Purpose: To investigate whether using a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for the second time (2nd_CGM) would be effective after using it for the first time (1st_CGM), depending on age. Materials and Methods: This study included patients aged ≥40 years who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and had used a CGM at least twice between 2017 and 2021. Participants were divided into two groups based on their age: those aged <60 years and those aged ≥60 years. We assessed the glycemic control status of the 1st_CGM and 2nd_CGM, along with the glycemic variability. Results: Overall, 15 patients were included in the study. The mean glucose level in users aged <60 years significantly decreased (p<0.001) owing to the CGM use, while it did not increase in those aged ≥60 years. In users aged ≥60 years, the 1st_CGM group showed a significant decrease in blood glucose levels over time (p<0.05), whereas the 2nd_CGM group only showed a non-significant decreasing trend. The time in range tended to increase in those aged <60 years but decreased in those aged ≥60 years. In those aged <60 years, the mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (p<0.001), standard deviation (p<0.05), and coefficient of variation (p<0.001) significantly decreased. In those aged ≥60 years, these parameters exhibited a non-significant decreasing trend. Conclusion Glycemic effect and variability improved as expected with 1st_CGM use. However, 2nd_CGM did not significantly improve glycemic effect or variability in users aged ≥60 years, contrary to expectations. To address this issue, further investigation is needed to understand why, compared to 1st_CGM, 2nd_CGM fails to achieve better glycemic control in individuals aged ≥60 years.

Background: and Purpose: This clinical practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for treatment of dementia, focusing on cholinesterase inhibitors and N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and other types of dementia. Methods: Using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes (PICO) framework, we developed key clinical questions and conducted systematic literature reviews. A multidisciplinary panel of experts, organized by the Korean Dementia Association, evaluated randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Recommendations were graded for evidence quality and strength using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Results: Three main recommendations are presented: (1) For AD, cholinesterase inhibitors (donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine) are strongly recommended for improving cognition and daily function based on moderate evidence; (2) Cholinesterase inhibitors are conditionally recommended for vascular dementia and Parkinson’s disease dementia, with a strong recommendation for Lewy body dementia; (3) For moderate to severe AD, NMDA receptor antagonist (memantine) is strongly recommended, demonstrating significant cognitive and functional improvements. Both drug classes showed favorable safety profiles with manageable side effects. Conclusions This guideline offers standardized, evidence-based pharmacologic recommendations for dementia management, with specific guidance on cholinesterase inhibitors and NMDA receptor antagonists. It aims to support clinical decision-making and improve patient outcomes in dementia care. Further updates will address emerging treatments, including amyloid-targeting therapies, to reflect advances in dementia management.

Background/Aims: The Korean guidelines for Helicobacter pylori treatment were revised in 2020, however, the extent of adherence to these guidelines in clinical practice remains unclear. Herein, we initiated a prospective, nationwide, multicenter registry study in 2021 to evaluate the current management of H.pylori infection in Korea. Methods: This interim report describes the adherence to the revised guidelines and their impact on firstline eradication rates. Data on patient demographics, diagnoses, treatments, and eradication outcomes were collected using a web-based electronic case report form. Results: A total of 7,261 patients from 66 hospitals who received first-line treatment were analyzed.The modified intention-to-treat eradication rate for first-line treatment was 81.0%, with 80.4% of the prescriptions adhering to the revised guidelines. The most commonly prescribed regimen was the 14-day clarithromycin-based triple therapy (CTT; 42.0%), followed by tailored therapy (TT; 21.2%), 7-day CTT (14.1%), and 10-day concomitant therapy (CT; 10.1%). Time-trend analysis demonstrated significant increases in guideline adherence and the use of 10-day CT and TT, along with a decrease in the use of 7-day CTT (all p<0.001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that guideline adherence was significantly associated with first-line eradication success (odds ratio, 2.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.61 to 2.56; p<0.001). Conclusions The revised guidelines for the treatment of H. pylori infection have been increasingly adopted in routine clinical practice in Korea, which may have contributed to improved first-line eradication rates. Notably, the 14-day CTT, 10-day CT, and TT regimens are emerging as the preferred first-line treatment options among Korean physicians.

