Purpose: The original eCura system was designed to stratify the risk of lymph node metastasis (LNM) after endoscopic resection (ER) in patients with early gastric cancer (EGC).We assessed the effectiveness of a modified eCura system for reflecting the characteristics of undifferentiated-type (UD)-EGC. Materials and Methods: Six hundred thirty-four patients who underwent non-curative ER for UD-EGC and received either additional surgery (radical surgery group; n=270) or no further treatment (no additional treatment group; n=364) from 18 institutions between 2005 and 2015 were retrospectively included in this study. The eCuraU system assigned 1 point each for tumors >20 mm in size, ulceration, positive vertical margin, and submucosal invasion <500 µm; 2 points for submucosal invasion ≥500 µm; and 3 points for lymphovascular invasion. Results: LNM rates in the radical surgery group were 1.1%, 5.4%, and 13.3% for the low-(0–1 point), intermediate- (2–3 points), and high-risk (4–8 points), respectively (P-fortrend<0.001). The eCuraU system showed a significantly higher probability of identifying patients with LNM as high-risk than the eCura system (66.7% vs. 22.2%; McNemar P<0.001).In the no additional treatment group, overall survival (93.4%, 87.2%, and 67.6% at 5 years) and cancer-specific survival (99.6%, 98.9%, and 92.9% at 5 years) differed significantly among the low-, intermediate-, and high-risk categories, respectively (both P<0.001). In the high-risk category, surgery outperformed no treatment in terms of overall mortality (hazard ratio, 3.26; P=0.015). Conclusions The eCuraU system stratified the risk of LNM in patients with UD-EGC after ER. It is strongly recommended that high-risk patients undergo additional surgery.

Background/Aims: The SAMe-TT2R2 score is used for assessing anticoagulation control (AC) quality with warfarin. However, it is hard to apply SAMe-TT2R2 score in Asian patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), because it has not been proven in those populations. This study aimed to validate the SAMe-TT2R2 score in Asian patients with AF and suggest a modified SAMe- TT2R2 score for this population. Methods: We analyzed 710 Korean patients with AF who were using warfarin. The AC quality was assessed as the mean time in therapeutic range (TTR). Each component of SAMe-TT2R2 score was evaluated for the relationship with AC. Further clinical factors that predict AC were analyzed. Identified factors were re-assorted and constructed as SA2Me-TTR scoring system. Results: Of the components of the SAMe-TT2R2 score, female, age, and rhythm control were associated with AC. Heart failure and renal insufficiency were newly identified factors associated with AC. The modified SA2Me-TTR score was reconstructed with the relevant risk factors (S, female gender, 1 point; A, age < 60 yr, 2 points; Me, medical history of heart failure, 1 point; T, treatment for rhythm control, 1 point; T, history of stroke or transient ischemic attack, 1 point; R, renal insufficiency, 1 point). The modified SA2Me-TTR score demonstrated an excellent relationship with the grading of AC. The modified SA2Me-TTR score ≤ 1 identified patients with good AC (hazard ratio 2.46, 95% CI 1.75–3.47). Conclusions The modified SA2Me-TTR score was useful for guiding oral anticoagulants selection in Asian patients with AF.

Background/Aims: Optimal risk stratification based on simplified geriatric assessment to predict treatment-related toxicity and survival needs to be clarified in older patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Methods: This multicenter prospective cohort study enrolled newly diagnosed patients with DLBCL (≥ 65 yr) between September 2015 and April 2018. A simplified geriatric assessment was performed at baseline using Activities of Daily Living (ADL), Instrumental ADL (IADL), and Charlson’s Comorbidity Index (CCI). The primary endpoint was event-free survival (EFS). Results: The study included 249 patients, the median age was 74 years (range, 65-88), and 125 (50.2%) were female. In multivariable Cox analysis, ADL, IADL, CCI, and age were independent factors for EFS; an integrated geriatric score was derived and the patients stratified into three geriatric categories: fit (n = 162, 65.1%), intermediate-fit (n = 25, 10.0%), and frail (n = 62, 24.9%). The established geriatric model was significantly associated with EFS (fit vs. intermediate-fit, HR 2.61, p < 0.001; fit vs. frail, HR 4.61, p < 0.001) and outperformed each covariate alone or in combination. In 87 intermediate-fit or frail patients, the relative doxorubicin dose intensity (RDDI) ≥ 62.4% was significantly associated with worse EFS (HR, 2.15, 95% CI 1.30–3.53, p = 0.002). It was related with a higher incidence of grade ≥ 3 symptomatic non-hematologic toxicities (63.2% vs. 27.8%, p < 0.001) and earlier treatment discontinuation (34.5% vs. 8.0%, p < 0.001) in patients with RDDI ≥ 62.4% than in those with RDDI < 62.4%. Conclusions This model integrating simplified geriatric assessment can risk-stratify older patients with DLBCL and identify those who are highly vulnerable to standard dose-intensity chemoimmunotherapy.

