Objective: To investigate the effects of methylphenidate and atomoxetine treatment on motor coordination in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Methods: In this single-site, open-label, naturalistic follow-up study, 157 children (7.6±1.4 years; 139 males) with ADHD were recruited between March 2015 and May 2020 from the Department of Psychiatry, Asan Medical Center, and treated for 12 weeks with methylphenidate (n=48) or atomoxetine (n=109). Children completed the Advanced Test of Attention (ATA), and caregivers completed the ADHD Rating Scale (ARS) questionnaire and Developmental Coordination Disorder Questionnaire (DCDQ) at baseline and at 12 weeks. Paired t-tests, a mixed-effects model, and linear regression were used to compare treatment groups and assess factors influencing motor coordination changes. Results: Methylphenidate and atomoxetine resulted in significant improvement in DCDQ fine motor/handwriting, general coordination, and total scores over 12 weeks. Fine motor/handwriting had a significant main effect for time (F1=16.64, p<0.001, η2=0.097); however, the interaction effect between group and time was not significant (F1=0.24, p=0.625, η2=0.002). Changes in parent-reported ARS inattention scores (β=-0.174, p=0.029) and auditory commission errors of ATA (β=0.191, p=0.022) were significantly associated with changes in fine motor/handwriting. Additionally, changes in parent-reported ARS inattention scores (β=-0.177, p=0.034) and rater-reported ARS inattention scores (β=-0.198, p=0.017) were significant predictors of improvements in general coordination in separate models. Conclusion Methylphenidate and atomoxetine had a positive effect on motor coordination in children with ADHD. Improvement in motor coordination was associated with ADHD symptom improvement.

Objective: To investigate the effects of methylphenidate and atomoxetine treatment on motor coordination in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Methods: In this single-site, open-label, naturalistic follow-up study, 157 children (7.6±1.4 years; 139 males) with ADHD were recruited between March 2015 and May 2020 from the Department of Psychiatry, Asan Medical Center, and treated for 12 weeks with methylphenidate (n=48) or atomoxetine (n=109). Children completed the Advanced Test of Attention (ATA), and caregivers completed the ADHD Rating Scale (ARS) questionnaire and Developmental Coordination Disorder Questionnaire (DCDQ) at baseline and at 12 weeks. Paired t-tests, a mixed-effects model, and linear regression were used to compare treatment groups and assess factors influencing motor coordination changes. Results: Methylphenidate and atomoxetine resulted in significant improvement in DCDQ fine motor/handwriting, general coordination, and total scores over 12 weeks. Fine motor/handwriting had a significant main effect for time (F1=16.64, p<0.001, η2=0.097); however, the interaction effect between group and time was not significant (F1=0.24, p=0.625, η2=0.002). Changes in parent-reported ARS inattention scores (β=-0.174, p=0.029) and auditory commission errors of ATA (β=0.191, p=0.022) were significantly associated with changes in fine motor/handwriting. Additionally, changes in parent-reported ARS inattention scores (β=-0.177, p=0.034) and rater-reported ARS inattention scores (β=-0.198, p=0.017) were significant predictors of improvements in general coordination in separate models. Conclusion Methylphenidate and atomoxetine had a positive effect on motor coordination in children with ADHD. Improvement in motor coordination was associated with ADHD symptom improvement.

Objective: To investigate the effects of methylphenidate and atomoxetine treatment on motor coordination in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Methods: In this single-site, open-label, naturalistic follow-up study, 157 children (7.6±1.4 years; 139 males) with ADHD were recruited between March 2015 and May 2020 from the Department of Psychiatry, Asan Medical Center, and treated for 12 weeks with methylphenidate (n=48) or atomoxetine (n=109). Children completed the Advanced Test of Attention (ATA), and caregivers completed the ADHD Rating Scale (ARS) questionnaire and Developmental Coordination Disorder Questionnaire (DCDQ) at baseline and at 12 weeks. Paired t-tests, a mixed-effects model, and linear regression were used to compare treatment groups and assess factors influencing motor coordination changes. Results: Methylphenidate and atomoxetine resulted in significant improvement in DCDQ fine motor/handwriting, general coordination, and total scores over 12 weeks. Fine motor/handwriting had a significant main effect for time (F1=16.64, p<0.001, η2=0.097); however, the interaction effect between group and time was not significant (F1=0.24, p=0.625, η2=0.002). Changes in parent-reported ARS inattention scores (β=-0.174, p=0.029) and auditory commission errors of ATA (β=0.191, p=0.022) were significantly associated with changes in fine motor/handwriting. Additionally, changes in parent-reported ARS inattention scores (β=-0.177, p=0.034) and rater-reported ARS inattention scores (β=-0.198, p=0.017) were significant predictors of improvements in general coordination in separate models. Conclusion Methylphenidate and atomoxetine had a positive effect on motor coordination in children with ADHD. Improvement in motor coordination was associated with ADHD symptom improvement.