Purpose: To investigate whether using a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for the second time (2nd_CGM) would be effective after using it for the first time (1st_CGM), depending on age. Materials and Methods: This study included patients aged ≥40 years who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and had used a CGM at least twice between 2017 and 2021. Participants were divided into two groups based on their age: those aged <60 years and those aged ≥60 years. We assessed the glycemic control status of the 1st_CGM and 2nd_CGM, along with the glycemic variability. Results: Overall, 15 patients were included in the study. The mean glucose level in users aged <60 years significantly decreased (p<0.001) owing to the CGM use, while it did not increase in those aged ≥60 years. In users aged ≥60 years, the 1st_CGM group showed a significant decrease in blood glucose levels over time (p<0.05), whereas the 2nd_CGM group only showed a non-significant decreasing trend. The time in range tended to increase in those aged <60 years but decreased in those aged ≥60 years. In those aged <60 years, the mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (p<0.001), standard deviation (p<0.05), and coefficient of variation (p<0.001) significantly decreased. In those aged ≥60 years, these parameters exhibited a non-significant decreasing trend. Conclusion Glycemic effect and variability improved as expected with 1st_CGM use. However, 2nd_CGM did not significantly improve glycemic effect or variability in users aged ≥60 years, contrary to expectations. To address this issue, further investigation is needed to understand why, compared to 1st_CGM, 2nd_CGM fails to achieve better glycemic control in individuals aged ≥60 years.

Purpose: To investigate whether using a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for the second time (2nd_CGM) would be effective after using it for the first time (1st_CGM), depending on age. Materials and Methods: This study included patients aged ≥40 years who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and had used a CGM at least twice between 2017 and 2021. Participants were divided into two groups based on their age: those aged <60 years and those aged ≥60 years. We assessed the glycemic control status of the 1st_CGM and 2nd_CGM, along with the glycemic variability. Results: Overall, 15 patients were included in the study. The mean glucose level in users aged <60 years significantly decreased (p<0.001) owing to the CGM use, while it did not increase in those aged ≥60 years. In users aged ≥60 years, the 1st_CGM group showed a significant decrease in blood glucose levels over time (p<0.05), whereas the 2nd_CGM group only showed a non-significant decreasing trend. The time in range tended to increase in those aged <60 years but decreased in those aged ≥60 years. In those aged <60 years, the mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (p<0.001), standard deviation (p<0.05), and coefficient of variation (p<0.001) significantly decreased. In those aged ≥60 years, these parameters exhibited a non-significant decreasing trend. Conclusion Glycemic effect and variability improved as expected with 1st_CGM use. However, 2nd_CGM did not significantly improve glycemic effect or variability in users aged ≥60 years, contrary to expectations. To address this issue, further investigation is needed to understand why, compared to 1st_CGM, 2nd_CGM fails to achieve better glycemic control in individuals aged ≥60 years.

Background: and Purpose: This clinical practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for treatment of dementia, focusing on cholinesterase inhibitors and N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and other types of dementia. Methods: Using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes (PICO) framework, we developed key clinical questions and conducted systematic literature reviews. A multidisciplinary panel of experts, organized by the Korean Dementia Association, evaluated randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Recommendations were graded for evidence quality and strength using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Results: Three main recommendations are presented: (1) For AD, cholinesterase inhibitors (donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine) are strongly recommended for improving cognition and daily function based on moderate evidence; (2) Cholinesterase inhibitors are conditionally recommended for vascular dementia and Parkinson’s disease dementia, with a strong recommendation for Lewy body dementia; (3) For moderate to severe AD, NMDA receptor antagonist (memantine) is strongly recommended, demonstrating significant cognitive and functional improvements. Both drug classes showed favorable safety profiles with manageable side effects. Conclusions This guideline offers standardized, evidence-based pharmacologic recommendations for dementia management, with specific guidance on cholinesterase inhibitors and NMDA receptor antagonists. It aims to support clinical decision-making and improve patient outcomes in dementia care. Further updates will address emerging treatments, including amyloid-targeting therapies, to reflect advances in dementia management.