Background/Aims: The eCura system, a scoring model for stratifying the lymph node metastasis risk after noncurative endoscopic resection for early gastric cancer (EGC), has been internally validated, primarily for differentiated-type EGC. We aimed to externally validate this model for undifferentiated-type EGC. Methods: This multicenter, retrospective cohort study included 634 patients who underwent additional surgery (radical surgery group, n=270) or were followed up without additional treatment (no additional treatment group, n=364) after noncurative endoscopic resection for undifferentiated-type EGC between 2005 and 2015. The lymph node metastasis and survival rates were compared according to the risk categories. Results: For the radical surgery group, the lymph node metastasis rates were 2.6%, 10.9%, and 14.8% for the low-, intermediate-, and high-risk eCura categories, respectively (p for trend=0.003). For the low-, intermediate-, and high-risk categories in the no additional treatment group, the overall survival (92.7%, 68.9%, and 80.0% at 5 years, respectively, p<0.001) and cancer-specific survival rates (99.7%, 94.7%, and 80.0% at 5 years, respectively, p<0.001) differed significantly. In the multivariate analysis, the hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) in the no additional treatment group relative to the radical surgery group were 3.18 (1.41 to 7.17; p=0.005) for overall mortality and 2.60 (0.46 to 14.66; p=0.280) for cancer-specific mortality in the intermediate-tohigh risk category. No such differences were noted in the low-risk category. Conclusions The eCura system can be applied to undifferentiated-type EGC. Close follow-up without additional treatment might be considered for low-risk patients, while additional surgery is recommended for intermediate- and high-risk patients.

Background: There has been no comparison of the determinants of admission route between acute ischemic stroke (AIS) and acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We examined whether factors associated with direct versus transferred-in admission to regional cardiocerebrovascular centers (RCVCs) differed between AIS and AMI. Methods: Using a nationwide RCVC registry, we identified consecutive patients presenting with AMI and AIS between July 2016 and December 2018. We explored factors associated with direct admission to RCVCs in patients with AIS and AMI and examined whether those associations differed between AIS and AMI, including interaction terms between each factor and disease type in multivariable models. To explore the influence of emergency medical service (EMS) paramedics on hospital selection, stratified analyses according to use of EMS were also performed. Results: Among the 17,897 and 8,927 AIS and AMI patients, 66.6% and 48.2% were directly admitted to RCVCs, respectively. Multivariable analysis showed that previous coronary heart disease, prehospital awareness, higher education level, and EMS use increased the odds of direct admission to RCVCs, but the odds ratio (OR) was different between AIS and AMI (for the first 3 factors, AMI > AIS; for EMS use, AMI < AIS). EMS use was the single most important factor for both AIS and AMI (OR, 4.72 vs. 3.90). Hypertension and hyperlipidemia increased, while living alone decreased the odds of direct admission only in AMI;additionally, age (65–74 years), previous stroke, and presentation during non-working hours increased the odds only in AIS. EMS use weakened the associations between direct admission and most factors in both AIS and AMI. Conclusions Various patient factors were differentially associated with direct admission to RCVCs between AIS and AMI. Public education for symptom awareness and use of EMS is essential in optimizing the transportation and hospitalization of patients with AMI and AIS.

Background: and Purpose: Blood pressure (BP) control is strongly recommended, but BP control rate has not been well studied in patients with stroke. We evaluated the BP control rate with fimasartan-based antihypertensive therapy initiated in patients with recent cerebral ischemia. Methods: This multicenter, prospective, single-arm trial involved 27 centers in South Korea. Key inclusion criteria were recent cerebral ischemia within 90 days and high BP [systolic blood pressure (SBP) >140 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) >90 mm Hg]. BP lowering was initiated with fimasartan. BP management during the follow-up was at the discretion of the responsible investigators. The primary endpoint was the target BP goal achievement rate (<140/90 mm Hg) at 24 weeks. Key secondary endpoints included achieved BP and BP changes at each visit, and clinical events (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03231293). Results: Of 1,035 patients enrolled, 1,026 were included in the safety analysis, and 951 in the efficacy analysis. Their mean age was 64.1 years, 33% were female, the median time interval from onset to enrollment was 10 days, and the baseline SBP and DBP were 162.3±16.0 and 92.2±12.4 mm Hg (mean±SD). During the study period, 55.5% of patients were maintained on fimasartan monotherapy, and 44.5% received antihypertensive therapies other than fimasartan monotherapy at at least one visit. The target BP goal achievement rate at 24-week was 67.3% (48.6% at 4-week and 61.4% at 12-week). The mean BP was 139.0/81.8±18.3/11.7, 133.8/79.2±16.4/11.0, and 132.8/78.5±15.6/10.9 mm Hg at 4-, 12-, and 24-week. The treatment-emergent adverse event rate was 5.4%, including one serious adverse event. Conclusions Fimasartan-based BP lowering achieved the target BP in two-thirds of patients at 24 weeks, and was generally well tolerated.

