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: Atherogenic dyslipidemia, which is frequently associated with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and insulin resistance, contributes to the development of vascular complications. Statin therapy is the primary approach to dyslipidemia management in T2D, however, the role of non-statin therapy remains unclear. Ezetimibe reduces cholesterol burden by inhibiting intestinal cholesterol absorption. Fibrates lower triglyceride levels and increase high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels via peroxisome proliferator- activated receptor alpha agonism. Therefore, when combined, these drugs effectively lower non-HDL-C levels. Despite this, few clinical trials have specifically targeted non-HDL-C, and the efficacy of triple combination therapies, including statins, ezetimibe, and fibrates, has yet to be determined. Methods: This is a multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label, active-comparator controlled trial involving 3,958 eligible participants with T2D, cardiovascular risk factors, and elevated non-HDL-C (≥100 mg/dL). Participants, already on moderate-intensity statins, will be randomly assigned to either Ezefeno (ezetimibe/fenofibrate) addition or statin dose-escalation. The primary end point is the development of a composite of major adverse cardiovascular and diabetic microvascular events over 48 months. Conclusion This trial aims to assess whether combining statins, ezetimibe, and fenofibrate is as effective as, or possibly superior to, statin monotherapy intensification in lowering cardiovascular and microvascular disease risk for patients with T2D. This could propose a novel therapeutic approach for managing dyslipidemia in T2D.

Chronic constipation is one of the most common digestive diseases encountered in clinical practice. Constipation manifests as a variety of symptoms, such as infrequent bowel movements, hard stools, feeling of incomplete evacuation, straining at defecation, a sense of anorectal blockage during defecation, and use of digital maneuvers to assist defecation. During the diagnosis of chronic constipation, the Bristol Stool Form Scale, colonoscopy, and a digital rectal examination are useful for objective symptom evaluation and differential diagnosis of secondary constipation. Physiological tests for functional constipation have complementary roles and are recommended for patients who have failed to respond to treatment with available laxatives and those who are strongly suspected of having a defecatory disorder. As new evidence on the diagnosis and management of functional constipation emerged, the need to revise the previous guideline was suggested. Therefore, these evidence-based guidelines have proposed recommendations developed using a systematic review and meta-analysis of the treatment options available for functional constipation. The benefits and cautions of new pharmacological agents (such as lubiprostone and linaclotide) and conventional laxatives have been described through a meta-analysis. The guidelines consist of 34 recommendations, including 3 concerning the definition and epidemiology of functional constipation, 9 regarding diagnoses, and 22 regarding managements. Clinicians (including primary physicians, general health professionals, medical students, residents, and other healthcare professionals) and patients can refer to these guidelines to make informed decisions regarding the management of functional constipation.

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a condition in which gastric contents regurgitate into the esophagus or beyond, resulting in either troublesome symptoms or complications. GERD is heterogeneous in terms of varied manifestations, test findings, and treatment responsiveness. GERD diagnosis can be established with symptomatology, pathology, or physiology. Recently the Lyon consensus defined the “proven GERD” with concrete evidence for reflux, including advanced grade erosive esophagitis (Los Angeles classification grades C and or D esophagitis), long-segment Barrett’s mucosa or peptic strictures on endoscopy or distal esophageal acid exposure time > 6% on 24-hour ambulatory pH-impedance monitoring. However, some Asian researchers have different opinions on whether the same standards should be applied to the Asian population. The prevalence of GERD is increasing in Asia. The present evidence-based guidelines were developed using a systematic review and meta-analysis approach. In GERD with typical symptoms, a proton pump inhibitor test can be recommended as a sensitive, cost-effective, and practical test for GERD diagnosis. Based on a meta-analysis of 19 estimated acid-exposure time values in Asians, the reference range upper limit for esophageal acid exposure time was 3.2% (95% confidence interval 2.7-3.9%) in the Asian countries. Esophageal manometry and novel impedance measurements, including mucosal impedance and a post-reflux swallow-induced peristaltic wave, are promising in discrimination of GERD among different reflux phenotypes, thus increasing its diagnostic yield. We also propose a long-term strategy of evidence-based GERD treatment with proton pump inhibitors and other drugs.

Purpose: This study identified factors predicting malignant upgrade for atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) diagnosed on core-needle biopsy (CNB) and developed a nomogram to facilitate evidence-based decision making. Methods: This retrospective analysis included women diagnosed with ADH at the National Cancer Centre Singapore (NCCS) in 2010–2015. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to identify clinical, radiological, and histological factors associated with malignant upgrade. A nomogram was constructed using variables with the strongest associations in multivariate analysis. Multivariable logistic regression coefficients were used to estimate the predicted probability of upgrade for each factor combination. Results: Between 2010 and 2015, 238,122 women underwent mammographic screening under the National Breast Cancer Screening Program. Among 29,564 women recalled, 5,971 CNBs were performed. Of these, 2,876 underwent CNBs at NCCS, with 88 patients (90 lesions) diagnosed with ADH and 26 lesions upgraded to breast malignancy on excision biopsy. In univariate analysis, factors associated with malignant upgrade were the presence of a mass on ultrasound (p = 0.018) or mammography (p = 0.026), microcalcifications (p = 0.047), diffuse microcalcification distribution (p = 0.034), mammographic parenchymal density (p = 0.008). and ≥ 3 separate ADH foci found on biopsy (p = 0.024). Mammographic parenchymal density (hazard ratio [HR], 0.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.005–0.35; p = 0.014), presence of a mass on ultrasound (HR, 10.50; 95% CI, 9.21–25.2; p = 0.010), and number of ADH foci (HR, 1.877; 95% CI, 1.831–1.920; p = 0.002) remained significant in multivariate analysis and were included in the nomogram. Conclusion Our model provided good discrimination of breast cancer risk prediction (C-statistic of 0.81; 95% CI, 0.74–0.88) and selected for a subset of women at low risk (2.1%) of malignant upgrade, who may avoid surgical excision following a CNB diagnosis of ADH.

