Background: Group B Streptococcus (GBS) is one of the leading causes of neonatal earlyonset sepsis, resulting in high mortality and significant comorbidity. Intrapartum penicillin prophylaxis is recommended for pregnant women with GBS colonization to prevent vertical transmission. For pregnant women at high risk of anaphylaxis to penicillin, clindamycin is recommended only if the susceptibility of GBS isolates has been identified. We retrospectively examined the GBS detection rate and clindamycin resistance among Korean women of reproductive age over the last 20 years. Methods: Microbiologic studies using vaginal, vaginal–rectal or vaginal–perianal swabs from female patients 15–49 years of age during 2003–2022 were reviewed. Annual GBS detection rates and clindamycin resistance rates were calculated. The study period was divided into two periods (period 1, 2003–2015; period 2, 2016–2022) based on the introduction of universal culture-based GBS screening in our center in 2016. GBS detection rates and clindamycin resistance rates were compared between the periods using χ2 tests. Results: A total of 14,571 women were tested 16,879 times and GBS was isolated in 1,054 tests (6.2%), with 423 clindamycin-resistant isolates (40.1%). The GBS detection rate increased from 3.4% (301/8,869) in period 1 to 9.4% (2,753/8,010) in period 2 (P < 0.001). Even during period 1, the GBS detection rate was higher in 2009–2015 compared to 2003–2008 (P < 0.001). Clindamycin resistance rates have remained at similar levels since 2009, which were 39.5% (199/301) in period 1 and 40.2% (303/753) in period 2 (P = 0.833). Conclusion This study demonstrated that GBS detection rates in Korean women of reproductive age significantly increased almost three times during the twenty years of the study period, with a persistently high clindamycin resistance rate of up to 40%.

Background/Aims: The Korean guidelines for Helicobacter pylori treatment were revised in 2020, however, the extent of adherence to these guidelines in clinical practice remains unclear. Herein, we initiated a prospective, nationwide, multicenter registry study in 2021 to evaluate the current management of H.pylori infection in Korea. Methods: This interim report describes the adherence to the revised guidelines and their impact on firstline eradication rates. Data on patient demographics, diagnoses, treatments, and eradication outcomes were collected using a web-based electronic case report form. Results: A total of 7,261 patients from 66 hospitals who received first-line treatment were analyzed.The modified intention-to-treat eradication rate for first-line treatment was 81.0%, with 80.4% of the prescriptions adhering to the revised guidelines. The most commonly prescribed regimen was the 14-day clarithromycin-based triple therapy (CTT; 42.0%), followed by tailored therapy (TT; 21.2%), 7-day CTT (14.1%), and 10-day concomitant therapy (CT; 10.1%). Time-trend analysis demonstrated significant increases in guideline adherence and the use of 10-day CT and TT, along with a decrease in the use of 7-day CTT (all p<0.001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that guideline adherence was significantly associated with first-line eradication success (odds ratio, 2.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.61 to 2.56; p<0.001). Conclusions The revised guidelines for the treatment of H. pylori infection have been increasingly adopted in routine clinical practice in Korea, which may have contributed to improved first-line eradication rates. Notably, the 14-day CTT, 10-day CT, and TT regimens are emerging as the preferred first-line treatment options among Korean physicians.

Background/Aims: The study investigated the incidence, risk factors, and clinical outcomes of chronic antibiotic-refractory pouchitis (CARP) in Korean patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). Methods: This single-center retrospective study included patients with UC who underwent total proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis at the Asan Medical Center in Korea between January 1987 and December 2022. The primary outcomes were endoscopic remission and pouch failure. The Cox’s proportional hazard model was used to identify the risk factors for CARP. Results: The clinical data of 232 patients were analyzed. The most common cause of surgery was steroid refractoriness (50.9%), followed by dysplasia/colorectal cancer (26.7%). Among 74 patients (31.9%) with chronic pouchitis (CP), 31 (13.4%) had CARP, and 43 (18.5%) had chronic antibiotic-dependent pouchitis (CADP). The most frequent endoscopic phenotype was focal inflammation of the pouch (CP, 47.3%; CARP, 35.5%; CADP, 55.8%). Patients with CARP were less likely to use concomitant probiotics than patients with CADP (29.0% vs 72.1%, p<0.01). The endoscopic remission rate of CP, CARP, and CADP was 14.9%, 9.7%, and 18.6%, respectively.The pouch failure rate associated with CP, CARP, and CADP was 13.5%, 16.1%, and 11.6%, respectively. Current smoking status (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 2.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.27 to 6.90; p=0.01) and previous use of biologics/small molecules (aHR, 2.40; 95% CI, 1.05 to 5.53; p=0.04) were significantly associated with CARP development. Conclusions UC patients who were current smokers and previously used biologics/small molecules had a higher risk of developing CARP. Concomitant use of probiotics was less likely to be associated with CARP development.

The Korean Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Committee within the Korean Society of Surgical Metabolism and Nutrition was established to develop ERAS guidelines tailored to the Korean context. This guideline focuses on creating the most current evidence-based practice guidelines for ERAS purposes, based on systematic reviews. All key questions targeted randomized controlled trials exclusively, and if fewer than 2 were available, studies employing propensity score matching were also included. Recommendations for each key question were marked with strength of recommendation and level of evidence following internal and external review processes by the committee.