Background: Remdesivir is widely used for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but controversies regarding its efficacy still remain. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted to evaluate the effect of remdesivir on clinical and virologic outcomes of severe COVID-19 patients from June to July 2020. Primary clinical endpoints included clinical recovery, additional mechanical ventilator (MV) support, and duration of oxygen or MV support. Viral load reduction by hospital day (HD) 15 was evaluated by calculating changes in cycle threshold (Ct) values. Results: A total of 86 severe COVID-19 patients were evaluated including 48 remdesivirtreated patients. Baseline characteristics were not significantly different between the two groups. Remdesivir was administered an average of 7.42 days from symptom onset. The proportions of clinical recovery of the remdesivir and supportive care group at HD 14 (56.3% and 39.5%) and HD 28 (87.5% and 78.9%) were not statistically different. The proportion of patients requiring MV support by HD 28 was significantly lower in the remdesivir group than in the supportive care group (22.9% vs. 44.7%, P = 0.032), and MV duration was significantly shorter in the remdesivir group (average, 1.97 vs. 5.37 days; P = 0.017). Analysis of upper respiratory tract specimens demonstrated that increases of Ct value from HD 1–5 to 11–15 were significantly greater in the remdesivir group than the supportive care group (average, 10.19 vs. 5.36; P = 0.007), and the slope of the Ct value increase was also significantly steeper in the remdesivir group (average, 5.10 vs. 2.68; P = 0.007). Conclusion The remdesivir group showed clinical and virologic benefit in terms of MV requirement and viral load reduction, supporting remdesivir treatment for severe COVID-19.

Background: and Purpose: Blood pressure (BP) control is strongly recommended, but BP control rate has not been well studied in patients with stroke. We evaluated the BP control rate with fimasartan-based antihypertensive therapy initiated in patients with recent cerebral ischemia. Methods: This multicenter, prospective, single-arm trial involved 27 centers in South Korea. Key inclusion criteria were recent cerebral ischemia within 90 days and high BP [systolic blood pressure (SBP) >140 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) >90 mm Hg]. BP lowering was initiated with fimasartan. BP management during the follow-up was at the discretion of the responsible investigators. The primary endpoint was the target BP goal achievement rate (<140/90 mm Hg) at 24 weeks. Key secondary endpoints included achieved BP and BP changes at each visit, and clinical events (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03231293). Results: Of 1,035 patients enrolled, 1,026 were included in the safety analysis, and 951 in the efficacy analysis. Their mean age was 64.1 years, 33% were female, the median time interval from onset to enrollment was 10 days, and the baseline SBP and DBP were 162.3±16.0 and 92.2±12.4 mm Hg (mean±SD). During the study period, 55.5% of patients were maintained on fimasartan monotherapy, and 44.5% received antihypertensive therapies other than fimasartan monotherapy at at least one visit. The target BP goal achievement rate at 24-week was 67.3% (48.6% at 4-week and 61.4% at 12-week). The mean BP was 139.0/81.8±18.3/11.7, 133.8/79.2±16.4/11.0, and 132.8/78.5±15.6/10.9 mm Hg at 4-, 12-, and 24-week. The treatment-emergent adverse event rate was 5.4%, including one serious adverse event. Conclusions Fimasartan-based BP lowering achieved the target BP in two-thirds of patients at 24 weeks, and was generally well tolerated.

Background: Remdesivir is widely used for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but controversies regarding its efficacy still remain. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted to evaluate the effect of remdesivir on clinical and virologic outcomes of severe COVID-19 patients from June to July 2020. Primary clinical endpoints included clinical recovery, additional mechanical ventilator (MV) support, and duration of oxygen or MV support. Viral load reduction by hospital day (HD) 15 was evaluated by calculating changes in cycle threshold (Ct) values. Results: A total of 86 severe COVID-19 patients were evaluated including 48 remdesivirtreated patients. Baseline characteristics were not significantly different between the two groups. Remdesivir was administered an average of 7.42 days from symptom onset. The proportions of clinical recovery of the remdesivir and supportive care group at HD 14 (56.3% and 39.5%) and HD 28 (87.5% and 78.9%) were not statistically different. The proportion of patients requiring MV support by HD 28 was significantly lower in the remdesivir group than in the supportive care group (22.9% vs. 44.7%, P = 0.032), and MV duration was significantly shorter in the remdesivir group (average, 1.97 vs. 5.37 days; P = 0.017). Analysis of upper respiratory tract specimens demonstrated that increases of Ct value from HD 1–5 to 11–15 were significantly greater in the remdesivir group than the supportive care group (average, 10.19 vs. 5.36; P = 0.007), and the slope of the Ct value increase was also significantly steeper in the remdesivir group (average, 5.10 vs. 2.68; P = 0.007). Conclusion The remdesivir group showed clinical and virologic benefit in terms of MV requirement and viral load reduction, supporting remdesivir treatment for severe COVID-19.