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: and Purpose Previous research on patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) has shown a 0.5% incidence of major gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) requiring blood transfusion during hospitalization. The existing literature has insufficiently explored the long-term incidence in this population despite the decremental impact of GIB on stroke outcomes. Methods: We analyzed the data from a cohort of patients with AIS admitted to 14 hospitals as part of a nationwide multicenter prospective stroke registry between 2011 and 2013. These patients were followed up for up to 6 years. The occurrence of major GIB events, defined as GIB necessitating at least two units of blood transfusion, was tracked using the National Health Insurance Service claims data. Results: Among 10,818 patients with AIS (male, 59%; mean age, 68±13 years), 947 (8.8%) experienced 1,224 episodes of major GIB over a median follow-up duration of 3.1 years. Remarkably, 20% of 947 patients experienced multiple episodes of major GIB. The incidence peaked in the first month after AIS, reaching 19.2 per 100 person-years, and gradually decreased to approximately one-sixth of this rate by the 2nd year with subsequent stabilization. Multivariable analysis identified the following predictors of major GIB: anemia, estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 , and a 3-month modified Rankin Scale score of ≥4. Conclusion Patients with AIS are susceptible to major GIB, particularly in the first month after the onset of AIS, with the risk decreasing thereafter. Implementing preventive strategies may be important, especially for patients with anemia and impaired renal function at stroke onset and those with a disabling stroke.

Background: The novel sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor enavogliflozin effectively lowers glycosylated hemoglobin levels and body weights without the increased risk of serious adverse events; however, the long-term clinical benefits of enavogliflozin in terms of cardiovascular and renal outcomes have not been investigated. Methods: This study is an investigator-initiated, multicenter, randomized, pragmatic, open-label, active-controlled, non-inferiority trial. Eligible participants are adults (aged ≥19 years) with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) who have a history of, or are at risk of, cardiovascular disease. A total of 2,862 participants will be randomly assigned to receive either enavogliflozin or other SGLT2 inhibitors with proven cardiorenal benefits, such as dapagliflozin or empagliflozin. The primary endpoint is the time to the first occurrence of a composite of major adverse cardiovascular or renal events (Clinical Research Information Service registration number: KCT0009243). Conclusion This trial will determine whether enavogliflozin is non-inferior to dapagliflozin or empagliflozin in terms of cardiorenal outcomes in patients with T2DM and cardiovascular risk factors. This study will elucidate the role of enavogliflozin in preventing vascular complications in patients with T2DM.

The Korean Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Committee within the Korean Society of Surgical Metabolism and Nutrition was established to develop ERAS guidelines tailored to the Korean context. This guideline focuses on creating the most current evidence-based practice guidelines for ERAS purposes, based on systematic reviews. All key questions targeted randomized controlled trials exclusively, and if fewer than 2 were available, studies employing propensity score matching were also included. Recommendations for each key question were marked with strength of recommendation and level of evidence following internal and external review processes by the committee.

Purpose: The Korean Cancer Study Group (KCSG) is a nationwide cancer clinical trial group dedicated to advancing investigator-initiated trials (IITs) by conducting and supporting clinical trials. This study aims to review IITs conducted by KCSG and quantitatively evaluate the survival and financial benefits of IITs for patients. Materials and Methods: We reviewed IITs conducted by KCSG from 1998 to 2023, analyzing progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) gains for participants. PFS and OS benefits were calculated as the difference in median survival times between the intervention and control groups, multiplied by the number of patients in the intervention group. Financial benefits were assessed based on the cost of investigational products provided. Results: From 1998 to 2023, KCSG conducted 310 IITs, with 133 completed and published. Of these, 21 were included in the survival analysis. The analysis revealed that 1,951 patients in the intervention groups gained a total of 2,558.4 months (213.2 years) of PFS and 2,501.6 months (208.5 years) of OS, with median gains of 1.31 months in PFS and 1.58 months in OS per patient. When analyzing only statistically significant results, PFS and OS gain per patients was 1.69 months and 3.02 months, respectively. Investigational drug cost analysis from six available IITs indicated that investigational products provided to 252 patients were valued at 10,400,077,294 won (approximately 8,046,481 US dollars), averaging about 41,270,148 won (approximately 31,930 US dollars) per patient. Conclusion Our findings, based on analysis of published research, suggest that IITs conducted by KCSG led to survival benefits for participants and, in some studies, may have provided financial benefits by providing investment drugs.

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.

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.