Systemic corticosteroids play an essential role in the management of asthma. During acute exacerbation, the short-term use of systemic corticosteroids is recommended. For patients with uncontrolled asthma and severe asthma, long-term and low-dose oral corticosteroids (OCS) have frequently been advocated. However, both short-term and long-term use of systemic corticosteroids carry the risk of adverse events (AEs), including various morbidities and even mortality. Despite recent progress in adult severe asthma management and the availability of new treatment options, the current domestic guidelines for asthma do not provide specific recommendations for oral corticosteroid tapering in patients with severe asthma. Therefore, the task force team of the severe asthma working group in the Korean Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Clinical Immunology has proposed a tapering protocol for systemic corticosteroid use in severe asthma. This includes practical recommendations for monitoring OCS-related AE, particularly for adrenal insufficiency and osteoporosis, which suggests corticosteroid-sparing strategies that include alternative therapies, modifying treatable traits, timely specialist assessment, and shared decision-making with patients. However, further real-world research and collaboration with doctors from primary and academic institutes, patients, and policymakers are necessary to establish an OCS stewardship approach. This should include realistic OCS-tapering strategies for patients with severe asthma using regular OCS, education, and campaigns for patients, the public, and healthcare providers about the burden of severe asthma, as well as improving timely access to specialized severe asthma services for optimal management.

Systemic corticosteroids play an essential role in the management of asthma. During acute exacerbation, the short-term use of systemic corticosteroids is recommended. For patients with uncontrolled asthma and severe asthma, long-term and low-dose oral corticosteroids (OCS) have frequently been advocated. However, both short-term and long-term use of systemic corticosteroids carry the risk of adverse events (AEs), including various morbidities and even mortality. Despite recent progress in adult severe asthma management and the availability of new treatment options, the current domestic guidelines for asthma do not provide specific recommendations for oral corticosteroid tapering in patients with severe asthma. Therefore, the task force team of the severe asthma working group in the Korean Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Clinical Immunology has proposed a tapering protocol for systemic corticosteroid use in severe asthma. This includes practical recommendations for monitoring OCS-related AE, particularly for adrenal insufficiency and osteoporosis, which suggests corticosteroid-sparing strategies that include alternative therapies, modifying treatable traits, timely specialist assessment, and shared decision-making with patients. However, further real-world research and collaboration with doctors from primary and academic institutes, patients, and policymakers are necessary to establish an OCS stewardship approach. This should include realistic OCS-tapering strategies for patients with severe asthma using regular OCS, education, and campaigns for patients, the public, and healthcare providers about the burden of severe asthma, as well as improving timely access to specialized severe asthma services for optimal management.

Systemic corticosteroids play an essential role in the management of asthma. During acute exacerbation, the short-term use of systemic corticosteroids is recommended. For patients with uncontrolled asthma and severe asthma, long-term and low-dose oral corticosteroids (OCS) have frequently been advocated. However, both short-term and long-term use of systemic corticosteroids carry the risk of adverse events (AEs), including various morbidities and even mortality. Despite recent progress in adult severe asthma management and the availability of new treatment options, the current domestic guidelines for asthma do not provide specific recommendations for oral corticosteroid tapering in patients with severe asthma. Therefore, the task force team of the severe asthma working group in the Korean Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Clinical Immunology has proposed a tapering protocol for systemic corticosteroid use in severe asthma. This includes practical recommendations for monitoring OCS-related AE, particularly for adrenal insufficiency and osteoporosis, which suggests corticosteroid-sparing strategies that include alternative therapies, modifying treatable traits, timely specialist assessment, and shared decision-making with patients. However, further real-world research and collaboration with doctors from primary and academic institutes, patients, and policymakers are necessary to establish an OCS stewardship approach. This should include realistic OCS-tapering strategies for patients with severe asthma using regular OCS, education, and campaigns for patients, the public, and healthcare providers about the burden of severe asthma, as well as improving timely access to specialized severe asthma services for optimal management.

