Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

Purpose: Mutations in the PIK3CA gene occur frequently in breast cancer patients. Activating PIK3CA mutations confer resistance to human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-targeted treatments. In this study, we investigated whether PIK3CA mutations were correlated with treatment response or duration in patients with HER2-positive (HER2+) breast cancer. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical information of patients with HER2+ breast cancer who received HER2-targeted therapy for early-stage or metastatic cancers. The pathologic complete response (pCR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival were compared between patients with wild-type PIK3CA (PIK3CAw) and those with mutated PIK3CA (PIK3CAm). Next-generation sequencing was combined with examination of PFS associated with anti-HER2 monoclonal antibody (mAb) treatment. Results: Data from 90 patients with HER2+ breast cancer were analyzed. Overall, 34 (37.8%) patients had pathogenic PIK3CA mutations. The pCR rate of the PIK3CAm group was lower than that of the PIK3CAw group among patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy for early-stage cancer. In the metastatic setting, the PIK3CAm group showed a significantly shorter mean PFS (mPFS) with first-line anti-HER2 mAb. The mPFS of second-line T-DM1 was lower in the PIK3CAm group than that in the PIK3CAw group. Sequencing revealed differences in the mutational landscape between PIK3CAm and PIK3CAw tumors. Conclusion Patients with HER2+ breast cancer with activating PIK3CA mutations had lower pCR rates and shorter PFS with palliative HER2-targeted therapy than those with wild-type PIK3CA. Precise targeted-therapy is needed to improve survival of patients with HER2+/PIK3CAm breast cancer.

Purpose: An increasing number of patients with cancers are interested in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), which lacks scientific evidence. This study aimed to determine how CAM was used and how media affected patients in online cancer support groups (OCSG). Materials and Methods: Between August 18 and September 12, 2021, an online survey was conducted among the members of OCSG. The survey consisted of five parts: baseline characteristics, attitudes toward and experience with CAM, source of information and reliabilities, experience with anthelmintics, and online health information literacy and usage. Results: Among the 644 responders, a total of 221 patients with cancer completed the survey, and 78.2% (173/221) used CAM. The users’ median age was 52 years; 46.8% were males, and 43.9% had metastatic disease. Fifty-three CAM users (30.6%) discussed their physicians about CAM. In addition, 16.2% (28/173) of CAM users had the experience of anthelmintics. The use of anthelmintics in patients with cancers was associated with younger age (odds ratio [OR], 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.84 to 0.95), metastatic disease (OR, 10.88; 95% CI, 3.39 to 34.86), previous exposure to CAM information (OR, 5.57; 95% CI, 1.01 to 30.72), experience with more types of CAM (OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.29 to 3.05), and side effects (OR, 5.10; 95% CI 1.46 to 17.75). Conclusion Use of anthelmintics, a CAM of which information is widespread online, is affected by several factors. This study will provide essential information for developing a CAM management strategy in this digital age.

Background/Aims: Cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF), as measured by maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max), is an important independent predictive factor of cardiovascular outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF). However, it is unclear whether conventional equations for estimating CRF are applicable to patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Methods: This study included 521 patients with HFpEF (EF ≥ 50%) whose CRF was directly measured by cardiopulmonary exercise test using a treadmill. We developed a new equation (Kor-HFpEF) for half of the patients in the HFpEF cohort (group A, n = 253) and validated it for the remaining half (group B, n = 268). The accuracy of the Kor-HFpEF equation was compared to that of the other equations in the validation group. Results: In the total HFpEF cohort, the directly measured VO2max was significantly overestimated by the FRIEND and ACSM equations (p < 0.001) and underestimated by the FRIEND-HF equation (p <0.001) (direct 21.2 ± 5.9 mL/kg/min; FRIEND 29.1 ± 11.8 mL/kg/min; ACSM 32.5 ± 13.4 mL/kg/min; FRIEND-HF 14.1 ± 4.9 mL/kg/min). However, the VO2max estimated by the Kor-HFpEF equation (21.3 ± 4.6 mL/kg/min) was similar to the directly measured VO2max (21.7 ± 5.9 mL/kg/min, p = 0.124), whereas the VO2max estimated by the other three equations was still significantly different from the directly measured VO2max in group B (all p < 0.001). Conclusions Traditional equations used to estimate VO2max were not applicable to patients with HFpEF. We developed and validated a new Kor-HFpEF equation for these patients, which had a high accuracy.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: The extract from Dendropanax morbifera exhibited diverse therapeutic potentials. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of D. morbifera leaf extract for improving metabolic parameters in human. SUBJECTS/METHODS: A 12-week, double blind, placebo-controlled and randomized trial included a total of 74 adults, and they were assigned to the placebo group (n = 38) or 700 mg/day of D. morbifera group (n = 36). The efficacy endpoints were changes in glycemic, lipid, obesity, and blood pressure (BP) parameters, in addition to the prevalence of metabolic syndrome (MetS) and the numbers of MetS components. Safety was assessed by monitoring adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: After 12 weeks of treatment, the hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level significantly decreased in the D. morbifera group compared to that of the placebo group (difference: −0.13 ± 0.20% vs. 0.00 ± 0.28%, P = 0.031; % of change: −2.27 ± 3.63% vs. 0.10 ± 5.10%, P = 0.025). The homeostatic model assessment for insulin resistance level also decreased significantly from its baseline in the D. morbifera group. The systolic BP of D. morbifera group decreased significantly than that of placebo group (difference: −3.9 ± 9.8 mmHg vs. 3.3 ± 11.7 mmHg, P = 0.005; % of change: −2.8 ± 7.7% vs. 3.3 ± 10.2%, P = 0.005). However, the lipid parameters and body composition including body weight did not differ between the groups. The prevalence of MetS (36.8% vs. 13.9%, P = 0.022) and the incidence of MetS (10.5% vs. 13.9%, P = 0.027) at 12 weeks was significantly lower in the D. morbifera group than it was in the placebo group. No serious AEs occurred in either group. CONCLUSIONS Supplementation with D. morbifera extracts over a 12-week period improved metabolic parameters such as HbA1c and BP and reduced the prevalence of MetS.

Purpose: Real-world experience with tocilizumab in combination with dexamethasone in patients with severe coronavirus disease (COVID-19) needs to be investigated. Materials and Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted to evaluate the effect of severity-adjusted dosing of dexamethasone in combination with tocilizumab for severe COVID-19 from August 2020 to August 2021. The primary endpoint was 30-day clinical recovery, which was defined as no oxygen requirement or referral after recovery. Results: A total of 66 patients were evaluated, including 33 patients in the dexamethasone (Dexa) group and 33 patients in the dexamethasone plus tocilizumab (DexaToci) group. The DexaToci group showed a statistically significant benefit in 30-day clinical recovery, compared to the Dexa group (p=0.024). In multivariable analyses, peak FiO2 within 3 days and tocilizumab combination were consistently significant for 30-day recovery (all p<0.05). The DexaToci group showed a significantly steeper decrease in FiO2 (-4.2±2.6) than the Dexa group (−2.7±2.6; p=0.021) by hospital day 15. The duration of oxygen requirement was significantly shorter in the DexaToci group than the Dexa group (median, 10.0 days vs. 17.0 days; p=0.006). Infectious complications and cellular and humoral immune responses against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in the convalescence stage were not different between the two groups. Conclusion A combination of severity-adjusted dexamethasone and tocilizumab for the treatment of severe COVID-19 improved clinical recovery without increasing infectious complications or hindering the immune response against SARS-CoV-2.