Background: and Purpose Intraoperative visual evoked potential (VEP) monitoring has been studied mainly in pituitary adenoma, while its role in nonpituitary suprasellar tumors has remained unclear. This study evaluated the predictive usefulness of intraoperative VEP monitoring during endoscopic endonasal surgery (EES) and aimed to identify optimal alarm criteria for visual outcomes. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed a cohort of 87 patients who underwent EES with intraoperative VEP monitoring between April 2021 and September 2023. Visual outcomes were evaluated preoperatively and at short-term (≤3 months) and long-term (12 months) followups, with visual deterioration at these time points defined as worsening of either visual acuity or the visual field. Reductions in the VEP amplitude were quantified using both the maximum intraoperative decrease and the final amplitude after recovery. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses were performed to identify the optimal alarm thresholds, and the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were calculated for short-term and long-term visual deteriorations. Results: Short-term and long-term visual deteriorations were detected in 12 (9.2%) and 5 (3.8%) of the 130 analyzed eyes, respectively. ROC curve analyses identified ≥40% and ≥30% reductions in the N75–P100 amplitude as optimal alarm criteria for short-term and long-term visual deteriorations, respectively. A 30% reduction without intraoperative recovery demonstrated markedly higher sensitivity than the conventional 50% alarm threshold for short-term (58.3% vs. 33.3%) and long-term (80.0% vs. 20.0%) outcomes, while maintaining acceptable specificity (82.2% and 80.8%, respectively). Conclusions A 30% reduction in amplitude represents a more-sensitive and clinically relevant alarm threshold than a 50% reduction for intraoperative VEP monitoring during EES for nonpituitary suprasellar tumors. Incorporating both the magnitude and recovery pattern of VEP amplitude changes may improve the accuracy of predictions of long-term visual deterioration. However, the potential for false positives warrants cautious interpretation, and further studies are needed to validate the impact of intraoperative VEP monitoring on visual outcomes.

Purpose: Bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome (BOS) can develop as a manifestation of graft-versus-host disease following allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT), and may ultimately require lung transplantation (LT). However, reports on LT outcomes for BOS after allo-HSCT are limited. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of LT for BOS following allo-HSCT with those for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). Materials and Methods: A total of 487 patients underwent LT between January 2010 and August 2023. Among them, the baseline characteristics and outcomes of 35 patients with BOS following allo-HSCT and 216 patients with IPF were analyzed. Results: The BOS group was younger and had a lower body mass index (BMI) compared to the IPF group (33.7±11.9 years vs.59.7±7.3 years, p<0.001; 17.6±3.7 kg/m2 vs. 22.0±3.6 kg/m2 , p<0.001, respectively). The proportion of male patients was lower in the BOS group than in the IPF group (54.3% vs. 84.3%, p<0.001). Preoperative ventilator support was more common in the BOS group compared to the IPF group (62.9% vs. 32.4%, p=0.001). In Kaplan–Meier survival analysis, the 5-year survival rate was significantly higher in the BOS group than in the IPF group (71.0% vs. 44.9%, p=0.022). In the Cox proportional hazards model, age was the only factor significantly associated with survival [hazard ratio (95% confidence interval): 1.04 (1.02–1.07), p<0.001]. Conclusion The survival rate of the BOS group was not inferior to that of the IPF group after adjusting for sex, age, and BMI. Therefore, LT should be actively considered as a treatment option for patients with BOS following allo-HSCT.

The impact of Streptococcus pneumoniae coinfection on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) prognosis remains uncertain. We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who underwent a pneumococcal urinary antigen (PUA) test to assess its clinical utility. Results showed that PUA-positive patients required more oxygen support, high-flow nasal cannula, and dexamethasone compared to PUA-negative patients.Furthermore, the significantly higher incidence of a National Early Warning Score ≥5 in the PUA-positive group (P<0.001) suggests that a positive PUA test is associated with a severe disease course. However, no significant difference in mortality was observed between the two groups, and antibiotics were used in almost all patients (96.2%). While the PUA test may help guide antibiotic use in COVID-19 patients, its interpretation should be approached with caution.

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.

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/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.