Search

The goal of the 8th edition of the Clinical Practice Guidelines for Obesity is to help primary care physician provide safe, effective care to patients with obesity by offering evidence-based recommendations to improve the quality of treatment. The Committee for Clinical Practice Guidelines comprised individuals with multidisciplinary expertise in obesity management. A steering board of seven experts oversaw the entire project. Recommendations were developed as the answers to key questions formulated in patient/problem, intervention, comparison, outcomes (PICO) format. Guidelines underwent multi-level review and cross-checking and received endorsement from relevant scientific societies. This edition of the guidelines includes criteria for diagnosing obesity, abdominal obesity, and metabolic syndrome; evaluation of obesity and its complications; weight loss goals; and treatment options such as diet, exercise, behavioral therapy, pharmacotherapy, and bariatric and metabolic surgery for Korean people with obesity. Compared to the previous edition of the guidelines, the current edition includes five new topics to keep up with the constantly evolving field of obesity: diagnosis of obesity, obesity in women, obesity in patients with mental illness, weight maintenance after weight loss, and the use of information and communication technology-based interventions for obesity treatment. This edition of the guidelines features has improved organization, more clearly linking key questions in PICO format to recommendations and key references. We are confident that these new Clinical Practice Guidelines for Obesity will be a valuable resource for all healthcare professionals as they describe the most current and evidence-based treatment options for obesity in a well-organized format.

Carbohydrate-restricted diets and intermittent fasting (IF) have been rapidly gaining interest among the general population and patients with cardiometabolic disease, such as overweight or obesity, diabetes, and hypertension. However, there are limited expert recommendations for these dietary regimens. This study aimed to evaluate the level of scientific evidence on the benefits and harms of carbohydrate-restricted diets and IF to make responsible recommendations. A meta-analysis and systematic literature review of 66 articles on 50 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of carbohydrate-restricted diets and 10 articles on eight RCTs of IF was performed. Based on the analysis, the following recommendations are suggested. In adults with overweight or obesity, a moderately-low carbohydrate or low carbohydrate diet (mLCD) can be considered as a dietary regimen for weight reduction. In adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus, mLCD can be considered as a dietary regimen for improving glycemic control and reducing body weight. In contrast, a very-low carbohydrate diet (VLCD) and IF are recommended against in patients with diabetes. Furthermore, no recommendations are suggested for VLCD and IF in adults with overweight or obesity, and carbohydrate-restricted diets and IF in patients with hypertension. Here, we describe the results of our analysis and the evidence for these recommendations.

The Committee of Clinical Practice Guidelines of the Korean Diabetes Association (KDA) updated the previous clinical practice guidelines for Korean adults with diabetes and prediabetes and published the seventh edition in May 2021. We performed a comprehensive systematic review of recent clinical trials and evidence that could be applicable in real-world practice and suitable for the Korean population. The guideline is provided for all healthcare providers including physicians, diabetes experts, and certified diabetes educators across the country who manage patients with diabetes or the individuals at the risk of developing diabetes mellitus. The recommendations for screening diabetes and glucose-lowering agents have been revised and updated. New sections for continuous glucose monitoring, insulin pump use, and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in patients with diabetes mellitus have been added. The KDA recommends active vaccination for coronavirus disease 2019 in patients with diabetes during the pandemic. An abridgement that contains practical information for patient education and systematic management in the clinic was published separately.

Obesity is a prevalent and complex disease. The prevalence of obesity in Korea increased from 29.7% in 2010 to 35.7% in 2018, with the prevalence of abdominal obesity being 23.8% in 2018. Obesity contributes to medical costs and socioeconomic burden due to associated comorbidities. The treatment and management of obesity is changing based on new clinical evidence. The 2020 Korean Society for the Study of Obesity Guideline for the Management of Obesity in Korea summarizes evidence-based recommendations and treatment guidelines.

Obesity is a serious and growing worldwide health challenge associated with type 2 diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular disease, osteoarthritis, some cancers, sleep apnea, asthma, and nonalcoholic fatty liver. The Korean Society for the Study of Obesity recommends that pharmacotherapy should be considered when intensive lifestyle modifications fail to achieve a weight reduction in obese patients with a body mass index ≥25 kg/m². Long-term medications for obesity have traditionally fallen into two major categories: centrally acting anorexiant medications and peripherally acting medications, such as orlistat. In this paper, we provide an overview of the anti-obesity medications currently available for the long-term and individualized treatment of obesity.

