Background: Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors are frequently prescribed for patients with type 2 diabetes; however, their cost can pose a significant barrier for those with impaired kidney function. This study aimed to estimate the economic benefits of substituting non-renal dose-adjusted (NRDA) DPP4 inhibitors with renal dose-adjusted (RDA) DPP4 inhibitors in patients with both impaired kidney function and type 2 diabetes. Methods: This retrospective cohort study was conducted from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2018, using data obtained from common data models of five medical centers in Korea. Model 1 applied the prescription pattern of participants with preserved kidney function to those with impaired kidney function. In contrast, model 2 replaced all NRDA DPP4 inhibitors with RDA DPP4 inhibitors, adjusting the doses of RDA DPP4 inhibitors based on individual kidney function. The primary outcome was the cost difference between the two models. Results: In total, 67,964,996 prescription records were analyzed. NRDA DPP4 inhibitors were more frequently prescribed to patients with impaired kidney function than in those with preserved kidney function (25.7%, 51.3%, 64.3%, and 71.6% in patients with estimated glomerular filtration rates [eGFRs] of ≥60, <60, <45, and <30 mL/min/1.73 m2, respectively). When model 1 was applied, the cost savings per year were 7.6% for eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 and 30.4% for eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m2. According to model 2, 15.4% to 51.2% per year could be saved depending on kidney impairment severity. Conclusion Adjusting the doses of RDA DPP4 inhibitors based on individual kidney function could alleviate the economic burden associated with medical expenses.

Background/Aims: Papillary adenocarcinoma is classified to differentiated-type gastric cancer and is indicated for endoscopic submucosal dissection. However, due to its rare nature, there are limited studies on it. The purpose of this study was to determine the outcome of endoscopic submucosal dissection in patients with papillary-type early gastric cancer and to find the risk factors of lymph node metastasis. Methods: Patients diagnosed with papillary-type early gastric cancer at eight medical centers, who underwent endoscopic submucosal dissection or surgical treatment, were retrospectively reviewed. The clinical results and long-term outcomes of post-endoscopic submucosal dissection were evaluated, and the risk factors of lymph node metastasis in the surgery group were analyzed. Results: One-hundred and seventy-six patients with papillary-type early gastric cancer were enrolled: 44.9% (n=79) in the surgery group and 55.1% (n=97) in the endoscopic submucosal dissection group. As a result of endoscopic submucosal dissection, the en bloc resection and curative resection rates were 91.8% and 86.6%, respectively. The procedure-related complication rate was 4.1%, and local recurrence occurred in 3.1% of patients. Submucosal invasion (odds ratio, 3.735; 95% confidence interval, 1.026 to 12.177; p=0.047) and lymphovascular invasion (odds ratio, 7.636; 95% confidence interval, 1.730 to 22.857; p=0.004) were the risk factors of lymph node metastasis in papillary-type early gastric cancer patients. Conclusions The clinical results of endoscopic submucosal dissection in papillary-type early gastric cancer were relatively favorable, and endoscopic submucosal dissection is considered safe if appropriate indications are confirmed by considering the risk of lymph node metastasis.

Purpose: To introduce an intuitive method for measuring conjunctival microvascular blood flow velocity by imaging bulbar conjunctival microvessels using a slit-lamp biomicroscope equipped with a zoom lens and an ultra-high-speed camera. Methods: After obtaining consent from 10 patients (1 male, 9 females) who visited Yeouido St. Mary’s Hospital from August 21, 2020, to June 12, 2021, the patients were examined under a slit lamp microscope equipped with an ultra-high-speed camera and zoom lens. The blood flow in the conjunctival microvessels was photographed. The captured images were analyzed with ImageJ software to measure the blood flow velocity in the conjunctival microvessels, and we investigated whether the blood flow velocity correlated with the vessel diameter and age. Results: The median age of the subjects was 49.0 years. The mean conjunctival blood flow velocity in 53 microvessels was 0.786 ± 0.468 mm/s. The median conjunctival microvascular diameter was 7.06 μm (interquartile range 5.84 to 9.23 μm). The conjunctival microvascular diameter and blood flow velocity were not significantly correlated (Spearman’s p = 0.177), and the subjects’ age and conjunctival microvascular blood flow velocity were also not correlated (Spearman’s p = 0.669). Conclusions In this study, the blood flow velocity in the bulbar conjunctival microvessels could be measured easily by means of image analysis using a slit-lamp microscope equipped with an ultra-high-speed camera with a zoom lens.

