, 134, and 42 received HLA, PLA, and PMA fillers, respectively. The augmentation effect was in the order of PMA, HLA, and PLA, respectively, at 24 weeks (PMA vs. HLA, p<0.001; HLA vs. PLA, p=0.006). Satisfaction levels increased significantly at 24 weeks in all groups (each with p<0.001). However, the increase in satisfaction levels was smaller in the PMA group (PMA vs. HLA or PLA, p<0.05, for both penile appearance and sexual life). No serious or systemic AEs were recorded. Filler injection-associated local AEs in the HLA, PLA, and PMA groups occurred in 9 (7.2%), 16 (11.9%), and 6 (14.3%) men, respectively. There was no significant difference in AEs among the groups (p=0.299). Conclusions The augmentative effect was greater in the PMA group than in the HLA and PLA groups, whereas the increase in satisfaction levels was smaller in the PMA group. Our study demonstrated the clinical course of different types of fillers and suggests that the filler type should be selected after detailed counseling considering individual characteristics and preferences.

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.

Background: It is well known that a large number of patients with diabetes also have dyslipidemia, which significantly increases the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of combination drugs consisting of metformin and atorvastatin, widely used as therapeutic agents for diabetes and dyslipidemia. Methods: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group and phase III multicenter study included adults with glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels >7.0% and <10.0%, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) >100 and <250 mg/dL. One hundred eighty-five eligible subjects were randomized to the combination group (metformin+atorvastatin), metformin group (metformin+atorvastatin placebo), and atorvastatin group (atorvastatin+metformin placebo). The primary efficacy endpoints were the percent changes in HbA1c and LDL-C levels from baseline at the end of the treatment. Results: After 16 weeks of treatment compared to baseline, HbA1c showed a significant difference of 0.94% compared to the atorvastatin group in the combination group (0.35% vs. −0.58%, respectively; P<0.0001), whereas the proportion of patients with increased HbA1c was also 62% and 15%, respectively, showing a significant difference (P<0.001). The combination group also showed a significant decrease in LDL-C levels compared to the metformin group (−55.20% vs. −7.69%, P<0.001) without previously unknown adverse drug events. Conclusion The addition of atorvastatin to metformin improved HbA1c and LDL-C levels to a significant extent compared to metformin or atorvastatin alone in diabetes and dyslipidemia patients. This study also suggested metformin’s preventive effect on the glucose-elevating potential of atorvastatin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and dyslipidemia, insufficiently controlled with exercise and diet. Metformin and atorvastatin combination might be an effective treatment in reducing the CVD risk in patients with both diabetes and dyslipidemia because of its lowering effect on LDL-C and glucose.

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.

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.