The safety of metformin use for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and advanced kidney disease is controversial, and more recent guidelines have suggested that metformin be used cautiously in this group until more definitive evidence concerning its safety is available. The Korean Diabetes Association and the Korean Society of Nephrology have agreed on consensus statements concerning metformin use for patients with T2DM and renal dysfunction, particularly when these patients undergo imaging studies using iodinated contrast media (ICM). Metformin can be used safely when the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) is ≥ 45 mL/min/1.73 m2. If the eGFR is between 30 and 44 mL/min/1.73 m2, metformin treatment should not be started. If metformin is already in use, a daily dose of ≤ 1,000 mg is recommended. Metformin is contraindicated when the eGFR is < 30 mL/min/1.73 m2. Renal function should be evaluated prior to any ICM-related procedures. During procedures involving intravenous administration of ICM, metformin should be discontinued starting the day of the procedures and up to 48 hours post-procedures if the eGFR is < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2.

Purpose: To provide updated evidence-based recommendations for the evaluation and treatment of primary and secondary headaches in pregnancy and postpartum.Target Population: Pregnant and postpartum patients with a history of or experiencing primary or new secondary headaches.Methods: This guideline was developed using an a priori protocol in conjunction with a writing team consisting of two specialists in obstetrics and gynecology appointed by the ACOG Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines-Obstetrics and one external subject matter expert. ACOG medical librarians completed a comprehensive literature search for primary literature within Cochrane Library, Cochrane Collaboration Registry of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, PubMed, and MEDLINE. Studies that moved forward to the full-text screening stage were assessed by two authors from the writing team based on standardized inclusion and exclusion criteria. Included studies underwent quality assessment, and a modified GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) evidence-to-decision framework was applied to interpret and translate the evidence into recommendation statements.Recommendations: This Clinical Practice Guideline includes recommendations on interventions to prevent primary headache in individuals who are pregnant or attempting to become pregnant, postpartum, or breastfeeding; evaluation for symptomatic patients presenting with primary and secondary headaches during pregnancy; and treatment options for primary and secondary headaches during pregnancy and lactation. Recommendations are classified by strength and evidence quality. Ungraded Good Practice Points are included to provide guidance when a formal recommendation could not be made because of inadequate or nonexistent evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To provide updated evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis.Target Population: Postmenopausal patients with primary osteoporosis.Methods: This guideline was developed using an a priori protocol in conjunction with a writing team consisting of two specialists in obstetrics and gynecology appointed by the ACOG Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines-Gynecology and one external subject matter expert. ACOG medical librarians completed a comprehensive literature search for primary literature within Cochrane Library, Cochrane Collaboration Registry of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, PubMed, and MEDLINE. Studies that moved forward to the full-text screening stage were assessed by two authors from the writing team based on standardized inclusion and exclusion criteria. Included studies underwent quality assessment, and a modified GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) evidence-to-decision framework was applied to interpret and translate the evidence into recommendation statements.Recommendations: This Clinical Practice Guideline includes updated recommendations on who should receive osteoporosis pharmacotherapy, the benefits and risks of available pharmacotherapy options, treatment monitoring and follow-up, and the role of calcium and vitamin D in the management of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Recommendations are classified by strength and evidence quality. Ungraded Good Practice Points are included to provide guidance when a formal recommendation could not be made because of inadequate or nonexistent evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To provide updated evidence-based recommendations for the prevention, screening, and diagnosis of postmenopausal osteoporosis.Target Population: Postmenopausal patients without identified risk factors for fracture, low bone mineral density, or secondary osteoporosis related to medication or a medical condition.Methods: This guideline was developed using an a priori protocol in conjunction with a writing team consisting of two specialists in obstetrics and gynecology appointed by the ACOG Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines-Gynecology and one external subject matter expert. ACOG medical librarians completed a comprehensive literature search for primary literature within the Cochrane Library, Cochrane Collaboration Registry of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, PubMed, and MEDLINE. Studies that moved forward to the full-text screening stage were assessed by two authors from the writing team on the basis of standardized inclusion and exclusion criteria. Included studies underwent quality assessment, and a modified GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations) evidence-to-decision framework was applied to interpret and translate the evidence into recommendation statements.Recommendations: This Clinical Practice Guideline includes updated recommendations on the role of exercise, calcium, and