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.

Despite the availability of direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) for chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in Korea, need remains for pangenotypic regimens that can be used in the presence of hepatic impairment, comorbidities, or prior treatment failure. We investigated the efficacy and safety of sofosbuvir–velpatasvir and sofosbuvir–velpatasvir–voxilaprevir for 12 weeks in HCV-infected Korean adults. Methods: This Phase 3b, multicenter, open-label study included 2 cohorts. In Cohort 1, participants with HCV genotype 1 or 2 and who were treatment-naive or treatment-experienced with interferon-based treatments, received sofosbuvir–velpatasvir 400/100 mg/day. In Cohort 2, HCV genotype 1 infected individuals who previously received an NS5A inhibitor-containing regimen ≥ 4 weeks received sofosbuvir–velpatasvir–voxilaprevir 400/100/100 mg/day. Decompensated cirrhosis was an exclusion criterion. The primary endpoint was SVR12, defined as HCV RNA < 15 IU/mL 12 weeks following treatment. Results: Of 53 participants receiving sofosbuvir–velpatasvir, 52 (98.1%) achieved SVR12. The single participant who did not achieve SVR12 experienced an asymptomatic Grade 3 ASL/ALT elevation on day 15 and discontinued treatment. The event resolved without intervention. All 33 participants (100%) treated with sofosbuvir–velpatasvir–voxilaprevir achieved SVR 12. Overall, sofosbuvir–velpatasvir and sofosbuvir–velpatasvir–voxilaprevir were safe and well tolerated. Three participants (5.6%) in Cohort 1 and 1 participant (3.0%) in Cohort 2 had serious adverse events, but none were considered treatment-related. No deaths or grade 4 laboratory abnormalities were reported. Conclusions: Treatment with sofosbuvir–velpatasvir or sofosbuvir–velpatasvir–voxilaprevir was safe and resulted in high SVR12 rates in Korean HCV patients.

Background: Development of an accessible method to routinely evaluate the clonality of strains is needed in microbiology laboratories. We compared the discriminatory power of the Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy–based IR Biotyper (Bruker Daltonics GmbH, Bremen, Germany) to matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS), using whole-genome sequencing (WGS) as the reference method. Methods: Eighty-three extended-spectrum β-lactamase–producing Escherichia coli isolates were tested using WGS, MALDI-TOF MS, and IR Biotyper. Simpson’s diversity index (SDI), a statistical analysis for testing the homogeneity of a dendrogram, and the adjusted Rand index (aRI) were used to compare the discriminatory ability between typing tests. Results: The SDI (95% confidence interval) was 0.969 (0.952–0.985) for WGS, 0.865 (0.807–0.924) for MALDI-TOF MS, and 0.974 (0.965–0.983) for IR Biotyper. Compared with WGS, IR Biotyper showed compatible diversity, whereas MALDI-TOF MS did not. The concordance and aRI improved from 66.3% to 84.3% and from 0.173 to 0.538, respectively, for IR Biotyper versus MALDI-TOF MS with WGS as the reference method. IR Biotyper showed substantially improved performance in strain typing compared with MALDI-TOF MS. Conclusions IR Biotyper is useful for diversity analysis with improved discriminatory power over MALDI-TOF MS in comparison with WGS as a reference method. IR Biotyper is an accessible method to evaluate the clonality of strains and could be applied in epidemiological analysis during an outbreak of a health care facility, as well as for research on the transmission of resistant bacteria in community settings.

An allergy skin test is used to diagnose certain allergies by identifying sensitized allergens. In other words, it is a test for patients who are already sensitized to certain allergens. Because of the prevailing perception that beta-lactam allergy can be dangerous and potentially lethal, the intradermal test has long been routinely performed before use to screen beta-lactam allergy in Korea. The prevalence of penicillin allergy is estimated to be 1% to 2%. However, only 14% of the subjects with perceived penicillin allergy is considered to have true penicillin allergy. Moreover, it is difficult to justify performing a skin test on subjects who are very unlikely to be sensitized to beta-lactam, such as those who never used beta-lactam or never experienced allergy after previous use of beta-lactam.Therefore, allergists recommend beta-lactam skin testing in those who have allergy after the use of beta-lactam. Nevertheless, many hospitals in Korea are conducting routine skin tests on patients regardless of a history of beta-lactam allergy, which are not clinically validated but consume considerable human and material resources. False-positive results can consequently result in inappropriate labeling of beta-lactam allergy, leading to the unnecessary restriction of medication prescriptions and the increase in medical expenses. Herein, the drug allergy working group affiliated with the Korean Academy of Asthma, Allergy, and Clinical Immunology announces an expert opinion on the preuse beta-lactam skin test for subjects without a history of beta-lactam allergy based on the objective evidence from the literature and clinical relevance.

Purpose: To determine the incidence of atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) in needle biopsy and the upgrade rate to carcinoma, and to evaluate difference in findings between the upgrade and non-upgrade groups. Materials and Methods: Among 9660 needle biopsies performed over 48 months, we reviewed the radiologic and histopathologic findings of ADH and compared the differences in imaging findings (mammography and breast US) and biopsy methods between the upgrade and non-upgrade groups. Results: The incidence of ADH was 1.7% (169/9660). Of 112 resected cases and 30 cases followed-up for over 2 years, 35 were upgraded to carcinoma (24.6%, 35/142). The upgrade rates were significantly different according to biopsy methods: US-guided core needle biopsy (US-CNB) (40.7%, 22/54) vs. stereotactic-vacuum-assisted biopsy (S-VAB) (16.0%, 12/75) vs. US-guided VAB (US-VAB) (7.7%, 1/13) (p = 0.002). Multivariable analysis showed that only US-CNB (odds ratio = 5.19, 95% confidence interval: 2.16–13.95, p < 0.001) was an independent predictor for pathologic upgrade. There was no upgrade when a sonographic mass was biopsied by US-VAB (n = 7) Conclusion The incidence of ADH was relatively low (1.7%) and the upgrade rate was 24.6%. Surgical excision should be considered because of the considerable upgrade rate, except in the case of US-VAB.

Background: Because the quality of anesthesia affects the surgical outcome, the aim of this study was to investigate the current status of anesthetic services performed by anesthesiologists and non-anesthesiologists in South Korea from 2014 to 2016 and to compare the results with data from 2011 to 2013. Methods: The claimed anesthesia services at medical institutions with employed anesthesiologists and the claims for an invitation fee for an anesthesiologist at medical institutions without employed anesthesiologists were regarded as anesthetic services performed by an anesthesiologist. From 2014 to 2016, the employment of anesthesiologists according to the type of medical institution, the status of anesthetic services according to the presence or absence of employed anesthesiologists, and status of anesthetic services at medical institutions without employed anesthesiologists were analyzed. Results: The proportion of medical institutions that employed anesthesiologists slightly increased from 27.8% in 2014 to 28.8% in 2016. General anesthesia was more concentrated at higher medical institutions, and most anesthesias were performed by an anesthesiologist. The proportion of spinal anesthesia, epidural anesthesia, and brachial plexus performed by non-anesthesiologists was 11%, 15%, and 16.5%, respectively. Intravenous anesthesia performed by non-anesthesiologists was 58% and has increased compared to the past. Conclusions The employment of anesthesiologists has increased with time, and general anesthesiology was mostly performed by anesthesiologists. However, since the proportion of anesthetic services performed by non-anesthesiologists in regional anesthesia and intravenous anesthesia was maintained high, it is necessary to find ways to expand the safety of anesthetic services.