Systemic corticosteroids play an essential role in the management of asthma. During acute exacerbation, the short-term use of systemic corticosteroids is recommended. For patients with uncontrolled asthma and severe asthma, long-term and low-dose oral corticosteroids (OCS) have frequently been advocated. However, both short-term and long-term use of systemic corticosteroids carry the risk of adverse events (AEs), including various morbidities and even mortality. Despite recent progress in adult severe asthma management and the availability of new treatment options, the current domestic guidelines for asthma do not provide specific recommendations for oral corticosteroid tapering in patients with severe asthma. Therefore, the task force team of the severe asthma working group in the Korean Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Clinical Immunology has proposed a tapering protocol for systemic corticosteroid use in severe asthma. This includes practical recommendations for monitoring OCS-related AE, particularly for adrenal insufficiency and osteoporosis, which suggests corticosteroid-sparing strategies that include alternative therapies, modifying treatable traits, timely specialist assessment, and shared decision-making with patients. However, further real-world research and collaboration with doctors from primary and academic institutes, patients, and policymakers are necessary to establish an OCS stewardship approach. This should include realistic OCS-tapering strategies for patients with severe asthma using regular OCS, education, and campaigns for patients, the public, and healthcare providers about the burden of severe asthma, as well as improving timely access to specialized severe asthma services for optimal management.

Systemic corticosteroids play an essential role in the management of asthma. During acute exacerbation, the short-term use of systemic corticosteroids is recommended. For patients with uncontrolled asthma and severe asthma, long-term and low-dose oral corticosteroids (OCS) have frequently been advocated. However, both short-term and long-term use of systemic corticosteroids carry the risk of adverse events (AEs), including various morbidities and even mortality. Despite recent progress in adult severe asthma management and the availability of new treatment options, the current domestic guidelines for asthma do not provide specific recommendations for oral corticosteroid tapering in patients with severe asthma. Therefore, the task force team of the severe asthma working group in the Korean Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Clinical Immunology has proposed a tapering protocol for systemic corticosteroid use in severe asthma. This includes practical recommendations for monitoring OCS-related AE, particularly for adrenal insufficiency and osteoporosis, which suggests corticosteroid-sparing strategies that include alternative therapies, modifying treatable traits, timely specialist assessment, and shared decision-making with patients. However, further real-world research and collaboration with doctors from primary and academic institutes, patients, and policymakers are necessary to establish an OCS stewardship approach. This should include realistic OCS-tapering strategies for patients with severe asthma using regular OCS, education, and campaigns for patients, the public, and healthcare providers about the burden of severe asthma, as well as improving timely access to specialized severe asthma services for optimal management.

Background: Flow cytometric immunophenotyping of hematolymphoid neoplasms (FCIHLN) is essential for diagnosis, classification, and minimal residual disease (MRD) monitoring. FCI-HLN is typically performed using in-house protocols, raising the need for standardization. Therefore, we surveyed the current status of FCI-HLN in Korea to obtain fundamental data for quality improvement and standardization. Methods: Eight university hospitals actively conducting FCI-HLN participated in our survey.We analyzed responses to a questionnaire that included inquiries regarding test items, reagent antibodies (RAs), fluorophores, sample amounts (SAs), reagent antibody amounts (RAAs), acquisition cell number (ACN), isotype control (IC) usage, positiveegative criteria, and reporting. Results: Most hospitals used acute HLN, chronic HLN, plasma cell neoplasm (PCN), and MRD panels. The numbers of RAs were heterogeneous, with a maximum of 32, 26, 12, 14, and 10 antibodies used for acute HLN, chronic HLN, PCN, ALL-MRD, and multiple myeloma-MRD, respectively. The number of fluorophores ranged from 4 to 10. RAs, SAs, RAAs, and ACN were diverse. Most hospitals used a positive criterion of 20%, whereas one used 10% for acute and chronic HLN panels. Five hospitals used ICs for the negative criterion. Positiveegative assignments, percentages, and general opinions were commonly reported. In MRD reporting, the limit of detection and lower limit of quantification were included. Conclusions This is the first comprehensive study on the current status of FCI-HLN in Korea, confirming the high heterogeneity and complexity of FCI-HLN practices. Standardization of FCI-HLN is urgently needed. The findings provide a reference for establishing standard FCI-HLN guidelines.

Background/Aims: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) play a crucial role in managing laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR), but the optimal dosing regimen remains unclear. We aim to compare the effectiveness of the same total PPI dose administered twice daily versus once daily in LPR patients. Methods: We conducted a prospective randomized controlled trial at a tertiary referral hospital, enrolling a total of 132 patients aged 19 to 79 with LPR. These patients were randomly assigned to receive either a 10 mg twice daily (BID) or a 20 mg once daily (QD) dose of ilaprazole for 12 weeks. The Reflux Symptom Index (RSI) and Reflux Finding Score (RFS) were assessed at 8 weeks and 16 weeks. The primary endpoint was the RSI response, defined as a reduction of 50% or more in the total RSI score from baseline. We also analyzed the efficacy of the dosing regimens and the impact of dosing and duration on treatment outcomes. Results: The BID group did not display a higher response rate for RSI than the QD group. The changes in total RSI scores at the 8-week and 16-week visits showed no significant differences between the 2 groups. Total RFS alterations were also comparable between both groups.Each dosing regimen demonstrated significant decreases in RSI and RFS. Conclusions Both BID and QD PPI dosing regimens improved subjective symptom scores and objective laryngoscopic findings. There was no significant difference in RSI improvement between the 2 dosing regimens, indicating that either dosing regimen could be considered a viable treatment option.

