OBJECTIVETo determine the risk factors involved in the typhoon episodes and to put forward and evaluate the intervention measures.

METHODSWe defined a confirmed injury case as: 'a person with fall,scalpel and stab, collision, drowning, injuries and trauma due to flying debris and building collapse, asphyxiation due to entrapment in collapsed buildings by typhoon from 0 am,August 12 to 6 pm, August 14 2004' and a death case as: 'a person with fall, scalpel and stab, collision, drowning, injuries and trauma due to flying debris and building collapse, asphyxiation due to entrapment in collapsed buildings by typhoon from 0 am, August 12 to 12 am, August 18 2004'. We investigated all hospitalized injured cases in ten hospitals and telephoned to those who were not hospitalized and the cases of death. We did case-control study with 1 pair versus 2 cases. 74 cases were selected in ten hospitals. The controls were neighbors of the controls matched by occupation, sex, village, and within 5 years of age without injury in this typhoon. We asked the cases and the controls on their alertness regarding typhoon and what actions taken when typhoon arrived.

RESULTSThere were 392 injury cases in all ten hospitals and 50 death cases. The attack rate of injury was 27.3 per 100 000. The fatal rate was 11.3% with the death rate 3.1 per 100 000. We investigated 209 injury cases and 31 death cases. The number of cases who were injured from 1 to 6 hours before typhoon landing accounted for 64.6% (155) of all cases. The peak of epidemic curve was 4 hours before the landing of typhoon. Data on the analysis of 74 cases and 148 controls revealed that 42% (31) of the cases were outside their homes before and during typhoon compared to 15% (22) of the controls (OR = 3.9, 95% CI: 1.9-7.7). Compared with 20% (30) control persons (OR = 17,95% CI: 4.2-68). 28% (21) cases did not receive the alert of typhoon before it arrived compared with 18% (27) control persons (OR = 3.3, 95% CI:1.3-8.6). 53% (39) of the cases did not pay attention to the alert of typhoon before typhoon arrived.

CONCLUSIONStaying outdoor, not receiving or did not take seriously about the alert of typhoon seemed to be the risk factors of injury by the typhoon episode, suggesting that the government should increase the emergency preparedness and to raise the awareness on risks associated with typhoon.

Cause of Death ; China ; epidemiology ; Cyclonic Storms ; Hospitalization ; Humans ; Risk Factors ; Wounds and Injuries ; epidemiology ; mortality

Purpose: Biomarkers predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (sPC) before biopsy are currently lacking. This study aimed to develop a non-invasive urine test to predict sPC in at-risk men using urinary metabolomic profiles. Materials and Methods: Urine samples from 934 at-risk subjects and 268 treatment-naïve PC patients were subjected to liquid chromatography/mass spectrophotometry (LC-MS)-based metabolomics profiling using both C18 and hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) column analyses. Four models were constructed (training cohort [n=647]) and validated (validation cohort [n=344]) for different purposes. Model I differentiates PC from benign cases. Models II, III, and a Gleason score model (model GS) predict sPC that is defined as National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-categorized favorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model II), unfavorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model III), and GS ≥7 PC (model GS), respectively. The metabolomic panels and predicting models were constructed using logistic regression and Akaike information criterion. Results: The best metabolomic panels from the HILIC column include 25, 27, 28 and 26 metabolites in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively, with area under the curve (AUC) values ranging between 0.82 and 0.91 in the training cohort and between 0.77 and 0.86 in the validation cohort. The combination of the metabolomic panels and five baseline clinical factors that include serum prostate-specific antigen, age, family history of PC, previously negative biopsy, and abnormal digital rectal examination results significantly increased AUCs (range 0.88–0.91). At 90% sensitivity (validation cohort), 33%, 34%, 41%, and 36% of unnecessary biopsies were avoided in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively. The above results were successfully validated using LC-MS with the C18 column. Conclusions Urinary metabolomic profiles with baseline clinical factors may accurately predict sPC in men with elevated risk before biopsy.