Background: Acromegaly leads to various skeletal complications, and fragility fractures are emerging as a new concern in patients with acromegaly. Therefore, this study investigated the risk of fractures in Korean patients with acromegaly. Methods: We used the Korean nationwide claims database from 2009 to 2019. A total of 931 patients with acromegaly who had never used an osteoporosis drug before and were treated with surgery alone were selected as study participants, and a 1:29 ratio of 26,999 age- and sex-matched osteoporosis drug-naïve controls without acromegaly were randomly selected from the database. Results: The mean age was 46.2 years, and 50.0% were male. During a median follow-up of 54.1 months, there was no difference in the risks of all, vertebral, and non-vertebral fractures between the acromegaly and control groups. However, hip fracture risk was significantly higher (hazard ratio [HR], 2.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.32 to 5.65), and non-hip and non-vertebral fractures risk was significantly lower (HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.17 to 0.98) in patients with acromegaly than in controls; these results remained robust even after adjustment for socioeconomic status and baseline comorbidities. Age, type 2 diabetes mellitus, cardio-cerebrovascular disease, fracture history, recent use of acid-suppressant medication, psychotropic medication, and opioids were risk factors for all fractures in patients with acromegaly (all P<0.05). Conclusion Compared with controls, patients surgically treated for acromegaly had a higher risk of hip fractures. The risk factors for fracture in patients with acromegaly were consistent with widely accepted risk factors in the general population.

Background/Aims: This study aimed to determine changes in endoscopist-driven sedation practices 5 years after the first nationwide survey in 2014 by the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE). Methods: A 59-item survey covering current practices was electronically mailed to all members of the KSGE in 2019. Results: In total, 955 (12.8%) out of 7,486 questionnaires were returned. A total of 738 (77.7%) out of 955 respondents attended dedicated sedation education programs. The American Society of Anesthesiologists class was recorded by 464 (51.2%) out of 907 respondents. The recording rate was higher in respondents who completed sedation education (p=0.014) and worked in general or tertiary hospitals (p<0.001). Compared to that reported in the previous survey, the reported use of propofol was higher in 2019. The respondents had higher satisfaction scores for propofol-based sedation compared with midazolam monotherapy (p<0.001). The rates of oxygen supplementation (p<0.001) and oxygen saturation level monitoring (p<0.001) during sedative endoscopy were higher in 2019 than in the previous survey. A total of 876 (98.4%) out of 890 respondents reported a separate recovery bay, and 615 (70.5%) out of 872 respondents reported that personnel were assigned solely to the recovery bay. Conclusions Endoscopist-driven sedation and monitoring practices in 2019 were significantly different than those in 2014. The respondents favored propofol-based sedation and utilized oxygen supplementation and monitoring of O2 saturation more frequently in 2019 than in 2014.

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.

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.

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.

Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is a useful tool that is widely used in the emergency and intensive care areas. In Korea, insurance coverage of ultrasound examination has been gradually expanding in accordance with measures to enhance Korean National Insurance Coverage since 2017 to 2021, and which will continue until 2021. Full coverage of health insurance for POCUS in the emergency and critical care areas was implemented in July 2019. The National Health Insurance Act classified POCUS as a single or multiple-targeted ultrasound examination (STU vs. MTU). STU scans are conducted of one organ at a time, while MTU includes scanning of multiple organs simultaneously to determine each clinical situation. POCUS can be performed even if a diagnostic ultrasound examination is conducted, based on the physician's decision. However, the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service plans to monitor the prescription status of whether the POCUS and diagnostic ultrasound examinations are prescribed simultaneously and repeatedly. Additionally, MTU is allowed only in cases of trauma, cardiac arrest, shock, chest pain, and dyspnea and should be performed by a qualified physician. Although physicians should scan all parts of the chest, heart, and abdomen when they prescribe MTU, they are not required to record all findings in the medical record. Therefore, appropriate prescription, application, and recording of POCUS are needed to enhance the quality of patient care and avoid unnecessary cut of medical budget spending. The present article provides background and clinical guidance for POCUS based on the implementation of full health insurance coverage for POCUS that began in July 2019 in Korea.
Abdomen ; Budgets ; Chest Pain ; Critical Care ; Dyspnea ; Emergencies ; Heart ; Heart Arrest ; Insurance Coverage ; Insurance ; Insurance, Health ; Korea ; Medical Records ; National Health Programs ; Patient Care ; Point-of-Care Systems ; Prescriptions ; Shock ; Thorax ; Ultrasonography

Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is a useful tool that is widely used in the emergency and intensive care areas. In Korea, insurance coverage of ultrasound examination has been gradually expanding in accordance with measures to enhance Korean National Insurance Coverage since 2017 to 2021, and which will continue until 2021. Full coverage of health insurance for POCUS in the emergency and critical care areas was implemented in July 2019. The National Health Insurance Act classified POCUS as a single or multiple-targeted ultrasound examination (STU vs. MTU). STU scans are conducted of one organ at a time, while MTU includes scanning of multiple organs simultaneously to determine each clinical situation. POCUS can be performed even if a diagnostic ultrasound examination is conducted, based on the physician's decision. However, the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service plans to monitor the prescription status of whether the POCUS and diagnostic ultrasound examinations are prescribed simultaneously and repeatedly. Additionally, MTU is allowed only in cases of trauma, cardiac arrest, shock, chest pain, and dyspnea and should be performed by a qualified physician. Although physicians should scan all parts of the chest, heart, and abdomen when they prescribe MTU, they are not required to record all findings in the medical record. Therefore, appropriate prescription, application, and recording of POCUS are needed to enhance the quality of patient care and avoid unnecessary cut of medical budget spending. The present article provides background and clinical guidance for POCUS based on the implementation of full health insurance coverage for POCUS that began in July 2019 in Korea.