Background/Aims: The Korean guidelines for Helicobacter pylori treatment were revised in 2020, however, the extent of adherence to these guidelines in clinical practice remains unclear. Herein, we initiated a prospective, nationwide, multicenter registry study in 2021 to evaluate the current management of H.pylori infection in Korea. Methods: This interim report describes the adherence to the revised guidelines and their impact on firstline eradication rates. Data on patient demographics, diagnoses, treatments, and eradication outcomes were collected using a web-based electronic case report form. Results: A total of 7,261 patients from 66 hospitals who received first-line treatment were analyzed.The modified intention-to-treat eradication rate for first-line treatment was 81.0%, with 80.4% of the prescriptions adhering to the revised guidelines. The most commonly prescribed regimen was the 14-day clarithromycin-based triple therapy (CTT; 42.0%), followed by tailored therapy (TT; 21.2%), 7-day CTT (14.1%), and 10-day concomitant therapy (CT; 10.1%). Time-trend analysis demonstrated significant increases in guideline adherence and the use of 10-day CT and TT, along with a decrease in the use of 7-day CTT (all p<0.001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that guideline adherence was significantly associated with first-line eradication success (odds ratio, 2.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.61 to 2.56; p<0.001). Conclusions The revised guidelines for the treatment of H. pylori infection have been increasingly adopted in routine clinical practice in Korea, which may have contributed to improved first-line eradication rates. Notably, the 14-day CTT, 10-day CT, and TT regimens are emerging as the preferred first-line treatment options among Korean physicians.

Purpose: To investigate whether using a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for the second time (2nd_CGM) would be effective after using it for the first time (1st_CGM), depending on age. Materials and Methods: This study included patients aged ≥40 years who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and had used a CGM at least twice between 2017 and 2021. Participants were divided into two groups based on their age: those aged <60 years and those aged ≥60 years. We assessed the glycemic control status of the 1st_CGM and 2nd_CGM, along with the glycemic variability. Results: Overall, 15 patients were included in the study. The mean glucose level in users aged <60 years significantly decreased (p<0.001) owing to the CGM use, while it did not increase in those aged ≥60 years. In users aged ≥60 years, the 1st_CGM group showed a significant decrease in blood glucose levels over time (p<0.05), whereas the 2nd_CGM group only showed a non-significant decreasing trend. The time in range tended to increase in those aged <60 years but decreased in those aged ≥60 years. In those aged <60 years, the mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (p<0.001), standard deviation (p<0.05), and coefficient of variation (p<0.001) significantly decreased. In those aged ≥60 years, these parameters exhibited a non-significant decreasing trend. Conclusion Glycemic effect and variability improved as expected with 1st_CGM use. However, 2nd_CGM did not significantly improve glycemic effect or variability in users aged ≥60 years, contrary to expectations. To address this issue, further investigation is needed to understand why, compared to 1st_CGM, 2nd_CGM fails to achieve better glycemic control in individuals aged ≥60 years.

Objective: This study examined the up-to-date facts from real cases of emergency medical litigations to provide information to act appropriately in medical lawsuits against emergency medicine specialists. Methods: Data were collected from lawsuits from 2008 to 2020. Thirty-nine cases were collected and analyzed retrospectively. Six emergency medicine specialists and one resident with a lawyer’s license participated in the analysis. Results: Medical litigations have surged since 2015. The lawsuits were due mainly to misdiagnoses and violations of the duty to explain. Medical staff won in 12 (38.7%) cases and lost in 19 (61.3%). The main reason for losing was a violation of the duty of care. In criminal claims, 50% of cases resulted in confinement. The win rate was 1.4 times higher in cases where consultation was requested from other specialties (42.9% and 29.4% win with consultation and without, respectively). Conclusion The win rate in lawsuits is decreasing, and the level of penalty is becoming more severe. The decrease in the violation of duty to explain was attributed to education through the years. The win rate was higher when consulting with other specialists. Hence, active consultation is recommended. In addition, the system of radiology interpretation requires improvement because of the many misdiagnoses from reading diagnostic images.