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.

Objective: This study aimed to determine the incidence, characteristics, and outcomes of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCA) and to investigate the trends for the same in Changwon city, South Korea between 2012 and 2018. Methods: We analyzed a list of adult cardiac arrest cases occurring between 2012 and 2018 from the OHCA surveillance registry and the Changwon Fire Department’s emergency medical services database. The trends in the incidence and resuscitation-related characteristics were assessed using nonparametric tests for trends across ordered groups. The predictors of the primary outcome were investigated using multivariable logistic regression. The primary outcome was a good neurological outcome at hospital discharge. Results: A total of 2,951 OHCAs were attended by the emergency medical services and of these, 2,834 were included in this study. Overall, the proportion of patients discharged with a good neurologic outcome was 4.7% (133/2,834). Both OHCA survival and good neurologic outcomes improved significantly over time, from 4.9% and 2.1%, respectively, in 2012 to 10.3% and 7.4% in 2018 (P<0.001). The Utstein comparator (bystander-witnessed arrests presenting with initial shockable rhythm) increased over the study period (P-for-trend<0.001). Age, response time, scene time, in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) time, witness presence, cardiac origin, and shockable rhythm were associated with good neurologic outcomes. Conclusion With the gradual increase in the proportion of patients with witnessed cardiac arrests, bystander CPR, and initial shockable rhythm, the rate of survival and a good neurologic outcome at discharge also increased annually.

Objective: To translate the 22-item Longer-term Unmet Needs after Stroke (LUNS) questionnaire, validate it in the Korean stroke population, and assess the reliability of face-to-face and telephone surveys. Methods: Sixty-six adult patients with stroke from Seoul National University Bundang Hospital and Kangwon National University Hospital were involved in the validation. Participants were interviewed twice using the LUNS Korean version: first, a face-to-face survey for validation, and second, a telephone survey for test-retest reliability. Participants completed the Frenchay Activities Index (FAI) and Short Form 12 (SF-12) Mental and Physical Component Summary (MCS and PCS) scores at the first interview. For concurrent validity, the differences in health status (FAI, SF-12 MCS and PCS) between the groups that reported unmet needs and those that did not were analyzed for each item. Cohen’s kappa and percentage of agreement between the first and second administrations were calculated for each item to determine the test-retest reliability. Results: The average age of the participants was 61.2±12.8 years and 74.2% were male. Fifty-seven patients were involved in the second interview. Depending on the unmet needs, SF-12 MCS, PCS, and FAI were significantly different in 12 of 22 items. In the test-retest reliability test, 12 items had a kappa of 0.6 or higher, and two had a kappa of <0.4. Conclusion The LUNS instrument into Korean (LUNS-K) is a reliable and valid instrument for assessing unmet health needs in patients with stroke. In addition, telephone surveys can be considered reliable.

Objective: The aim of this study was to examine the incidence and outcomes of pediatric out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCA) in Changwon city, South Korea. Methods: From the Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Surveillance registry and the Changwon Fire Department’s Emergency Medical Services data, we obtained a list of 119 assessed pediatric OHCAs occurred between January 2012 and December 2018. We analyzed basic demographic variables, the location of cardiac arrest, witnessed status, bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), time variables for CPR, dispatcher-assisted CPR, initial cardiac rhythm, automated defibrillator use, and clinical outcomes at hospital discharge. Results: A total of 2,954 OHCAs occurred during the study period, of which 72 were pediatric OHCAs. The rate of witnessed cardiac arrest was 30.6% (22/72), and bystander CPR was performed in 29 patients (40.3%). The rate of cardiac arrest occurring in public places was 16.7% (12/72). The rate of shockable rhythm in the initial electrocardiogram rhythm was 8.3% (6/72). Twelve patients (16.7%) survived to admission. The proportion of survivors discharged was 4.3% (3/70), and the rate of discharge with a good prognosis was 2.8% (2/70). Conclusion The incidence rate of pediatric OHCA was low in Changwon city. The survival rate was also low. Thus, studies with larger sample sizes and continuous monitoring in the community are needed.

Lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) is an excellent treatment option for a number of lumbar diseases. LIF can be performed through posterior, transforaminal, anterior, and lateral or oblique approaches. Each technique has its own pearls and pitfalls. Through LIF, segmental stabilization, neural decompression, and deformity correction can be achieved. Minimally invasive surgery has recently gained popularity and each LIF procedure can be performed using minimally invasive techniques to reduce surgery-related complications and improve early postoperative recovery. Despite advances in surgical technology, surgery-related complications after LIF, such as pseudoarthrosis, have not yet been overcome. Although autogenous iliac crest bone graft is the gold standard for spinal fusion, other bone substitutes are available to enhance fusion rate and reduce complications associated with bone harvest. This article reviews the surgical procedures and characteristics of each LIF and the osteobiologics utilized in LIF based on the available evidence.

Background: and Purpose: Blood pressure (BP) control is strongly recommended, but BP control rate has not been well studied in patients with stroke. We evaluated the BP control rate with fimasartan-based antihypertensive therapy initiated in patients with recent cerebral ischemia. Methods: This multicenter, prospective, single-arm trial involved 27 centers in South Korea. Key inclusion criteria were recent cerebral ischemia within 90 days and high BP [systolic blood pressure (SBP) >140 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) >90 mm Hg]. BP lowering was initiated with fimasartan. BP management during the follow-up was at the discretion of the responsible investigators. The primary endpoint was the target BP goal achievement rate (<140/90 mm Hg) at 24 weeks. Key secondary endpoints included achieved BP and BP changes at each visit, and clinical events (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03231293). Results: Of 1,035 patients enrolled, 1,026 were included in the safety analysis, and 951 in the efficacy analysis. Their mean age was 64.1 years, 33% were female, the median time interval from onset to enrollment was 10 days, and the baseline SBP and DBP were 162.3±16.0 and 92.2±12.4 mm Hg (mean±SD). During the study period, 55.5% of patients were maintained on fimasartan monotherapy, and 44.5% received antihypertensive therapies other than fimasartan monotherapy at at least one visit. The target BP goal achievement rate at 24-week was 67.3% (48.6% at 4-week and 61.4% at 12-week). The mean BP was 139.0/81.8±18.3/11.7, 133.8/79.2±16.4/11.0, and 132.8/78.5±15.6/10.9 mm Hg at 4-, 12-, and 24-week. The treatment-emergent adverse event rate was 5.4%, including one serious adverse event. Conclusions Fimasartan-based BP lowering achieved the target BP in two-thirds of patients at 24 weeks, and was generally well tolerated.