Background and Objectives: Lipid lowering therapy is essential to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events; however, limited evidence exists regarding the use of statin with ezetimibe as primary prevention strategy for middle-aged adults. We aimed to investigate the impact of single pill combination therapy on clinical outcomes in relatively healthy middleaged patients when compared with statin monotherapy. Methods: Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, a propensity score match analysis was performed for baseline characteristics of 92,156 patients categorized into combination therapy (n=46,078) and statin monotherapy (n=46,078) groups. Primary outcome was composite outcomes, including death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke. And secondary outcome was all-cause death. The mean follow-up duration was 2.9±0.3 years. Results: The 3-year composite outcomes of all-cause death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke demonstrated no significant difference between the 2 groups (10.3% vs.10.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.022; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.980–1.064; p=0.309).Meanwhile, the 3-year all-cause death rate was lower in the combination therapy group than in the statin monotherapy group (0.2% vs. 0.4%; p<0.001), with a significant HR of 0.595 (95% CI, 0.460–0.769; p<0.001). Single pill combination therapy exhibited consistently lower mortality rates across various subgroups. Conclusions Compared to the statin monotherapy, the combination therapy for primary prevention showed no difference in composite outcomes but may reduce mortality risk in relatively healthy middle-aged patients. However, since the study was observational, further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Background: Medication’s benefits and harms require careful management. Laws mandate pharmacists to provide essential med-ication details since inadequate counseling may pose risks. This study explores public expectations for pharmacist-provided side effect information to enhance safety. Methods: A self-developed questionnaire was created for participant to self-report, refined through pilot surveys with experts and laypersons. Nineteen items were categorized into four sections, using closed-ended ques-tions. Adults over 20, having obtained prescription medications within the past year, were surveyed via convenience sampling.Data analysis employed descriptive statistics and T-tests using IBM SPSS Statistics 21 and Microsoft Excel. Results: The study involved 189 participants, with a slightly higher proportion of females (59.3%) than males (40.7%), predominantly in their 20s (45.0%) and college graduates (57.1%). Health professionals represented 76.2% of respondents. Over half visited pharmacies at least 5 times yearly for prescriptions. Indirect experience with side effects was more common (30.2%) than direct experience (17.5%). Most (82.0%) showed interest in media-reported side effect events. Satisfaction with pharmacist-provided side effect explanations was low (59.7%), but importance was high (98.9%). Preferences favored combined verbal and written explanations (65.1%), with a majority desiring explanations for common but less serious side effects (82.5%). Healthcare professionals found explanations significantly more sufficient than non-professionals did. Older individuals, those living with elderly, and frequent pharmacy visitors attributed greater importance to pharmacist-provided explanations. Conclusion Koreans view pharmacist-pro-vided medication side effect explanations as vital but find current services lacking. Enhancements in content and delivery meth-ods are needed in pharmacy counseling to meet public expectations.

Background: This study examined the public’s perceptions of repeat dispensing as one of the measures to reduce the harmful effects of long-term prescriptions in Korea. Methods: From January 11 to 25, 2021, an online survey was conducted for adults using convenience sampling. A self-developed questionnaire was used. Results: There were 310 respondents, of which 228(73.5%) preferred repeat dispensing. When considering the additional fee payment, 188 (60.6%) preferred repeat dispensing, and54 (67.5%) out of a total of 80 chronic disease patients preferred it. It was confirmed that there was a difference in the willingnessto repeat dispensing considering the additional cost depending on whether the patient had a chronic disease and the distance from home to the nearest pharmacy. As a result of subgroup analysis for patients with chronic diseases, frequency of outpatient visit, number of prescription days, method of packaging pharmaceuticals, and distance from home to the nearest pharmacy were iden-tified as variables that could well predict the willingness to repeat dispensing considering paying additional fees. The preferencefor repeat dispensing may vary depending on conditions such as additional cost range, frequency and period of prescription use, disease and patient characteristics, so a careful approach is necessary. Conclusion It is necessary for the government to consider the introduction of repeat dispensing with interest in the public demand.

