The Socialist Camp's North Korean Medical Support and Exchange (1945–1958): Between Learning from the Soviet Union and Independent Course / 의사학

This study focused on the socialist camp's North Korean medical support and its effects on North Korean medical field from liberation to 1958. Except for the Soviet assistance from liberation to the Korean War, existing studies mainly have paid attention to the ‘autonomous’ growth of the North Korean medical field. The studies on the medical support of the Eastern European countries during the Korean War have only focused on one-sided support and neglected the interactions with the North Korean medical field. Failing in utilizing the materials produced in North Korea has led to the omission of detailed circumstances of providing support. Since the review of China's support and the North Korea-China medical exchanges has been concentrated in the period after the mid-1950s, the impacts of China's medical support on North Korea during the Korean War period and the post-war recovery period have not been taken into account. In terms of these limitations, this study examined the medical activities by the Socialist camp of the Eastern European countries in North Korea after the Korean War. The medical aid teams from Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, and East Germany that came to North Korea in the wake of the Korean War continued to stay in North Korea after the war to build hospitals and train medical personnel. In the hospitals operated by these countries, cooperative medical care with North Korean medical personnel and medical technology education were conducted. Moreover, medical teams from each country in North Korea held seminars and conferences and exchanged knowledge with the North Korean medical field staffs. These activities by the Socialist countries in North Korea provided the North Korean medical personnel with the opportunity to directly experience the medical technology of each country. China's support was crucial to North Korea's ‘rediscovery’ of Korean medicine in the mid-1950s. After the Korean War, North Korea began to apply the Chinese-Western medicine integration policy, which was performed in China at that time, to the North Korean health care field through China's medical support and exchanges. In other words, China's emphasis on Chinese medicine and the integration of the Chinese-Western medicine were presented as one of the directions for medical development of North Korea in the 1950s, and the experiences of China in this process convinced North Korea that Korean medicine policy was appropriate. The decision-makers of the North Korean medical policies, who returned to North Korea after studying abroad in China at that time, actively introduced the experiences from China and constantly sought to learn about them. This study identified that a variety of external stimuli had complex impacts on the North Korean medical field in the gap between ‘Soviet learning’ in the late 1940s and the ‘autonomous’ medical development since the 1960s. The North Korean medical field was formed not by the unilateral or dominant influences of a single nation but by the stimulation from many nations and the various interactions in the process.

Safety of reduced dose of mycophenolate mofetil combined with tacrolimus in living-donor liver transplantation

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The dose of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) has been reduced in Asia due to side effects associated with the conventional fixed dose of 2-3 g/day. We aimed to determine the pharmacokinetics of a reduced dose of MMF and to validate its feasibility in combination with tacrolimus in living-donor liver transplantation (LDLT). METHODS: Two sequential studies were performed in adult LDLT between October 2009 and 2011. First, we performed a prospective pharmacokinetic study in 15 recipients. We measured the area under the curve from 0 to 12 hours (AUC0-12) for mycophenolic acid at postoperative days 7 and 14, and we performed a protocol biopsy before discharge. Second, among 215 recipients, we reviewed 74 patients who were initially administered a reduced dose of MMF (1.0 g/day) with tacrolimus (trough, 8-12 ng/mL during the first month, and 5-8 ng/mL thereafter), with a 1-year follow-up. We performed protocol biopsies at 2 weeks and 1 year post-LDLT. RESULTS: In the first part of study, AUC0-12 was less than 30 mgh/L in 93.3% of cases. In the second, validating study, 41.9% of the recipients needed dose reduction or cessation due to side effects within the first year after LDLT. At 12 months post-LDLT, 17.6% of the recipients were administered a lower dose of MMF (0.5 g/day), and 16.2% needed permanent cessation due to side effects. The 1- and 12-month rejection-free survival rates were 98.6% and 97.3%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A reduced dose of MMF was associated with low blood levels compared to the existing recommended therapeutic range. However, reducing the dose of MMF combined with a low level of tacrolimus was feasible clinically, with an excellent short-term outcome in LDLT.