Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

Background: Perioperative adverse cardiac events (PACE), a composite of myocardial infarction, coronary revascularization, congestive heart failure, arrhythmic attack, acute pulmonary embolism, cardiac arrest, and stroke during 30-day postoperative period, is associated with long-term mortality, but with limited clinical evidence. We compared long-term mortality with PACE using data from nationwide multicenter electronic health records. Methods: Data from 7 hospitals, converted to Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model, were used. We extracted records of 277,787 adult patients over 18 years old undergoing non-cardiac surgery for the first time at the hospital and had medical records for more than 180 days before surgery. We performed propensity score matching and then an aggregated meta‑analysis. Results: After 1:4 propensity score matching, 7,970 patients with PACE and 28,807 patients without PACE were matched. The meta‑analysis showed that PACE was associated with higher one-year mortality risk (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.33, 95% CI [1.10, 1.60], P = 0.005) and higher three-year mortality (HR: 1.18, 95% CI [1.01, 1.38], P = 0.038). In subgroup analysis, the risk of one-year mortality by PACE became greater with higher-risk surgical procedures (HR: 1.20, 95% CI [1.04, 1.39], P = 0.020 for low-risk surgery; HR: 1.69, 95% CI [1.45, 1.96], P < 0.001 for intermediate-risk; and HR: 2.38, 95% CI [1.47, 3.86], P = 0.034 for high-risk). Conclusions A nationwide multicenter study showed that PACE was significantly associated with increased one-year mortality. This association was stronger in high-risk surgery, older, male, and chronic kidney disease subgroups. Further studies to improve mortality associated with PACE are needed.

Background: Arrhythmia due to QT prolongation is one of the most serious adverse events with drug interactions in the elderly. This study aimed to examine the incidence of arrhythmia in Korean elderly patients who administered both cytochrome P450 3A4 (CYP3A4) substrates and inhibitors. Methods: Patients using CYP3A4 substrate and inhibitor were selected from the 2017 elderly patient dataset (the Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service - Aged Population Sample). Selection criteria were patients with a medication possession ratio over 80%, medication duration of at least 7 days, and a follow-up period of 3 months or more. The patient’s basic information is age, gender, health insurance type, and comorbidities. The top 50 drug pairs and comorbidity with high-incidence arrhythmia were presented. Results: In patien ts with drug combin ation s for over 7 days, there were 981 incidences of arrhythmia, and 351 incidences in those with combinations for over 30 days. The comorbidities of congestive heart failure and myocardial infarction had a significant association with incidence of arrhythmia. Among patients with 7 days or longer, the drug pairs [substrates-inhibitors] with significant adjusted odds ratio (aOR) were [propranolol-cimetidine] (aOR, 2.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.66-3.04). Among patients with 30 days or longer, the drug pairs with significant aOR were [tramadolamiodarone] (aOR, 2.87; 95% CI, 1.97-4.19). Conclusions In elderly patients, the incidence of arrhythmia was high with drug interactions of CYP3A4 substrates and inhibitors. The comorbidity of congestive heart failure was the risk factor.

Objectives: Since protecting patients’ privacy is a major concern in clinical research, there has been a growing need for privacy-preserving data analysis platforms. For this purpose, a federated learning (FL) method based on the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) common data model (CDM) was implemented, and its feasibility was demonstrated. Methods: We implemented an FL platform on FeederNet, which is a distributed clinical data analysis platform based on the OMOP CDM in Korea. We trained it through an artificial neural network (ANN) using data from patients who received steroid prescriptions or injections, with the aim of predicting the occurrence of side effects depending on the prescribed dose. The ANN was trained using the FL platform with the OMOP CDMs of Kyung Hee University Medical Center (KHMC) and Ajou University Hospital (AUH). Results: The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs) for predicting bone fracture, osteonecrosis, and osteoporosis using only data from each hospital were 0.8426, 0.6920, and 0.7727 for KHMC and 0.7891, 0.7049, and 0.7544 for AUH, respectively. In contrast, when using FL, the corresponding AUROCs were 0.8260, 0.7001, and 0.7928 for KHMC and 0.7912, 0.8076, and 0.7441 for AUH, respectively. In particular, FL led to a 14% improvement in performance for osteonecrosis at AUH. Conclusions FL can be performed with the OMOP CDM, and FL often shows better performance than using only a single institution's data. Therefore, research using OMOP CDM has been expanded from statistical analysis to machine learning so that researchers can conduct more diverse research.

Objectives: The objective of this study was to develop and validate a multicenter-based, multi-model, time-series deep learning model for predicting drug-induced liver injury (DILI) in patients taking angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). The study leveraged a national-level multicenter approach, utilizing electronic health records (EHRs) from six hospitals in Korea. Methods: A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted using EHRs from six hospitals in Korea, comprising a total of 10,852 patients whose data were converted to the Common Data Model. The study assessed the incidence rate of DILI among patients taking ARBs and compared it to a control group. Temporal patterns of important variables were analyzed using an interpretable timeseries model. Results: The overall incidence rate of DILI among patients taking ARBs was found to be 1.09%. The incidence rates varied for each specific ARB drug and institution, with valsartan having the highest rate (1.24%) and olmesartan having the lowest rate (0.83%). The DILI prediction models showed varying performance, measured by the average area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, with telmisartan (0.93), losartan (0.92), and irbesartan (0.90) exhibiting higher classification performance. The aggregated attention scores from the models highlighted the importance of variables such as hematocrit, albumin, prothrombin time, and lymphocytes in predicting DILI. Conclusions Implementing a multicenter-based timeseries classification model provided evidence that could be valuable to clinicians regarding temporal patterns associated with DILI in ARB users. This information supports informed decisions regarding appropriate drug use and treatment strategies.