With advancements in both pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic treatments, significant changes have occurred in heart failure (HF) management. The previous Korean HF registries, namely the Korea Heart Failure Registry (KorHF-registry) and Korean Acute Heart Failure Registry (KorAHF-registry), no longer accurately reflect contemporary acute heart failure (AHF) patients. Our objective is to assess contemporary AHF patients through a nationwide registry encompassing various aspects, such as clinical characteristics, management approaches, hospital course, and long-term outcomes of individuals hospitalized for AHF in Korea. This prospective observational multicenter cohort study (KorHF III) is organized by the Korean Society of Heart Failure. We aim to prospectively enroll 7,000 or more patients hospitalized for AHF at 47 tertiary hospitals in Korea starting from March 2018. Eligible patients exhibit signs and symptoms of HF and demonstrate either lung congestion or objective evidence of structural or functional cardiac abnormalities in echocardiography, or isolated right-sided HF. Patients will be followed up for up to 5 years after enrollment in the registry to evaluate long-term clinical outcomes. KorHF III represents the nationwide AHF registry that will elucidate the clinical characteristics, management strategies, and outcomes of contemporary AHF patients in Korea.

Background/Aims: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) play a crucial role in managing laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR), but the optimal dosing regimen remains unclear. We aim to compare the effectiveness of the same total PPI dose administered twice daily versus once daily in LPR patients. Methods: We conducted a prospective randomized controlled trial at a tertiary referral hospital, enrolling a total of 132 patients aged 19 to 79 with LPR. These patients were randomly assigned to receive either a 10 mg twice daily (BID) or a 20 mg once daily (QD) dose of ilaprazole for 12 weeks. The Reflux Symptom Index (RSI) and Reflux Finding Score (RFS) were assessed at 8 weeks and 16 weeks. The primary endpoint was the RSI response, defined as a reduction of 50% or more in the total RSI score from baseline. We also analyzed the efficacy of the dosing regimens and the impact of dosing and duration on treatment outcomes. Results: The BID group did not display a higher response rate for RSI than the QD group. The changes in total RSI scores at the 8-week and 16-week visits showed no significant differences between the 2 groups. Total RFS alterations were also comparable between both groups.Each dosing regimen demonstrated significant decreases in RSI and RFS. Conclusions Both BID and QD PPI dosing regimens improved subjective symptom scores and objective laryngoscopic findings. There was no significant difference in RSI improvement between the 2 dosing regimens, indicating that either dosing regimen could be considered a viable treatment option.

Background/Aims: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) play a crucial role in managing laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR), but the optimal dosing regimen remains unclear. We aim to compare the effectiveness of the same total PPI dose administered twice daily versus once daily in LPR patients. Methods: We conducted a prospective randomized controlled trial at a tertiary referral hospital, enrolling a total of 132 patients aged 19 to 79 with LPR. These patients were randomly assigned to receive either a 10 mg twice daily (BID) or a 20 mg once daily (QD) dose of ilaprazole for 12 weeks. The Reflux Symptom Index (RSI) and Reflux Finding Score (RFS) were assessed at 8 weeks and 16 weeks. The primary endpoint was the RSI response, defined as a reduction of 50% or more in the total RSI score from baseline. We also analyzed the efficacy of the dosing regimens and the impact of dosing and duration on treatment outcomes. Results: The BID group did not display a higher response rate for RSI than the QD group. The changes in total RSI scores at the 8-week and 16-week visits showed no significant differences between the 2 groups. Total RFS alterations were also comparable between both groups.Each dosing regimen demonstrated significant decreases in RSI and RFS. Conclusions Both BID and QD PPI dosing regimens improved subjective symptom scores and objective laryngoscopic findings. There was no significant difference in RSI improvement between the 2 dosing regimens, indicating that either dosing regimen could be considered a viable treatment option.