Purpose: This subgroup analysis of the Korean subset of patients in the phase 3 LASER301 trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of lazertinib versus gefitinib as first-line therapy for epidermal growth factor receptor mutated (EGFRm) non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Materials and Methods: Patients with locally advanced or metastatic EGFRm NSCLC were randomized 1:1 to lazertinib (240 mg/day) or gefitinib (250 mg/day). The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). Results: In total, 172 Korean patients were enrolled (lazertinib, n=87; gefitinib, n=85). Baseline characteristics were balanced between the treatment groups. One-third of patients had brain metastases (BM) at baseline. Median PFS was 20.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 16.7 to 26.1) for lazertinib and 9.6 months (95% CI, 8.2 to 12.3) for gefitinib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.41; 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.60). This was supported by PFS analysis based on blinded independent central review. Significant PFS benefit with lazertinib was consistently observed across predefined subgroups, including patients with BM (HR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.15 to 0.53) and those with L858R mutations (HR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.63). Lazertinib safety data were consistent with its previously reported safety profile. Common adverse events (AEs) in both groups included rash, pruritus, and diarrhoea. Numerically fewer severe AEs and severe treatment–related AEs occurred with lazertinib than gefitinib. Conclusion Consistent with results for the overall LASER301 population, this analysis showed significant PFS benefit with lazertinib versus gefitinib with comparable safety in Korean patients with untreated EGFRm NSCLC, supporting lazertinib as a new potential treatment option for this patient population.

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: This study investigated the real-world efficacy and safety of insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) in Korean adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), whose insulin treatment was switched to IDegAsp. Methods: This was a multicenter, retrospective, observational study comprising two 26-week treatment periods, before and after switching to IDegAsp, respectively. Korean adults with uncontrolled T2DM treated with basal or premix insulin (±oral antidiabetic drugs) were enrolled. The primary objective was to compare the degree of glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) change in each 26-week observation period. The analyses included changes in HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), body weight, proportion of participants achieving HbA1c <7.0%, hypoglycemic events, and total daily insulin dose (ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04656106). Results: In total, 196 adults (mean age, 65.95 years; mean T2DM duration, 18.99 years) were analyzed. The change in both HbA1c and FPG were significantly different between the pre-switching and the post-switching period (0.28% vs. –0.51%, P<0.001; 5.21 mg/dL vs. –23.10 mg/dL, P=0.005), respectively. After switching, the rate of achieving HbA1c <7.0% was significantly improved (5.10% at baseline vs. 11.22% with IDegAsp, P=0.012). No significant differences (before vs. after switching) were observed in body weight change, and total daily insulin dose. The rates of overall and severe hypoglycemia were similar in the two periods. Conclusion In real-world clinical practice in Korea, the change of insulin regimen to IDegAsp was associated with an improvement in glycemic control without increase of hypoglycemia, supporting the use of IDegAsp for patients with T2DM uncontrolled with basal or premix insulin.

This review article investigates solid organ transplantation-induced osteoporosis, a critical yet often overlooked issue, emphasizing its significance in post-transplant care. The initial sections provide a comprehensive understanding of the prevalence and multifactorial pathogenesis of transplantation osteoporosis, including factors such as deteriorating post-transplantation health, hormonal changes, and the impact of immunosuppressive medications. Furthermore, the review is dedicated to organ-specific considerations in transplantation osteoporosis, with separate analyses for kidney, liver, heart, and lung transplantations. Each section elucidates the unique challenges and management strategies pertinent to transplantation osteoporosis in relation to each organ type, highlighting the necessity of an organ-specific approach to fully understand the diverse manifestations and implications of transplantation osteoporosis. This review underscores the importance of this topic in transplant medicine, aiming to enhance awareness and knowledge among clinicians and researchers. By comprehensively examining transplantation osteoporosis, this study contributes to the development of improved management and care strategies, ultimately leading to improved patient outcomes in this vulnerable group. This detailed review serves as an essential resource for those involved in the complex multidisciplinary care of transplant recipients.

This comprehensive review critically examines the detrimental impacts of endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) on bone health, with a specific focus on substances such as bisphenol A (BPA), per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs), phthalates, and dioxins. These EDCs, by interfering with the endocrine system’s normal functioning, pose a significant risk to bone metabolism, potentially leading to a heightened susceptibility to bone-related disorders and diseases. Notably, BPA has been shown to inhibit the differentiation of osteoblasts and promote the apoptosis of osteoblasts, which results in altered bone turnover status. PFASs, known for their environmental persistence and ability to bioaccumulate in the human body, have been linked to an increased osteoporosis risk. Similarly, phthalates, which are widely used in the production of plastics, have been associated with adverse bone health outcomes, showing an inverse relationship between phthalate exposure and bone mineral density. Dioxins present a more complex picture, with research findings suggesting both potential benefits and adverse effects on bone structure and density, depending on factors such as the timing and level of exposure. This review underscores the urgent need for further research to better understand the specific pathways through which EDCs affect bone health and to develop targeted strategies for mitigating their potentially harmful impacts.