Purpose: Biomarkers predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (sPC) before biopsy are currently lacking. This study aimed to develop a non-invasive urine test to predict sPC in at-risk men using urinary metabolomic profiles. Materials and Methods: Urine samples from 934 at-risk subjects and 268 treatment-naïve PC patients were subjected to liquid chromatography/mass spectrophotometry (LC-MS)-based metabolomics profiling using both C18 and hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) column analyses. Four models were constructed (training cohort [n=647]) and validated (validation cohort [n=344]) for different purposes. Model I differentiates PC from benign cases. Models II, III, and a Gleason score model (model GS) predict sPC that is defined as National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-categorized favorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model II), unfavorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model III), and GS ≥7 PC (model GS), respectively. The metabolomic panels and predicting models were constructed using logistic regression and Akaike information criterion. Results: The best metabolomic panels from the HILIC column include 25, 27, 28 and 26 metabolites in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively, with area under the curve (AUC) values ranging between 0.82 and 0.91 in the training cohort and between 0.77 and 0.86 in the validation cohort. The combination of the metabolomic panels and five baseline clinical factors that include serum prostate-specific antigen, age, family history of PC, previously negative biopsy, and abnormal digital rectal examination results significantly increased AUCs (range 0.88–0.91). At 90% sensitivity (validation cohort), 33%, 34%, 41%, and 36% of unnecessary biopsies were avoided in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively. The above results were successfully validated using LC-MS with the C18 column. Conclusions Urinary metabolomic profiles with baseline clinical factors may accurately predict sPC in men with elevated risk before biopsy.

Purpose: Biomarkers predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (sPC) before biopsy are currently lacking. This study aimed to develop a non-invasive urine test to predict sPC in at-risk men using urinary metabolomic profiles. Materials and Methods: Urine samples from 934 at-risk subjects and 268 treatment-naïve PC patients were subjected to liquid chromatography/mass spectrophotometry (LC-MS)-based metabolomics profiling using both C18 and hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) column analyses. Four models were constructed (training cohort [n=647]) and validated (validation cohort [n=344]) for different purposes. Model I differentiates PC from benign cases. Models II, III, and a Gleason score model (model GS) predict sPC that is defined as National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-categorized favorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model II), unfavorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model III), and GS ≥7 PC (model GS), respectively. The metabolomic panels and predicting models were constructed using logistic regression and Akaike information criterion. Results: The best metabolomic panels from the HILIC column include 25, 27, 28 and 26 metabolites in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively, with area under the curve (AUC) values ranging between 0.82 and 0.91 in the training cohort and between 0.77 and 0.86 in the validation cohort. The combination of the metabolomic panels and five baseline clinical factors that include serum prostate-specific antigen, age, family history of PC, previously negative biopsy, and abnormal digital rectal examination results significantly increased AUCs (range 0.88–0.91). At 90% sensitivity (validation cohort), 33%, 34%, 41%, and 36% of unnecessary biopsies were avoided in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively. The above results were successfully validated using LC-MS with the C18 column. Conclusions Urinary metabolomic profiles with baseline clinical factors may accurately predict sPC in men with elevated risk before biopsy.

Purpose: Biomarkers predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (sPC) before biopsy are currently lacking. This study aimed to develop a non-invasive urine test to predict sPC in at-risk men using urinary metabolomic profiles. Materials and Methods: Urine samples from 934 at-risk subjects and 268 treatment-naïve PC patients were subjected to liquid chromatography/mass spectrophotometry (LC-MS)-based metabolomics profiling using both C18 and hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) column analyses. Four models were constructed (training cohort [n=647]) and validated (validation cohort [n=344]) for different purposes. Model I differentiates PC from benign cases. Models II, III, and a Gleason score model (model GS) predict sPC that is defined as National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-categorized favorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model II), unfavorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model III), and GS ≥7 PC (model GS), respectively. The metabolomic panels and predicting models were constructed using logistic regression and Akaike information criterion. Results: The best metabolomic panels from the HILIC column include 25, 27, 28 and 26 metabolites in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively, with area under the curve (AUC) values ranging between 0.82 and 0.91 in the training cohort and between 0.77 and 0.86 in the validation cohort. The combination of the metabolomic panels and five baseline clinical factors that include serum prostate-specific antigen, age, family history of PC, previously negative biopsy, and abnormal digital rectal examination results significantly increased AUCs (range 0.88–0.91). At 90% sensitivity (validation cohort), 33%, 34%, 41%, and 36% of unnecessary biopsies were avoided in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively. The above results were successfully validated using LC-MS with the C18 column. Conclusions Urinary metabolomic profiles with baseline clinical factors may accurately predict sPC in men with elevated risk before biopsy.