Objective: To investigate the effects of methylphenidate and atomoxetine treatment on motor coordination in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Methods: In this single-site, open-label, naturalistic follow-up study, 157 children (7.6±1.4 years; 139 males) with ADHD were recruited between March 2015 and May 2020 from the Department of Psychiatry, Asan Medical Center, and treated for 12 weeks with methylphenidate (n=48) or atomoxetine (n=109). Children completed the Advanced Test of Attention (ATA), and caregivers completed the ADHD Rating Scale (ARS) questionnaire and Developmental Coordination Disorder Questionnaire (DCDQ) at baseline and at 12 weeks. Paired t-tests, a mixed-effects model, and linear regression were used to compare treatment groups and assess factors influencing motor coordination changes. Results: Methylphenidate and atomoxetine resulted in significant improvement in DCDQ fine motor/handwriting, general coordination, and total scores over 12 weeks. Fine motor/handwriting had a significant main effect for time (F1=16.64, p<0.001, η2=0.097); however, the interaction effect between group and time was not significant (F1=0.24, p=0.625, η2=0.002). Changes in parent-reported ARS inattention scores (β=-0.174, p=0.029) and auditory commission errors of ATA (β=0.191, p=0.022) were significantly associated with changes in fine motor/handwriting. Additionally, changes in parent-reported ARS inattention scores (β=-0.177, p=0.034) and rater-reported ARS inattention scores (β=-0.198, p=0.017) were significant predictors of improvements in general coordination in separate models. Conclusion Methylphenidate and atomoxetine had a positive effect on motor coordination in children with ADHD. Improvement in motor coordination was associated with ADHD symptom improvement.

Objective: To investigate the effects of methylphenidate and atomoxetine treatment on motor coordination in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Methods: In this single-site, open-label, naturalistic follow-up study, 157 children (7.6±1.4 years; 139 males) with ADHD were recruited between March 2015 and May 2020 from the Department of Psychiatry, Asan Medical Center, and treated for 12 weeks with methylphenidate (n=48) or atomoxetine (n=109). Children completed the Advanced Test of Attention (ATA), and caregivers completed the ADHD Rating Scale (ARS) questionnaire and Developmental Coordination Disorder Questionnaire (DCDQ) at baseline and at 12 weeks. Paired t-tests, a mixed-effects model, and linear regression were used to compare treatment groups and assess factors influencing motor coordination changes. Results: Methylphenidate and atomoxetine resulted in significant improvement in DCDQ fine motor/handwriting, general coordination, and total scores over 12 weeks. Fine motor/handwriting had a significant main effect for time (F1=16.64, p<0.001, η2=0.097); however, the interaction effect between group and time was not significant (F1=0.24, p=0.625, η2=0.002). Changes in parent-reported ARS inattention scores (β=-0.174, p=0.029) and auditory commission errors of ATA (β=0.191, p=0.022) were significantly associated with changes in fine motor/handwriting. Additionally, changes in parent-reported ARS inattention scores (β=-0.177, p=0.034) and rater-reported ARS inattention scores (β=-0.198, p=0.017) were significant predictors of improvements in general coordination in separate models. Conclusion Methylphenidate and atomoxetine had a positive effect on motor coordination in children with ADHD. Improvement in motor coordination was associated with ADHD symptom improvement.

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer in Korea and the third leading cause of death from cancer. Treatment outcomes for colon cancer are steadily improving due to national health screening programs with advances in diagnostic methods, surgical techniques, and therapeutic agents.. The Korea Colon Cancer Multidisciplinary (KCCM) Committee intends to provide professionals who treat colon cancer with the most up-to-date, evidence-based practice guidelines to improve outcomes and help them make decisions that reflect their patients’ values and preferences. These guidelines have been established by consensus reached by the KCCM Guideline Committee based on a systematic literature review and evidence synthesis and by considering the national health insurance system in real clinical practice settings. Each recommendation is presented with a recommendation strength and level of evidence based on the consensus of the committee.

Background/Aims: Although an association between achalasia and esophageal cancer has been reported, whether achalasia confers a substantial increase in mortality is unknown. Moreover, the causes of death related to achalasia have not been investigated. We performed this nationwide, population-based cohort study on achalasia because no such study has been performed since the introduction of high-resolution manometry in 2008. Methods: This study was performed using data extracted from the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, covering a 9-year period from 2009 to 2017. Control participants without a diagnostic code for achalasia were randomly selected and matched by sex and birth year at a case-to-control ratio of 1:4. Data on the cause of death from Statistics Korea were also analyzed. Results: The overall incidence of achalasia was 0.68 per 100,000 person-years, and the prevalence was 6.46 per 100,000 population. Patients with achalasia (n=3,063) had significantly higher adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for esophageal cancer (aHR, 3.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.25 to 9.22; p=0.017), pneumonia (aHR, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.89 to 2.81; p<0.001), aspiration pneumonia (aHR, 3.92; 95% CI, 2.38 to 6.48; p<0.001), and mortality (aHR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.44 to 1.94; p<0.001). Esophageal cancer carried the highest mortality risk (aHR, 8.82; 95% CI, 2.35 to 33.16; p=0.001), while pneumonia had the highest non-cancer mortality risk (aHR, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.31 to 3.96; p=0.004). Conclusions In this nationwide study, achalasia was associated with increased risk of mortality.Esophageal cancer and pneumonia were the most common comorbidities and the major causes of death in patients with achalasia.

