Background and Objectives: Outcomes of deferring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without invasive physiologic assessment for intermediate coronary lesions is uncertain.We sought to compare long-term outcomes between medical treatment and PCI of intermediate lesions without invasive physiologic assessment. Methods: A total of 899 patients with intermediate coronary lesions between 50% and 70% diameter-stenosis were randomized to the conservative group (n=449) or the aggressive group (n=450). For intermediate lesions, PCI was performed in the aggressive group, but was deferred in the conservative group. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction [MI], or ischemia-driven any revascularization) at 3 years. Results: The number of treated lesions per patient was 0.8±0.9 in the conservative group and 1.7±0.9 in the aggressive group (p=0.001). At 3 years, the conservative group had a significantly higher incidence of MACE than the aggressive group (13.8% vs. 9.3%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00–2.21; p=0.049), mainly driven by revascularization of target intermediate lesion (6.5% vs. 1.1%; HR, 5.69; 95% CI, 2.20–14.73;p<0.001). Between 1 and 3 years after the index procedure, compared to the aggressive group, the conservative group had significantly higher incidence of cardiac death or MI (3.2% vs.0.7%; HR, 4.34; 95% CI, 1.24–15.22; p=0.022) and ischemia-driven any revascularization. Conclusions For intermediate lesions, medical therapy alone, guided only by angiography, was associated with a higher risk of MACE at 3 years compared with performing PCI, mainly due to increased revascularization.

Background: The World Health Organization has declared the end of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) public health emergency. However, this did not indicate the end of COVID-19. Several months after the infection, numerous patients complain of respiratory or nonspecific symptoms; this condition is called long COVID. Even patients with mild COVID-19 can experience long COVID, thus the burden of long COVID remains considerable. Therefore, we conducted this study to comprehensively analyze the effects of long COVID using multi-faceted assessments. Materials and Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study involving patients diagnosed with COVID-19 between February 2020 and September 2021 in six tertiary hospitals in Korea. Patients were followed up at 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after discharge. Long COVID was defined as the persistence of three or more COVID-19-related symptoms. The primary outcome of this study was the prevalence of long COVID after the period of COVID-19. Results: During the study period, 290 patients were enrolled. Among them, 54.5 and 34.6% experienced long COVID within 6 months and after more than 18 months, respectively. Several patients showed abnormal results when tested for post-traumatic stress disorder (17.4%) and anxiety (31.9%) after 18 months. In patients who underwent follow-up chest computed tomography 18 months after COVID-19, abnormal findings remained at 51.9%. Males (odds ratio [OR], 0.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.05–0.53; P=0.004) and elderly (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.00–1.09; P=0.04) showed a significant association with long COVID after 12–18 months in a multivariable logistic regression analysis. Conclusion Many patients still showed long COVID after 18 months post SARS-CoV-2 infection. When managing these patients, the assessment of multiple aspects is necessary.

Background and Objectives: Outcomes of deferring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without invasive physiologic assessment for intermediate coronary lesions is uncertain.We sought to compare long-term outcomes between medical treatment and PCI of intermediate lesions without invasive physiologic assessment. Methods: A total of 899 patients with intermediate coronary lesions between 50% and 70% diameter-stenosis were randomized to the conservative group (n=449) or the aggressive group (n=450). For intermediate lesions, PCI was performed in the aggressive group, but was deferred in the conservative group. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction [MI], or ischemia-driven any revascularization) at 3 years. Results: The number of treated lesions per patient was 0.8±0.9 in the conservative group and 1.7±0.9 in the aggressive group (p=0.001). At 3 years, the conservative group had a significantly higher incidence of MACE than the aggressive group (13.8% vs. 9.3%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00–2.21; p=0.049), mainly driven by revascularization of target intermediate lesion (6.5% vs. 1.1%; HR, 5.69; 95% CI, 2.20–14.73;p<0.001). Between 1 and 3 years after the index procedure, compared to the aggressive group, the conservative group had significantly higher incidence of cardiac death or MI (3.2% vs.0.7%; HR, 4.34; 95% CI, 1.24–15.22; p=0.022) and ischemia-driven any revascularization. Conclusions For intermediate lesions, medical therapy alone, guided only by angiography, was associated with a higher risk of MACE at 3 years compared with performing PCI, mainly due to increased revascularization.