vitamin D in osteoporosis prevention; osteoporosis screening and diagnosis; rescreening intervals; and interventions to prevent falls. Recommendations are classified by strength and evidence quality. Ungraded Good Practice Points are included to provide guidance when a formal recommendation could not be made because of inadequate or nonexistent evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To assist women and their physicians in making decisions regarding the prevention of breast cancer with tamoxifen and raloxifene.Evidence: Systematic review of English-language literature published from 1966 to August 2000 retrieved from MEDLINE, HealthSTAR, Current Contents and Cochrane Library.Values: The strength of evidence was evaluated using the methods of the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care and the Steering Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Care and Treatment of Breast Cancer.Recommendations: Women at low or normal risk of breast cancer (Gail risk assessment index < 1.66% at 5 years): There is fair evidence to recommend against the use of tamoxifen to reduce the risk of breast cancer in women at low or normal risk of the disease (grade D recommendation). Women at higher risk of breast cancer (Gail index > or = 1.66% at 5 years): Evidence supports counselling women at high risk on the potential benefits and harms of breast cancer prevention with tamoxifen (grade B recommendation). The cutoff for defining high risk is arbitrary, but the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project P-1 Study included women with a 5-year projected risk of at least 1.66% according to the Gail index, and the average risk of patients entered in the trial was 3.2%. Examples of high-risk clinical situations are 2 first-degree relatives with breast cancer, a history of lobular carcinoma in situ or a history of atypical hyperplasia. As the risk of breast cancer increases above 5% and the benefits outweigh the harms, a woman may choose to take tamoxifen. The duration of tamoxifen use in such situations is 5 years based on the results from trials of tamoxifen involving women with early breast cancer. If a woman raises concerns or has already been evaluated and is calculated to be at high risk, then individuals experienced and skilled in counselling may discuss the potential benefits and harms of tamoxifen use. Important additional issues: Prevention of breast cancer with raloxifene: Current evidence does not support recommending chemoprevention of breast cancer with raloxifene outside of a clinical trial setting. Screening using the Gail risk assessment index: This index was the main eligibility criterion for enrolling women in the one study that showed potential benefit from chemoprevention. However, it has not been evaluated for use as a routine screening or case-finding instrument; validation of the index is required. Overall, current evidence does not support a shift to its routine use in physicians' offices for screening or case finding. However, when a woman or her physician is concerned about the woman's increased risk of breast cancer, the index can be a useful tool in deciding whether to pursue an in-depth discussion of the potential benefits and harms of chemoprevention. Hence, the approach to identifying women at higher risk who warrant counselling and shared decision-making will vary across practices. (The risk assessment index is available online at http://bcra.nci.nih.gov/brc/). [A patient version of these guidelines appears in Appendix 2.]Validation: The authors' original text was revised by both the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care and the Steering Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Care and Treatment of Breast Cancer. The final document reflects a consensus of these contributors.Sponsor: Health Canada. COMPLETION DATE: February 2001. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To define the optimal treatment for women with stage III or locally advanced breast cancer (LABC).Evidence: Systematic review of English-language literature retrieved from MEDLINE (1984 to June 2002) and CANCERLIT (1983 to June 2002). A nonsystematic review of the literature was continued through December 2003.Recommendations: The management of LABC requires a combined modality treatment approach involving surgery, radiotherapy and systemic therapy. Systemic therapy: chemotherapy. Operable tumours. Patients with operable stage IIIA disease should be offered chemotherapy. They should receive adjuvant chemotherapy following surgery, or primary chemotherapy followed by locoregional management. Chemotherapy should contain an anthracycline. Acceptable regimens are 6 cycles of FAC, CAF, CEF or FEC. Taxanes are under intense investigation. Inoperable tumours. Patients with stage IIIB or IIIC disease, including those with inflammatory breast cancer and those with isolated ipsilateral internal mammary or supraclavicular lymph-node involvement, should be treated with primary anthracycline-based chemotherapy. Acceptable chemotherapy regimens are FAC, CAF, CEF or FEC. Taxanes are under intense investigation. Patients with stage IIIB or IIIC disease who respond to primary chemotherapy should be treated until the response plateaus or to a maximum of 6 cycles (minimum 4 cycles). Patients with stage IIIB disease should then undergo definitive surgery and irradiation. The locoregional management of patients with stage IIIC disease who respond to chemotherapy should be individualized. In patients with stage IIIB or IIIC disease who achieve maximum response with fewer than 6 cycles, further adjuvant chemotherapy can be given following surgery and irradiation. Patients whose tumours do not respond to primary chemotherapy can be treated with taxane chemotherapy or can proceed directly to irradiation followed by modified radical mastectomy, if feasible. Systemic therapy: hormonal therapy. Operable and inoperable tumours. Tamoxifen for 5 years should be recommended to pre- and postmenopausal women whose tumours are hormone responsive. Locoregional management. Operable