Objective: Dysphagia is a common clinical condition characterized by difficulty in swallowing. It is sub-classified into oropharyngeal dysphagia, which refers to problems in the mouth and pharynx, and esophageal dysphagia, which refers to problems in the esophageal body and esophagogastric junction. Dysphagia can have a significant negative impact one’s physical health and quality of life as its severity increases. Therefore, proper assessment and management of dysphagia are critical for improving swallowing function and preventing complications. Thus a guideline was developed to provide evidence-based recommendations for assessment and management in patients with dysphagia. Methods: Nineteen key questions on dysphagia were developed. These questions dealt with various aspects of problems related to dysphagia, including assessment, management, and complications. A literature search for relevant articles was conducted using Pubmed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and one domestic database of KoreaMed, until April 2021. The level of evidence and recommendation grade were established according to the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. Results: Early screening and assessment of videofluoroscopic swallowing were recommended for assessing the presence of dysphagia. Therapeutic methods, such as tongue and pharyngeal muscle strengthening exercises and neuromuscular electrical stimulation with swallowing therapy, were effective in improving swallowing function and quality of life in patients with dysphagia. Nutritional intervention and an oral care program were also recommended. Conclusion This guideline presents recommendations for the assessment and management of patients with oropharyngeal dysphagia, including rehabilitative strategies.

Background/Aims: A previous history of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) is a risk factor for PEP, suggesting that there may be a genetic predisposition to PEP. However, nothing is known about this yet. The aim of this study was to identify genetic variations associated with PEP. Methods: A cohort of high-risk PEP patients was queried from December 2016 to January 2019. For each PEP case, two propensity score-matched controls were selected. Whole exome sequencing was performed using blood samples. Genetic variants reported to be related to pancreatitis were identified. To discover genetic variants that predispose to PEP, a logistic regression analysis with clinical adjustment was performed. Gene-wise analyses were also conducted. Results: Totals of 25 PEP patients and 50 matched controls were enrolled. Among the genetic variants reported to be associated with pancreatitis, only CASR rs1042636 was identified, and it showed no significant difference between the case and control groups. A total of 54,269 non-synonymous variants from 14,313 genes was identified. Logistic regression analysis of these variants showed that the IRF2BP1 rs60158447 GC genotype was significantly associated with the occurrence of PEP (odds ratio 2.248, FDR q value = 0.005). Gene-wise analyses did not show any significant results. Conclusions This study found that the IRF2BP1 gene variant was significantly associated with PEP. This genetic variant is a highly targeted PEP risk factor candidate and can be used for screening high-risk PEP groups before ERCP through future validation. (ClinicalTrials.gov no. NCT02928718)

Background and Objectives: There still are controversies on which type between bovine pericardial and porcine valves is superior in the setting of aortic valve replacement (AVR). This study aims to compare clinical outcomes of AVR using between pericardial or porcine valves. Methods: The study involved consecutive 636 patients underwent isolated AVR using stented bioprosthetic valves between January 2000 and May 2016. Of these, pericardial and porcine valves were implanted in 410 (pericardial group) and 226 patients (porcine group), respectively. Clinical outcomes including survival, structural valve deterioration (SVD) and trans-valvular pressure gradient were compared between the groups. To adjust for potential selection bias, inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) was conducted. Results: The mean follow-up duration was 60.1±50.2 months. There were no significant differences in the rates of early mortality (3.1% vs. 3.1%; p=0.81) and SVD (0.3%/patient-year [PY] vs. 0.5%/PY; p=0.33) between groups. After adjustment using IPTW, however, landmark mortality analyses showed a significantly lower late (>8 years) mortality risk in pericardial group over porcine group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.61; 95% confidence interval, [CI] 0.41–0.90; p=0.01) while the risks of SVD were not significantly difference between groups (HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.12–1.70; p=0.24). Mean pressure gradient across prosthetic AV was lower in the Pericardial group than the Porcine group at both immediate postoperative point and latest follow-up (p values <0.001). Conclusions In patients undergoing bioprosthetic surgical AVR, bovine pericardial valves showed superior results in terms of postoperative hemodynamic profiles and late survival rates over porcine valves.