This review examines the challenges associated with occupational disease surveillance in Korea, particularly emphasizing the limitations of current data sources such as the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance (IACI) statistics and special health examinations. The IACI system undercounts cases due to its emphasis on severe diseases and restrictions on approvals. Special health examinations, although they cover a broad workforce, are constrained by their annual scheduling, which leads to missed acute illnesses and subclinical conditions. The paper also explores the history of occupational disease surveillance in Korea, highlighting the fragmented and disease-specific approach of earlier systems. The authors introduce the newly established Korea Occupational Disease Surveillance Center (KODSC), a comprehensive nationwide system designed to gather, analyze, and interpret data on occupational diseases through a network of regional centers. By incorporating hospital-based surveillance and focusing on acute poisonings and other sentinel events, the KODSC aims to overcome the limitations of previous systems and promote collaboration with various agencies. Although it is still in the early stages of implementation, the KODSC demonstrates potential for improving data accuracy and contributing valuable insights for public health policy.

This study explores the development, roles, and key initiatives of the Regional Environmental Health Centers in Korea, detailing their evolution through four distinct phases and their impact on environmental health policy and local governance. It chronicles the establishment and transformation of these centers from their inception in May 2007, through four developmental stages. Originally named Environmental Disease Research Centers, they were subsequently renamed Environmental Health Centers following legislative changes. The analysis includes the expansion in the number of centers, the transfer of responsibilities to local governments, and the launch of significant projects such as the Korean Children’s Environmental Health Study (Ko-CHENS ). During the initial phase (May 2007–February 2009), the 10 centers concentrated on research-driven activities, shifting from a media-centered to a receptor-centered approach. In the second phase, prompted by the enactment of the Environmental Health Act, six additional centers were established, broadening their scope to address national environmental health issues. The third phase introduced Ko-CHENS, a 20-year national cohort project designed to influence environmental health policy by integrating research findings into policy frameworks. The fourth phase marked a decentralization of authority, empowering local governments and redefining the centers' roles to focus on regional environmental health challenges. The Regional Environmental Health Centers have significantly evolved and now play a crucial role in addressing local environmental health issues and supporting local government policies. Their capacity to adapt and respond to region-specific challenges is essential for the effective implementation of environmental health policies, reflecting geographical, socioeconomic, and demographic differences.

Background/Aims: To determine the effectiveness of tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) plus reduced-intensity therapy in adult patients with newly diagnosed Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Ph-positive ALL), this retrospective study compared treatment outcomes and induction mortality according to backbone regimen intensity. Methods: The data of 132 patients diagnosed with Ph-positive ALL were retrospectively collected from five centers. Patients received imatinib plus intensive chemotherapy (modified VPD, KALLA1407, or hyper-CVAD) or reduced-intensity chemotherapy (EWALL) for curative purposes. This study analyzed 117 patients, of which 35,22,46, and 14 received modified VPD, KALLA1407, hyper-CVAD, and EWALL, respectively. All patients used imatinib as a TKI. Results: The median age of the patients who received reduced-intensity chemotherapy was 64.4 years, while that of the patients with intensive regimens was 47.5 years. There was no induction death in the reduced-intensity group, while nine patients died in the intensive therapy group. Major molecular response achievement tended to be higher in the intensive chemotherapy group than in the reduced-intensity group. More patients in the intensive chemotherapy group received allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-SCT). There was no statistically significant difference in long-term survival between the two groups in terms of relapse-free survival and overall survival rates. Conclusions When imatinib plus reduced-intensity therapy was used as a frontline treatment, there was no inferiority in obtaining complete remission compared to imatinib plus intensive chemotherapy or significant difference in long-term survival. Since imatinib plus reduced-intensity therapy has limitations in obtaining a deep molecular response, proceeding to allo-SCT should be considered.

Background/Aims: This study aimed to identify the risk factors for chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) following liver transplantation (LT), with a specific focus on tacrolimus levels and intrapatient variability (IPV). Methods: Among the 1,076 patients who underwent LT between 2000 and 2018, 952 were included in the analysis. The tacrolimus doses and levels were recorded every 3 months, and the IPV was calculated using the coefficient of variability. The cumulative incidence rates of CKD and ESRD were calculated based on baseline kidney function at the time of LT. The impact of tacrolimus levels and their IPV on the development of CKD and ESRD was evaluated, and the significant risk factors were identified. Results: Within a median follow-up of 97.3 months, the 5-year cumulative incidence rates of CKD (0.58 vs. 0.24) and ESRD (0.07 vs. 0.01) were significantly higher in the acute kidney injury group than in the normal glomerular filtration rate (GFR) group. In the normal GFR group, the tacrolimus levels were identified as a risk factor for CKD, with a level of ≤4.5 ng/mL suggested as optimal for minimizing the risk of CKD. Furthermore, the IPV of tacrolimus levels and doses emerged as a significant risk factor for CKD development in both groups (p<0.05), with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate also being a risk factor in HBV-infected patients. The IPV of tacrolimus levels was also a significant factor in ESRD development (p<0.05). Conclusions This study elucidated the optimal tacrolimus trough level and highlighted the impact of IPV on the CKD and ESRD development post-LT.