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is the most important opportunistic viral pathogen in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients.The Korean guideline for the prevention of CMV infection in SOT recipients was developed jointly by the Korean Society for Infectious Diseases and the Korean Society of Transplantation. CMV serostatus of both donors and recipients should be screened before transplantation to best assess the risk of CMV infection after SOT. Seronegative recipients receiving organs from seropositive donors face the highest risk, followed by seropositive recipients. Either antiviral prophylaxis or preemptive therapy can be used to prevent CMV infection. While both strategies have been demonstrated to prevent CMV infection post-transplant, each has its own advantages and disadvantages. CMV serostatus, transplant organ, other risk factors, and practical issues should be considered for the selection of preventive measures. There is no universal viral load threshold to guide treatment in preemptive therapy. Each institution should define and validate its own threshold.Valganciclovir is the favored agent for both prophylaxis and preemptive therapy. The evaluation of CMV-specific cellmediated immunity and the monitoring of viral load kinetics are gaining interest, but there was insufficient evidence to issue recommendations. Specific considerations on pediatric transplant recipients are included.

Objectives: In this study, we aimed to compare the genetic architecture of schizophrenia (SCZ) and bipolar disorder (BD) in a Korean population by analyzing polygenic risk scores (PRS) derived from large-scale psychiatric disorder genome-wide association study data, based on genetic information collected from SCZ, BD, and healthy control groups. Methods: The study included 713 Korean patients with SCZ, 1,317 with BD, 526 healthy controls. Genotyping was performed using the Korean Biobank Array. PRS-continuous shrinkage method was used to calculate the PRS. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted to determine the association between SCZ or BD disorder and PRS after adjusting for sex. Results: ANCOVA revealed significant differences in PRS values by diagnosis for PRS for SCZ (F=215.281, p<0.001), PRS for BD (F=13.811, p<0.001), and PRS for major depressive disorder (F=6.042, p=0.002). Post-hoc analysis showed that PRS for SCZ was highest in SCZ, followed by BD, and healthy controls. PRS for BD was elevated in both BD and SCZ compared to healthy controls. Conclusion Our study revealed quantitative differences in genetic architecture between SCZ and BD compared to healthy controls, while also suggesting a shared genetic background between the two disorders.

Purpose: Patients with cancer have a high risk of depression. However, a few studies have assessed differences in the incidence of depression among patients with prostate cancer (PC) based on whether they received radiotherapy (RTx) or surgical treatment. Materials and Methods: We analyzed data from the National Health Insurance Sharing Service database regarding the entire Korean adult population with PC (n=210,924) between 2007 and 2017. The adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) of depression associated with treatment were estimated using propensity score-matched Cox proportional hazards models and Kaplan–Meier survival analyses. Results: Our final cohort comprised 9,456 patients with PC; of which, 8,050 men underwent surgery. During a mean follow-up duration of 7.1 years, 503 (5.3%) patients were newly diagnosed with depression. A significant difference in the incidence of depression was noted between the RTx and surgery groups (RTx vs. surgery: 5.55% vs. 5.28%; p=0.011) in the unmatched cohort. In the matched cohort, older age (≥70 years, HR: 1.596, p<0.001) and poor Charlson comorbidity index scores (HR: 1.232, p=0.039) were correlated with the risk of depression. In addition, the adjusted HR for depression in the surgery group was 0.843 (p=0.221) compared with that in the RTx group. Kaplan–Meier analyses revealed that no significant difference in the cumulative probability of persistent depression was detected between the RTx and surgery groups in matched cohort (p=0.3386). Conclusions In this nationwide population-based study, no significant differences in the risk of depression were observed between the surgical and RTx groups.

Tolvaptan reduces height-adjusted total kidney volume (htTKV) and renal function decline in autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD). This study was aimed at investigating the efficacy and safety of tolvaptan in Korean patients with ADPKD during the titration period. Methods: This study is a multicenter, single-arm, open-label phase 4 study. We enrolled 108 patients with ADPKD (age, 19–50 years) with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of >30 mL/min/1.73 m2 and factors defined as indicative of rapid disease progression. After tolvaptan titration, we evaluated efficacy and side effects and assessed factors associated with the effects. Results: After titration for 4 weeks, eGFR and htTKV decreased by 6.4 ± 7.9 mL/min/1.73 m2 and 16 ± 45 mL/m, respectively. No serious adverse drug reactions were observed during the titration period. The greatest eGFR decline was observed in the first week, with a starting tolvaptan dose of 45 mg. Multivariate linear regression for htTKV decline showed that the greater the change in urine osmolality (Uosm), the greater the decrease in htTKV (β, 0.436; p = 0.009) in the 1D group stratified by the Mayo Clinic image classification. Higher baseline eGFR was related to a higher htTKV reduction rate in the 1E group (β, –0.642; p = 0.009). Conclusion: We observed short-term effects and safety during the tolvaptan titration period. The decline of htTKV can be predicted as a short-term effect of tolvaptan by observing Uosm changes from baseline to end of titration in 1D and baseline eGFR in 1E groups.