Deaths due to dichloromethane (DCM) poisoning are mainly caused due to accidents at industrial sites, and suicidal cases are known to be rare. Herein, we report a case of a 56-year-old man who worked as a technician and died after consuming DCM for suicidal motive. According to the investigations, he had left a recorded message on his phone for his wife, which suggested he committed suicide. At the scene, opened DCM and whiskey bottles were found; approximately 120 mL of the DCM was still in the bottle. No specific injuries were externally observed during the autopsy. Microscopic examination showed denudation of epithelium in the esophageal and gastric mucosa, and no inflammatory reaction proceeded. The denudation was accompanied by pulmonary edema, acute tubular necrosis in the kidneys, and microvesicular steatosis in the liver. The DCM was detected in blood, gastric contents, and nasal cavity fluid. The concentration of alcohol in the blood was found to be 0.487%. It was presumed that he died of acute DCM poisoning while drunk. In cases of suspicious acute and chronic DCM poisoning deaths, investigations of carboxyhemoglobin and the clinical chemistry of blood or body fluids are warranted to determine the cause and mechanism of death.

Purpose: Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are the most common serious bacterial infections in young infants. Lumbar puncture (LP) has been used to diagnose coexisting meningitis in infants under 90 days of age with suspected UTI in many hospitals. However, the incidence of bacterial meningitis associated with UTIs is low. We aimed to describe the prevalence of concomitant bacterial meningitis in young infants with UTIs. Methods: The medical records of infants with the first episode of UTI admitted to the ChungAng University Hospital from January 2010 to December 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Infants aged < 90 days who underwent LP with initial evaluation were included. Demographic and clinical features, laboratory findings, and imaging findings were collected and analyzed. Results: Eighty-six infants with UTIs were enrolled in the study. The median age was 61.5 days (interquartile range, 42.3–73.8 days) and boys (90.7%) were predominant. Escherichia coli was the most common pathogen (n=80, 93.0%) and followed by Klebsiella species (n=5, 5.8%). Fifteen (18.1%) specimens produced extended spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL). Five (5.8%) infants had positive blood culture results. Seven (8.1%) infants showed pleocytosis in the cerebrospinal fluid, but none had coexisting bacterial meningitis. Twenty-four (30.8%) infants showed renal dilatation or hydronephrosis on ultrasonography. Dimercaptosuccinic acid (DMSA) scans revealed cortical defects in 17 (21.3%) infants while voiding cystourethrography revealed vesicoureteral reflux in 6 (46.2%) infants. Conclusion Co-existing bacterial meningitis was not observed in young infants with UTIs. LP could not be routinely performed considering the clinical condition of <90 days old UTI patients.

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a condition in which gastric contents regurgitate into the esophagus or beyond, resulting in either troublesome symptoms or complications. GERD is heterogeneous in terms of varied manifestations, test findings, and treatment responsiveness. GERD diagnosis can be established with symptomatology, pathology, or physiology. Recently the Lyon consensus defined the “proven GERD” with concrete evidence for reflux, including advanced grade erosive esophagitis (Los Angeles classification grades C and or D esophagitis), long-segment Barrett’s mucosa or peptic strictures on endoscopy or distal esophageal acid exposure time > 6% on 24-hour ambulatory pH-impedance monitoring. However, some Asian researchers have different opinions on whether the same standards should be applied to the Asian population. The prevalence of GERD is increasing in Asia. The present evidence-based guidelines were developed using a systematic review and meta-analysis approach. In GERD with typical symptoms, a proton pump inhibitor test can be recommended as a sensitive, cost-effective, and practical test for GERD diagnosis.Based on a meta-analysis of 19 estimated acid-exposure time values in Asians, the reference range upper limit for esophageal acid exposure time was 3.2% (95% confidence interval, 2.7-3.9%) in the Asian countries. Esophageal manometry and novel impedance measurements, including mucosal impedance and a post-reflux swallow-induced peristaltic wave, are promising in discrimination of GERD among different reflux phenotypes, thus increasing its diagnostic yield. We also propose a long-term strategy of evidence-based GERD treatment with proton pump inhibitors and other drugs.

In preparation for the surge of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), it is crucial to allocate medical resources efficiently for distinguishing people who remain asymptomatic until the end of the disease. Between January 27, 2020, and April 21, 2020, 517 COVID-19 cases from 13 healthcare facilities in Gyeonggi province, Korea, were identified out of which the epidemiologic and clinical information of 66 asymptomatic patients at the time of diagnosis were analyzed retrospectively. An exposure-diagnosis interval within 7 days and abnormal aspartate aminotransferase levels were identified as characteristic symptom development in asymptomatic COVID-19 patients. If asymptomatic patients without these characteristics at the time of diagnosis could be differentiated early, more medical resources could be secured for mild or moderate cases in this COVID-19 surge.