Background: Group B Streptococcus (GBS) is one of the leading causes of neonatal earlyonset sepsis, resulting in high mortality and significant comorbidity. Intrapartum penicillin prophylaxis is recommended for pregnant women with GBS colonization to prevent vertical transmission. For pregnant women at high risk of anaphylaxis to penicillin, clindamycin is recommended only if the susceptibility of GBS isolates has been identified. We retrospectively examined the GBS detection rate and clindamycin resistance among Korean women of reproductive age over the last 20 years. Methods: Microbiologic studies using vaginal, vaginal–rectal or vaginal–perianal swabs from female patients 15–49 years of age during 2003–2022 were reviewed. Annual GBS detection rates and clindamycin resistance rates were calculated. The study period was divided into two periods (period 1, 2003–2015; period 2, 2016–2022) based on the introduction of universal culture-based GBS screening in our center in 2016. GBS detection rates and clindamycin resistance rates were compared between the periods using χ2 tests. Results: A total of 14,571 women were tested 16,879 times and GBS was isolated in 1,054 tests (6.2%), with 423 clindamycin-resistant isolates (40.1%). The GBS detection rate increased from 3.4% (301/8,869) in period 1 to 9.4% (2,753/8,010) in period 2 (P < 0.001). Even during period 1, the GBS detection rate was higher in 2009–2015 compared to 2003–2008 (P < 0.001). Clindamycin resistance rates have remained at similar levels since 2009, which were 39.5% (199/301) in period 1 and 40.2% (303/753) in period 2 (P = 0.833). Conclusion This study demonstrated that GBS detection rates in Korean women of reproductive age significantly increased almost three times during the twenty years of the study period, with a persistently high clindamycin resistance rate of up to 40%.

Background/Aims: Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) frequently occurs in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), particularly when influenced by factors such as abdominal infections, IBD flare-ups, or surgical procedures. The implications of PVT range from immediate issues such as intestinal ischemia to long-term concerns including portal hypertension and its complications. However, there is a notable gap in comprehensive studies on PVT in IBD, especially with the increasing incidence of IBD in Asia. This research aimed to evaluate the clinical features and outcomes of PVT in patients with IBD at a leading hospital in South Korea. Methods: This retrospective analysis reviewed adult patients diagnosed with both IBD and PVT from 1989 to 2021 at a renowned South Korean medical center. The study focused on patient characteristics, specifics of PVT, administered treatments, and outcomes, all confirmed through enhanced CT scans. Results: A total of 78 patients met the study’s criteria. Notably, only 20.5% (16/78) were treated with oral anticoagulants; however, a vast majority (96.2%; 75/78) achieved complete radiographic resolution (CRR). When comparing patients receiving anticoagulants to those who did not, a significant preference for anticoagulant use was observed in cases where the main portal vein was affected, as opposed to just the left or right veins (p = 0.006). However, multivariable analysis indicated that neither anticoagulant use nor previous surgeries significantly impacted CRR. Conclusions Patients with IBD and PVT generally had favorable outcomes, regardless of anticoagulant use.

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: This study aimed to determine whether a shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen is non-inferior to the standard 6-month tuberculosis regimen. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial enrolled participants with respiratory specimen positivity by Xpert MTB/RIF assay or Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture without rifampicin-resistance. Participants were randomized at 1:1 to the investigational or control group. The investigational group received high-dose rifampicin (30 mg/kg/day), isoniazid, and pyrazinamide until culture conversion, followed by high-dose rifampicin and isoniazid for 12 weeks. The control group received the standard 6-month regimen. The primary outcome was the rate of unfavorable outcomes at 18 months post-randomization. The non-inferiority margin was set at <6% difference in unfavorable outcomes rates. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04485156) Results: Between 4 November 2020 and 3 January 2022, 76 participants were enrolled. Of these, 58 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Unfavorable outcomes occurred in 10 (31.3%) of 32 in the control group and 10 (38.5%) of 26 in the investigational group. The difference was 7.2% (95% confidence interval, ∞ to 31.9%), failing to prove non-inferiority. Serious adverse events and grade 3 or higher adverse events did not differ between the groups. Conclusion The shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen failed to demonstrate non-inferiority but had an acceptable safety profile.

Background/Aims: Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) frequently occurs in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), particularly when influenced by factors such as abdominal infections, IBD flare-ups, or surgical procedures. The implications of PVT range from immediate issues such as intestinal ischemia to long-term concerns including portal hypertension and its complications. However, there is a notable gap in comprehensive studies on PVT in IBD, especially with the increasing incidence of IBD in Asia. This research aimed to evaluate the clinical features and outcomes of PVT in patients with IBD at a leading hospital in South Korea. Methods: This retrospective analysis reviewed adult patients diagnosed with both IBD and PVT from 1989 to 2021 at a renowned South Korean medical center. The study focused on patient characteristics, specifics of PVT, administered treatments, and outcomes, all confirmed through enhanced CT scans. Results: A total of 78 patients met the study’s criteria. Notably, only 20.5% (16/78) were treated with oral anticoagulants; however, a vast majority (96.2%; 75/78) achieved complete radiographic resolution (CRR). When comparing patients receiving anticoagulants to those who did not, a significant preference for anticoagulant use was observed in cases where the main portal vein was affected, as opposed to just the left or right veins (p = 0.006). However, multivariable analysis indicated that neither anticoagulant use nor previous surgeries significantly impacted CRR. Conclusions Patients with IBD and PVT generally had favorable outcomes, regardless of anticoagulant use.

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.