Purpose: Biomarkers predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (sPC) before biopsy are currently lacking. This study aimed to develop a non-invasive urine test to predict sPC in at-risk men using urinary metabolomic profiles. Materials and Methods: Urine samples from 934 at-risk subjects and 268 treatment-naïve PC patients were subjected to liquid chromatography/mass spectrophotometry (LC-MS)-based metabolomics profiling using both C18 and hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) column analyses. Four models were constructed (training cohort [n=647]) and validated (validation cohort [n=344]) for different purposes. Model I differentiates PC from benign cases. Models II, III, and a Gleason score model (model GS) predict sPC that is defined as National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-categorized favorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model II), unfavorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model III), and GS ≥7 PC (model GS), respectively. The metabolomic panels and predicting models were constructed using logistic regression and Akaike information criterion. Results: The best metabolomic panels from the HILIC column include 25, 27, 28 and 26 metabolites in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively, with area under the curve (AUC) values ranging between 0.82 and 0.91 in the training cohort and between 0.77 and 0.86 in the validation cohort. The combination of the metabolomic panels and five baseline clinical factors that include serum prostate-specific antigen, age, family history of PC, previously negative biopsy, and abnormal digital rectal examination results significantly increased AUCs (range 0.88–0.91). At 90% sensitivity (validation cohort), 33%, 34%, 41%, and 36% of unnecessary biopsies were avoided in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively. The above results were successfully validated using LC-MS with the C18 column. Conclusions Urinary metabolomic profiles with baseline clinical factors may accurately predict sPC in men with elevated risk before biopsy.

Background: Dutasteride improves hair growth compared with finasteride in male androgenic alopecia (AGA) and is well tolerated. However, real-world evidence for longterm dutasteride use in AGA is lacking. Objective: To describe baseline characteristics, treatment patterns and long-term safety and effectiveness of dutasteride versus finasteride. Methods: This was a multicentre, retrospective medical chart review study conducted in South Korea. The index date was the first prescription of dutasteride or finasteride. Baseline characteristics were assessed 6 months prior to index. Safety and effectiveness improvements in basic and specific [BASP] classification) data were collected from index throughout the observation period. Results: Overall, 600 male adult patients were included (dutasteride, n=295; finasteride, n=305). Dutasteride-treated patients were older (p<0.001) and more likely to have moderate/ severe BASP classification at baseline (p=0.010) compared with finasteride-treated patients. Among patients treated with recommended, on-label dosing exclusively (n=535: dutasteride, n=250; finasteride, n=285), dutasteride-treated patients showed greater improvement in hair growth than finasteride-treated patients, as measured by the BASP basic M classification (adjusted incidence rate ratio [95% confidence interval]: 2.06 [1.08, 3.95]; p=0.029). Among this same subset, overall occurrence of adverse events (AEs) during the observation period were not statistically equivalent between groups (dutasteride 7.6%, finasteride 10.5%; p=0.201), although reports of AEs of special interest were equivalent (p<0.001). Conclusion Dutasteride showed greater effectiveness than finasteride in improving BASP classification in treating male AGA and had a similar or possibly lower occurrence of overall AEs. Dutasteride may provide an effective and safe treatment option for male patients with AGA.

Objectives: This study aimed to present the Asia-Pacific consensus on long-term and sequential therapy for osteoporosis, offering evidence-based recommendations for the effective management of this chronic condition.The primary focus is on achieving optimal fracture prevention through a comprehensive, individualized approach. Methods: A panel of experts convened to develop consensus statements by synthesizing the current literature and leveraging clinical expertise. The review encompassed long-term anti-osteoporosis medication goals, first-line treatments for individuals at very high fracture risk, and the strategic integration of anabolic and anti resorptive agents in sequential therapy approaches. Results: The panelists reached a consensus on 12 statements. Key recommendations included advocating for anabolic agents as the first-line treatment for individuals at very high fracture risk and transitioning to anti resorptive agents following the completion of anabolic therapy. Anabolic therapy remains an option for in dividuals experiencing new fractures or persistent high fracture risk despite antiresorptive treatment. In cases of inadequate response, the consensus recommended considering a switch to more potent medications. The consensus also addressed the management of medication-related complications, proposing alternatives instead of discontinuation of treatment. Conclusions This consensus provides a comprehensive, cost-effective strategy for fracture prevention with an emphasis on shared decision-making and the incorporation of country-specific case management systems, such as fracture liaison services. It serves as a valuable guide for healthcare professionals in the Asia-Pacific region, contributing to the ongoing evolution of osteoporosis management.