Background and Objectives: Lipid lowering therapy is essential to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events; however, limited evidence exists regarding the use of statin with ezetimibe as primary prevention strategy for middle-aged adults. We aimed to investigate the impact of single pill combination therapy on clinical outcomes in relatively healthy middleaged patients when compared with statin monotherapy. Methods: Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, a propensity score match analysis was performed for baseline characteristics of 92,156 patients categorized into combination therapy (n=46,078) and statin monotherapy (n=46,078) groups. Primary outcome was composite outcomes, including death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke. And secondary outcome was all-cause death. The mean follow-up duration was 2.9±0.3 years. Results: The 3-year composite outcomes of all-cause death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke demonstrated no significant difference between the 2 groups (10.3% vs.10.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.022; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.980–1.064; p=0.309).Meanwhile, the 3-year all-cause death rate was lower in the combination therapy group than in the statin monotherapy group (0.2% vs. 0.4%; p<0.001), with a significant HR of 0.595 (95% CI, 0.460–0.769; p<0.001). Single pill combination therapy exhibited consistently lower mortality rates across various subgroups. Conclusions Compared to the statin monotherapy, the combination therapy for primary prevention showed no difference in composite outcomes but may reduce mortality risk in relatively healthy middle-aged patients. However, since the study was observational, further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Background: Medication’s benefits and harms require careful management. Laws mandate pharmacists to provide essential med-ication details since inadequate counseling may pose risks. This study explores public expectations for pharmacist-provided side effect information to enhance safety. Methods: A self-developed questionnaire was created for participant to self-report, refined through pilot surveys with experts and laypersons. Nineteen items were categorized into four sections, using closed-ended ques-tions. Adults over 20, having obtained prescription medications within the past year, were surveyed via convenience sampling.Data analysis employed descriptive statistics and T-tests using IBM SPSS Statistics 21 and Microsoft Excel. Results: The study involved 189 participants, with a slightly higher proportion of females (59.3%) than males (40.7%), predominantly in their 20s (45.0%) and college graduates (57.1%). Health professionals represented 76.2% of respondents. Over half visited pharmacies at least 5 times yearly for prescriptions. Indirect experience with side effects was more common (30.2%) than direct experience (17.5%). Most (82.0%) showed interest in media-reported side effect events. Satisfaction with pharmacist-provided side effect explanations was low (59.7%), but importance was high (98.9%). Preferences favored combined verbal and written explanations (65.1%), with a majority desiring explanations for common but less serious side effects (82.5%). Healthcare professionals found explanations significantly more sufficient than non-professionals did. Older individuals, those living with elderly, and frequent pharmacy visitors attributed greater importance to pharmacist-provided explanations. Conclusion Koreans view pharmacist-pro-vided medication side effect explanations as vital but find current services lacking. Enhancements in content and delivery meth-ods are needed in pharmacy counseling to meet public expectations.

Background: This study examined the public’s perceptions of repeat dispensing as one of the measures to reduce the harmful effects of long-term prescriptions in Korea. Methods: From January 11 to 25, 2021, an online survey was conducted for adults using convenience sampling. A self-developed questionnaire was used. Results: There were 310 respondents, of which 228(73.5%) preferred repeat dispensing. When considering the additional fee payment, 188 (60.6%) preferred repeat dispensing, and54 (67.5%) out of a total of 80 chronic disease patients preferred it. It was confirmed that there was a difference in the willingnessto repeat dispensing considering the additional cost depending on whether the patient had a chronic disease and the distance from home to the nearest pharmacy. As a result of subgroup analysis for patients with chronic diseases, frequency of outpatient visit, number of prescription days, method of packaging pharmaceuticals, and distance from home to the nearest pharmacy were iden-tified as variables that could well predict the willingness to repeat dispensing considering paying additional fees. The preferencefor repeat dispensing may vary depending on conditions such as additional cost range, frequency and period of prescription use, disease and patient characteristics, so a careful approach is necessary. Conclusion It is necessary for the government to consider the introduction of repeat dispensing with interest in the public demand.