This review examines the challenges associated with occupational disease surveillance in Korea, particularly emphasizing the limitations of current data sources such as the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance (IACI) statistics and special health examinations. The IACI system undercounts cases due to its emphasis on severe diseases and restrictions on approvals. Special health examinations, although they cover a broad workforce, are constrained by their annual scheduling, which leads to missed acute illnesses and subclinical conditions. The paper also explores the history of occupational disease surveillance in Korea, highlighting the fragmented and disease-specific approach of earlier systems. The authors introduce the newly established Korea Occupational Disease Surveillance Center (KODSC), a comprehensive nationwide system designed to gather, analyze, and interpret data on occupational diseases through a network of regional centers. By incorporating hospital-based surveillance and focusing on acute poisonings and other sentinel events, the KODSC aims to overcome the limitations of previous systems and promote collaboration with various agencies. Although it is still in the early stages of implementation, the KODSC demonstrates potential for improving data accuracy and contributing valuable insights for public health policy.

This study explores the development, roles, and key initiatives of the Regional Environmental Health Centers in Korea, detailing their evolution through four distinct phases and their impact on environmental health policy and local governance. It chronicles the establishment and transformation of these centers from their inception in May 2007, through four developmental stages. Originally named Environmental Disease Research Centers, they were subsequently renamed Environmental Health Centers following legislative changes. The analysis includes the expansion in the number of centers, the transfer of responsibilities to local governments, and the launch of significant projects such as the Korean Children’s Environmental Health Study (Ko-CHENS ). During the initial phase (May 2007–February 2009), the 10 centers concentrated on research-driven activities, shifting from a media-centered to a receptor-centered approach. In the second phase, prompted by the enactment of the Environmental Health Act, six additional centers were established, broadening their scope to address national environmental health issues. The third phase introduced Ko-CHENS, a 20-year national cohort project designed to influence environmental health policy by integrating research findings into policy frameworks. The fourth phase marked a decentralization of authority, empowering local governments and redefining the centers' roles to focus on regional environmental health challenges. The Regional Environmental Health Centers have significantly evolved and now play a crucial role in addressing local environmental health issues and supporting local government policies. Their capacity to adapt and respond to region-specific challenges is essential for the effective implementation of environmental health policies, reflecting geographical, socioeconomic, and demographic differences.

Background/Aims: To determine the effectiveness of tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) plus reduced-intensity therapy in adult patients with newly diagnosed Philadelphia chromosome-positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Ph-positive ALL), this retrospective study compared treatment outcomes and induction mortality according to backbone regimen intensity. Methods: The data of 132 patients diagnosed with Ph-positive ALL were retrospectively collected from five centers. Patients received imatinib plus intensive chemotherapy (modified VPD, KALLA1407, or hyper-CVAD) or reduced-intensity chemotherapy (EWALL) for curative purposes. This study analyzed 117 patients, of which 35,22,46, and 14 received modified VPD, KALLA1407, hyper-CVAD, and EWALL, respectively. All patients used imatinib as a TKI. Results: The median age of the patients who received reduced-intensity chemotherapy was 64.4 years, while that of the patients with intensive regimens was 47.5 years. There was no induction death in the reduced-intensity group, while nine patients died in the intensive therapy group. Major molecular response achievement tended to be higher in the intensive chemotherapy group than in the reduced-intensity group. More patients in the intensive chemotherapy group received allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-SCT). There was no statistically significant difference in long-term survival between the two groups in terms of relapse-free survival and overall survival rates. Conclusions When imatinib plus reduced-intensity therapy was used as a frontline treatment, there was no inferiority in obtaining complete remission compared to imatinib plus intensive chemotherapy or significant difference in long-term survival. Since imatinib plus reduced-intensity therapy has limitations in obtaining a deep molecular response, proceeding to allo-SCT should be considered.