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 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.

Objectives: To investigate the relationship between self-rating of subjective oral health, oral hygiene behaviors, and objective oral health status, and to identify factors that determine self-rating for subjective oral health. Methods: This retrospective study examined data from 1,128 patients who underwent panoramic radiography and oral examination based on national health checkups between 2009 and 2015. Oral hygiene behavior was validated using a questionnaire, and the presence of oral diseases was validated through oral examination and panoramic radiographs. The effect of oral hygiene behaviors on the presence of oral diseases or dental treatment was evaluated using univariate regression analysis. Oral hygiene behaviors and the prevalence of oral disease were compared, according to selfrated subjective oral health, using the chi-square test. Factors affecting self-rating of subjective oral health were determined using multivariate regression analysis. Results: Patients who brushed their teeth less than three times per day had a higher risk of dental caries, periodontitis, and missing teeth (P<0.05). The percentage of patients performing oral hygiene behaviors differed significantly according to the self-rating of subjective oral health. The factors affecting the self-rating of subjective oral health were pain and the presence of restored teeth.The presence of gingivitis, periodontitis, and the number of dental caries had no significant effect on the self-rating of oral health. Conclusions Self-rating of oral health was determined by treatment experience rather than objective oral health status and it affected oral hygiene behavior.

Objectives: To investigate the relationship between self-rating of subjective oral health, oral hygiene behaviors, and objective oral health status, and to identify factors that determine self-rating for subjective oral health. Methods: This retrospective study examined data from 1,128 patients who underwent panoramic radiography and oral examination based on national health checkups between 2009 and 2015. Oral hygiene behavior was validated using a questionnaire, and the presence of oral diseases was validated through oral examination and panoramic radiographs. The effect of oral hygiene behaviors on the presence of oral diseases or dental treatment was evaluated using univariate regression analysis. Oral hygiene behaviors and the prevalence of oral disease were compared, according to selfrated subjective oral health, using the chi-square test. Factors affecting self-rating of subjective oral health were determined using multivariate regression analysis. Results: Patients who brushed their teeth less than three times per day had a higher risk of dental caries, periodontitis, and missing teeth (P<0.05). The percentage of patients performing oral hygiene behaviors differed significantly according to the self-rating of subjective oral health. The factors affecting the self-rating of subjective oral health were pain and the presence of restored teeth.The presence of gingivitis, periodontitis, and the number of dental caries had no significant effect on the self-rating of oral health. Conclusions Self-rating of oral health was determined by treatment experience rather than objective oral health status and it affected oral hygiene behavior.

Objectives: To investigate the relationship between self-rating of subjective oral health, oral hygiene behaviors, and objective oral health status, and to identify factors that determine self-rating for subjective oral health. Methods: This retrospective study examined data from 1,128 patients who underwent panoramic radiography and oral examination based on national health checkups between 2009 and 2015. Oral hygiene behavior was validated using a questionnaire, and the presence of oral diseases was validated through oral examination and panoramic radiographs. The effect of oral hygiene behaviors on the presence of oral diseases or dental treatment was evaluated using univariate regression analysis. Oral hygiene behaviors and the prevalence of oral disease were compared, according to selfrated subjective oral health, using the chi-square test. Factors affecting self-rating of subjective oral health were determined using multivariate regression analysis. Results: Patients who brushed their teeth less than three times per day had a higher risk of dental caries, periodontitis, and missing teeth (P<0.05). The percentage of patients performing oral hygiene behaviors differed significantly according to the self-rating of subjective oral health. The factors affecting the self-rating of subjective oral health were pain and the presence of restored teeth.The presence of gingivitis, periodontitis, and the number of dental caries had no significant effect on the self-rating of oral health. Conclusions Self-rating of oral health was determined by treatment experience rather than objective oral health status and it affected oral hygiene behavior.

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.

Objectives: To investigate the relationship between self-rating of subjective oral health, oral hygiene behaviors, and objective oral health status, and to identify factors that determine self-rating for subjective oral health. Methods: This retrospective study examined data from 1,128 patients who underwent panoramic radiography and oral examination based on national health checkups between 2009 and 2015. Oral hygiene behavior was validated using a questionnaire, and the presence of oral diseases was validated through oral examination and panoramic radiographs. The effect of oral hygiene behaviors on the presence of oral diseases or dental treatment was evaluated using univariate regression analysis. Oral hygiene behaviors and the prevalence of oral disease were compared, according to selfrated subjective oral health, using the chi-square test. Factors affecting self-rating of subjective oral health were determined using multivariate regression analysis. Results: Patients who brushed their teeth less than three times per day had a higher risk of dental caries, periodontitis, and missing teeth (P<0.05). The percentage of patients performing oral hygiene behaviors differed significantly according to the self-rating of subjective oral health. The factors affecting the self-rating of subjective oral health were pain and the presence of restored teeth.The presence of gingivitis, periodontitis, and the number of dental caries had no significant effect on the self-rating of oral health. Conclusions Self-rating of oral health was determined by treatment experience rather than objective oral health status and it affected oral hygiene behavior.

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.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is the most prevalent inflammatory skin condition, with approximately 80% of cases originating in childhood and some emerging in adulthood. In South Korea, the estimated prevalence of AD ranges between 10% and 20% in children and 1% and 3% in adults. Severe/recalcitrant AD manifests as a chronic, relapsing skin disorder, persisting with uncontrolled symptoms even after topical steroid treatment. Corticosteroids and systemic immunosuppression, conventionally the standard care for difficult-to-treat diseases, cause numerous undesirable side effects. When AD persists despite topical steroid application, systemic therapies like cyclosporine or systemic steroids become the second treatment strategy. The desire for targeted treatments, along with an enhanced understanding of AD’s pathophysiology, has spurred novel therapeutic development. Recent advances introduce novel systemic options, such as biological agents and small-molecule therapy, tailored to treat severe or recalcitrant AD. Notably, dupilumab, a monoclonal antibody inhibiting interleukin 4 and 13, marked a transformative breakthrough upon gaining approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2017, leading to a paradigm shift in the systemic treatment of AD. Furthermore, both dupilumab and Janus kinase inhibitors, including baricitinib, abrocitinib, and tofacitinib, now approved by the Korean FDA, have established their applicability in clinical practice. These innovative therapeutic agents have demonstrated favorable clinical outcomes, effectively addressing moderate to severe AD with fewer side reactions than those associated with previous systemic immunosuppressants. This review summarizes the latest advancements and evidence regarding systemic treatments for AD, including newly approved drugs in Korea.

Background: s/Aims: Reported incidence of extrahepatic bile duct cancer is higher in Asians than in Western populations. Korea, in particular, is one of the countries with the highest incidence rates of extrahepatic bile duct cancer in the world. Although research and innovative therapeutic modalities for extrahepatic bile duct cancer are emerging, clinical guidelines are currently unavailable in Korea. The Korean Society of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery in collaboration with related societies (Korean Pancreatic and Biliary Surgery Society, Korean Society of Abdominal Radiology, Korean Society of Medical Oncology, Korean Society of Radiation Oncology, Korean Society of Pathologists, and Korean Society of Nuclear Medicine) decided to establish clinical guideline for extrahepatic bile duct cancer in June 2021. Methods: Contents of the guidelines were developed through subgroup meetings for each key question and a preliminary draft was finalized through a Clinical Guidelines Committee workshop. Results: In November 2021, the finalized draft was presented for public scrutiny during a formal hearing. Conclusions The extrahepatic guideline committee believed that this guideline could be helpful in the treatment of patients.