Comparison of consumption behaviors and development needs for the home meal replacement among Chinese college students studying abroad in Korea, Chinese college students in China, and Korean college students in Korea

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES@#The consumption of home meal replacement (HMR) is increasing among college students in Korea and China. In particular, Chinese college students studying abroad in Korea (CSK) show changes in their dietary behavior after migration, and HMR consumption for meal substitution is also increasing. This study was conducted to compare the HMR consumption behaviors and HMR development needs of CSK, Chinese college students in China (CSC), and Korean college students in Korea (KSK). @*SUBJECTS/METHODS@#The subjects were 570 college students (180 CSK, 200 CSC, and 190 KSK) who had experience of HMR consumption. Data were collected by face-to-face survey in 2019 and analyzed using SPSS 25.0. @*RESULTS@#The majority of the subjects purchased HMR to ‘saving time’ and ‘preventing meal skipping’. Average purchase price per HMR was about 5,000 won for the CSK and KSK, and about 3,000 won for the CSC. The most important attributes when selecting HMR for the CSK and CSC were hygiene, freshness, and taste in that order, while for the KSK were taste, price, and hygiene. Rice was preferred by the KSK while grilled and fried dishes were preferred by the CSK and CSC. In terms of development needs, dessert and meat-based side dishes were highest in all three groups. The preferred food materials for more than 50% of the subjects of all groups were beef, chicken, pork, shrimp, and squid, and spinach and Chinese cabbage in the CSK, and onion in the KSK. @*CONCLUSIONS@#This study shows more effort is needed to develop the healthy customized HMR for college students studying in Korea and China, and that focuses are placed by CSK on hygiene and freshness, by CSC on meat side dishes, hygiene, and price, and by KSK on snacks (as meal substitutes), taste, and price.

Comparison of tenofovir plus lamivudine versus tenofovir monotherapy in patients with lamivudine-resistant chronic hepatitis B

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) exhibits similar antiviral efficacy against treatment-naïve and lamivudine (LAM)-resistant chronic hepatitis B (CHB). However, there are few clinical reports on the antiviral effects of TDF-LAM combination therapy compared to TDF monotherapy in patients with LAM-resistant CHB. METHODS: We investigated the antiviral efficacy of TDF monotherapy vs. TDF-LAM combination therapy in 103 patients with LAM-resistant CHB. RESULTS: The study subjects were treated with TDF alone (n=40) or TDF-LAM combination therapy (n=63) for ≥6 months. The patients had previously been treated with TDF-based rescue therapy for a median of 30.0 months (range, 8-36 months). A virologic response (VR) was achieved in 99 patients (96.1%): 95.0% (38/40) of patients in the TDF monotherapy group and 96.8% (61/63) of patients in the TDF-LAM combination therapy group. The VR rates were not significantly different between the TDF monotherapy and TDF-LAM combination therapy groups (88.9 vs. 87.3% at month 12, and 94.4 vs. 93.7% at month 24, log-rank p=0.652). Univariate and multivariate analyses revealed that none of the pretreatment factors were significantly associated with VR. CONCLUSIONS: TDF monotherapy was as effective as TDF-LAM combination therapy for maintaining viral suppression in the vast majority of patients with LAM-resistant CHB, which suggests that TDF add-on therapy with LAM is unnecessary.

Gynecomastia induced by H1-antihistamine (ebastine) in a patient with idiopathic anaphylaxis

H1-antihistamine is generally a well-tolerated and safe drug. However, in resemblance with all other drugs, H1-antihistamines can also prompt adverse drug reactions (ADRs). We recently encountered the very unusual ADR of H1-antihistamine-induced gynecomastia. A 21-year-old man with idiopathic anaphylaxis was treated with ebastine (Ebastel), a second-generation H1-antihistamine, for the prevention of anaphylaxis. Three months later, the patient remained well without anaphylaxis, but had newly developed gynecomastia. Because anaphylaxis recurred after the cessation of H1-antihistamine, the preventive medication was changed to omalizumab. A few months later, his gynecomastia had entirely disappeared. Physicians should be aware of this exceptional ADR of H1-antihistamine.