tumours. Patients with stage IIIA disease should receive both modified radical mastectomy (MRM) and locoregional radiotherapy if feasible. They may be managed with MRM followed by chemotherapy and locoregional radiotherapy, or chemotherapy first followed by MRM and locoregional radiotherapy. Breast-conserving surgery is currently not a standard approach. Locoregional radiotherapy should be delivered to the chest wall and to the supraclavicular and axillary nodes. The role of internal mammary irradiation is unclear. Inoperable tumours. Patients with stage IIIB disease who respond to chemotherapy should receive surgery plus locoregional radiotherapy. The locoregional management of patients with stage IIIC disease who respond to chemotherapy is unclear and should be individualized. Patients whose disease remains inoperable following chemotherapy should receive locoregional radiotherapy with subsequent surgery, if feasible.Validation: The authors' original text was revised by members of the Steering Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Care and Treatment of Breast Cancer. Subsequently, feedback was provided by 9 oncologists from across Canada. The final document was approved by the steering committee.Sponsor: The Steering Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Care and Treatment of Breast Cancer was convened by Health Canada. Completion date: December 2003. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To provide information and recommendations to women with a previous diagnosis of breast cancer and their physicians regarding hormone replacement therapy (HRT).Outcomes: Control of menopausal symptoms, quality of life, prevention of osteoporosis, prevention of cardiovascular disease, risk of recurrence of breast cancer, risk of death from breast cancer.Evidence: Systematic review of English-language literature published from January 1990 to July 2001 retrieved from MEDLINE and CANCERLIT.Recommendations: * Routine use of HRT (either estrogen alone or estrogen plus progesterone) is not recommended for women who have had breast cancer. Randomized controlled trials are required to guide recommendations for this group of women. Women who have had breast cancer are at risk of recurrence and contralateral breast cancer. The potential effect of HRT on these outcomes in women with breast cancer has not been determined in methodologically sound studies. However, in animal and in vitro studies, the development and growth of breast cancer is known to be estrogen dependent. Given the demonstrated increased risk of breast cancer associated with HRT in women without a diagnosis of breast cancer, it is possible that the risk of recurrence and contralateral breast cancer associated with HRT in women with breast cancer could be of a similar magnitude. * Postmenopausal women with a previous diagnosis of breast cancer who request HRT should be encouraged to consider alternatives to HRT. If menopausal symptoms are particularly troublesome and do not respond to alternative approaches, a well-informed woman may choose to use HRT to control these symptoms after discussing the risks with her physician. In these circumstances, both the dose and the duration of treatment should be minimized.Validation: Internal validation within the Steering Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Care and Treatment of Breast Cancer; no external validation.Sponsor: The steering committee was convened by Health Canada. COMPLETION DATE: October 2001. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: We provided diagnostic and therapeutic strategies for Meniere's disease in accordance with Japanese Clinical Practice Guideline of Meniere's disease and delayed endolymphatic hydrops 2nd ed. Tokyo: Kanehara Shuppan; 2020 edited by the Japan Society for Equilibrium Research.Methods: The Committee for Clinical Practice Guidelines was entrusted with a review of the scientific literature on the above topic. Clinical Questions (CQs) concerning the treatment for Meniere's disease were produced, and the literature according to each of them including CQ was searched. The recommendations are based on the literature review and the expert opinion of a subcommittee.Results: Diagnosis criteria of Meniere's disease are classified into Meniere's disease with typical cochlear and vestibular symptoms, and atypical Meniere's disease with either cochlear symptoms or vestibular symptoms. Treatment of Meniere's disease was composed of lifestyle changes, medications such as anti-vertigo drugs and diuretics, middle ear positive pressure treatment, and selective destruction of the vestibule.Conclusion: Meniere's disease is diagnosed based on clinical histories and examination findings after processes of differential diagnosis. Treatment option of the disease should be selected in order of invasiveness, according to the severity of the disease and the response to each treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Echinocandins are frequent use antifungals in the treatment of invasive candidiasis, and it is important to update information on their efficacy and safety for optimal antifungal drug treatment. The aim of this study is to clarify whether echinocandins are superior to non-echinocandins for the treatment of invasive candidiasis., Methods: We conducted a meta-analysis of RCTs of echinocandins and non-echinocandins for adult invasive candidiasis. The MEDLINE, Web of Sciences, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases before June 2019 were used. The risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel method random-effects model., Results: We identified 14,846 articles and screened, and five studies were included meta-analysis. The treatment success ratio for echinocandins was significantly higher than that for non-echinocandins (RR = 1.14, 95% CI 1.06-1.22, p = 0.0003). In regard to adverse events, there was no significant difference between the two treatment groups. A subgroup analysis showed that the treatment success ratio for echinocandins was significantly higher than that for azoles (RR = 1.20, 