Background and Objectives: Lipid lowering therapy is essential to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events; however, limited evidence exists regarding the use of statin with ezetimibe as primary prevention strategy for middle-aged adults. We aimed to investigate the impact of single pill combination therapy on clinical outcomes in relatively healthy middleaged patients when compared with statin monotherapy. Methods: Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, a propensity score match analysis was performed for baseline characteristics of 92,156 patients categorized into combination therapy (n=46,078) and statin monotherapy (n=46,078) groups. Primary outcome was composite outcomes, including death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke. And secondary outcome was all-cause death. The mean follow-up duration was 2.9±0.3 years. Results: The 3-year composite outcomes of all-cause death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke demonstrated no significant difference between the 2 groups (10.3% vs.10.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.022; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.980–1.064; p=0.309).Meanwhile, the 3-year all-cause death rate was lower in the combination therapy group than in the statin monotherapy group (0.2% vs. 0.4%; p<0.001), with a significant HR of 0.595 (95% CI, 0.460–0.769; p<0.001). Single pill combination therapy exhibited consistently lower mortality rates across various subgroups. Conclusions Compared to the statin monotherapy, the combination therapy for primary prevention showed no difference in composite outcomes but may reduce mortality risk in relatively healthy middle-aged patients. However, since the study was observational, further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Background: Medication’s benefits and harms require careful management. Laws mandate pharmacists to provide essential med-ication details since inadequate counseling may pose risks. This study explores public expectations for pharmacist-provided side effect information to enhance safety. Methods: A self-developed questionnaire was created for participant to self-report, refined through pilot surveys with experts and laypersons. Nineteen items were categorized into four sections, using closed-ended ques-tions. Adults over 20, having obtained prescription medications within the past year, were surveyed via convenience sampling.Data analysis employed descriptive statistics and T-tests using IBM SPSS Statistics 21 and Microsoft Excel. Results: The study involved 189 participants, with a slightly higher proportion of females (59.3%) than males (40.7%), predominantly in their 20s (45.0%) and college graduates (57.1%). Health professionals represented 76.2% of respondents. Over half visited pharmacies at least 5 times yearly for prescriptions. Indirect experience with side effects was more common (30.2%) than direct experience (17.5%). Most (82.0%) showed interest in media-reported side effect events. Satisfaction with pharmacist-provided side effect explanations was low (59.7%), but importance was high (98.9%). Preferences favored combined verbal and written explanations (65.1%), with a majority desiring explanations for common but less serious side effects (82.5%). Healthcare professionals found explanations significantly more sufficient than non-professionals did. Older individuals, those living with elderly, and frequent pharmacy visitors attributed greater importance to pharmacist-provided explanations. Conclusion Koreans view pharmacist-pro-vided medication side effect explanations as vital but find current services lacking. Enhancements in content and delivery meth-ods are needed in pharmacy counseling to meet public expectations.

Background: This study examined the public’s perceptions of repeat dispensing as one of the measures to reduce the harmful effects of long-term prescriptions in Korea. Methods: From January 11 to 25, 2021, an online survey was conducted for adults using convenience sampling. A self-developed questionnaire was used. Results: There were 310 respondents, of which 228(73.5%) preferred repeat dispensing. When considering the additional fee payment, 188 (60.6%) preferred repeat dispensing, and54 (67.5%) out of a total of 80 chronic disease patients preferred it. It was confirmed that there was a difference in the willingnessto repeat dispensing considering the additional cost depending on whether the patient had a chronic disease and the distance from home to the nearest pharmacy. As a result of subgroup analysis for patients with chronic diseases, frequency of outpatient visit, number of prescription days, method of packaging pharmaceuticals, and distance from home to the nearest pharmacy were iden-tified as variables that could well predict the willingness to repeat dispensing considering paying additional fees. The preferencefor repeat dispensing may vary depending on conditions such as additional cost range, frequency and period of prescription use, disease and patient characteristics, so a careful approach is necessary. Conclusion It is necessary for the government to consider the introduction of repeat dispensing with interest in the public demand.

Background and Objectives: Lipid lowering therapy is essential to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events; however, limited evidence exists regarding the use of statin with ezetimibe as primary prevention strategy for middle-aged adults. We aimed to investigate the impact of single pill combination therapy on clinical outcomes in relatively healthy middleaged patients when compared with statin monotherapy. Methods: Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, a propensity score match analysis was performed for baseline characteristics of 92,156 patients categorized into combination therapy (n=46,078) and statin monotherapy (n=46,078) groups. Primary outcome was composite outcomes, including death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke. And secondary outcome was all-cause death. The mean follow-up duration was 2.9±0.3 years. Results: The 3-year composite outcomes of all-cause death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke demonstrated no significant difference between the 2 groups (10.3% vs.10.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.022; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.980–1.064; p=0.309).Meanwhile, the 3-year all-cause death rate was lower in the combination therapy group than in the statin monotherapy group (0.2% vs. 0.4%; p<0.001), with a significant HR of 0.595 (95% CI, 0.460–0.769; p<0.001). Single pill combination therapy exhibited consistently lower mortality rates across various subgroups. Conclusions Compared to the statin monotherapy, the combination therapy for primary prevention showed no difference in composite outcomes but may reduce mortality risk in relatively healthy middle-aged patients. However, since the study was observational, further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.