1.08-1.34, p = 0.001), whereas no significant differences were observed between echinocandins and polyenes. In safety analysis, the incidence ratio of electrolyte disorder (RR = 0.50, 0.33-0.76, p = 0.001), renal disorder (RR = 0.19, 0.09-0.40, p < 0.0001), and fever (RR = 0.46, 0.23-0.93, p = 0.03) were significantly lower in patients receiving echinocandins than in those receiving polyenes., Conclusions: This meta-analysis based on RCTs was first to show that use of echinocandins was associated with improved clinical success. Echinocandins may be useful as a first-line drug for invasive candidiasis., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest ST, SO, YI, YW, XL, YE, KT, TM, YM, and KM report no conflicts of interest. YT received research grants from Dainippon Sumitomo Pharm Co., Ltd., Astellas Pharm, Inc., and MSD Japan., (Copyright © 2020 Japanese Society of Chemotherapy and The Japanese Association for Infectious Diseases. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Because exclusive use of echinocandins can induce the drug-resistant strains, appropriate use of azoles and polyenes is still necessary in the treatment of candidemia. In this study, we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials regarding the efficacy and safety of azole and polyene antifungals in the treatment of candidemia. MEDLINE and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials were used as reference databases, and papers published up to June 10, 2019 were searched. The search results were carefully scrutinized, duplicate references were removed, and the study was ultimately carried out using three reports. Among azole antifungals, fluconazole and voriconazole were extracted, however; only conventional amphotericin B (AMPH-B) was extracted among polyene antifungals. Treatment successes with the use of azoles and AMPH-B were compared, and findings showed that AMPH-B was significantly superior (RR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.82-1.00, p = 0.04). However, there was no significant difference in mortality (RR = 0.87, 95% CI 0.72-1.07, p = 0.19). Analysis of adverse events showed that renal disorders were significantly less common with azoles than with AMPH-B (RR = 0.26, 95% CI 0.10-0.68, p = 0.006). In conclusion, AMPH-B were superior to azoles in terms of efficacy, but had a risk of causing renal disorders., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest ST, SO, YI, YW, XL, YE, KT, TM, YM, and KM report no conflicts of interest. YT received research grants from Dainippon Sumitomo Pharm Co., Ltd., Astellas Pharm, Inc., and MSD Japan., (Copyright © 2020 Japanese Society of Chemotherapy and The Japanese Association for Infectious Diseases. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Empirical antifungal therapy is recommended in high-risk patients who have persistent febrile neutropenia (FN) despite broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy. Based on high-quality evidence, most guidelines recommend caspofungin. The aim of this study was to clarify whether echinocandins, including micafungin, are associated with improved clinical outcomes in patients with persistent FN. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of empirical therapy with echinocandins and non-echinocandins for FN in patients with hematological disease. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality within 7 days after completion of therapy. Secondary outcomes included treatment success, and discontinuation of therapy because of adverse events. For subgroup analysis, we compared RCTs of echinocandins with liposomal amphotericin B. Six RCTs (four that evaluated caspofungin and two that evaluated micafungin) were included in the meta-analysis. Mortality and adverse events in echinocandin-treated patients were significantly lower than in those treated with non-echinocandins [risk ratio (RR) 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49-0.99; RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.33-0.71, respectively]. There was no significant difference in treatment success (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.87-1.36). Mortality and adverse events in echinocandin-treated patients were significantly lower than in those treated with liposomal amphotericin B (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.46-0.99; RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.37-0.74, respectively). In conclusion, patients with persistent FN treated with echinocandins had decreased risk of death and adverse events. Both caspofungin and micafungin may be recommended as first-line empirical antifungal therapy in these patients. However, the small number of enrolled patients and the lack of RCTs involving pediatric patients should be considered when using micafungin., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Y. Takesue has received grant support from Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma Co. Ltd. and payment for lectures from Astellas Pharma Inc., and MSD Japan. K. Matsumoto received grant support from Meiji Seika Pharma. T. Miyazaki has received grants from Pfizer and MSD Japan and lecture honoraria from Pfizer Japan Inc., MSD Japan, Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma Co. Ltd. and Astellas Pharma Inc. K. Izumikawa has received grant support from Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma Co., Ltd., Astellas Pharma Inc., Pfizer Japan Inc. and payment for lectures from MSD Japan, Pfizer Japan Inc., Astellas Pharma Inc. and Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma Co., Ltd. Y. Miyazaki has received payment for lectures from Astellas Pharma Inc., Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma Co. Ltd. and MSD Japan. T Mayumi has received research grants from Asahi Kasei Pharma Co. and joint research funding from Roche Diagnostics K.K. Other authors have no conflict of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2020 Japanese Society of Chemotherapy and The Japanese Association for Infectious Diseases. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)