Background: and Purpose This study was an open-label, dose-escalation, phase 1 clinical trial to determine the safety and dose of EN001 for patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD). EN001, developed by ENCell, are allogeneic early-passage Wharton’s jelly-derived mesenchymal stem cells that originate at the umbilical cord, with preclinical studies demonstrating their high therapeutic efficacy for DMD. Methods: This phase 1 clinical trial explored the safety and tolerability of EN001 as a potential treatment option for patients with DMD. Six pediatric participants with DMD were divided into two subgroups of equal size: low-dose EN001 (5.0×105 cells/kg) and high-dose EN001 (2.5×106 cells/kg). All participants were monitored for 12 weeks after EN001 administration to assess its safety. Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was evaluated across 2 weeks post administration. Exploratory efficacy was evaluated by measuring serum creatine kinase levels, and functional evaluations—including spirometry, myometry, the North Star Ambulatory Assessment, and the 6-minute walk test—were conducted at week 12 and compared with the baseline values. Results: No participants experienced serious adverse events related to EN001 injection during the 12-week follow-up period. Mild adverse events included injection-related local erythema, edema, parosmia, and headache, but DLT was not observed. Functional evaluations at week 12 revealed no significant changes from baseline. Conclusions These results demonstrated that EN001 are safe and well tolerated for patients with DMD, and did not cause serious adverse events. The efficacy of EN001 could be confirmed through larger-scale future studies that incorporate repeated dosing and have a randomized controlled trial design.

Background: and Purpose This study was an open-label, dose-escalation, phase 1 clinical trial to determine the safety and dose of EN001 for patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD). EN001, developed by ENCell, are allogeneic early-passage Wharton’s jelly-derived mesenchymal stem cells that originate at the umbilical cord, with preclinical studies demonstrating their high therapeutic efficacy for DMD. Methods: This phase 1 clinical trial explored the safety and tolerability of EN001 as a potential treatment option for patients with DMD. Six pediatric participants with DMD were divided into two subgroups of equal size: low-dose EN001 (5.0×105 cells/kg) and high-dose EN001 (2.5×106 cells/kg). All participants were monitored for 12 weeks after EN001 administration to assess its safety. Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was evaluated across 2 weeks post administration. Exploratory efficacy was evaluated by measuring serum creatine kinase levels, and functional evaluations—including spirometry, myometry, the North Star Ambulatory Assessment, and the 6-minute walk test—were conducted at week 12 and compared with the baseline values. Results: No participants experienced serious adverse events related to EN001 injection during the 12-week follow-up period. Mild adverse events included injection-related local erythema, edema, parosmia, and headache, but DLT was not observed. Functional evaluations at week 12 revealed no significant changes from baseline. Conclusions These results demonstrated that EN001 are safe and well tolerated for patients with DMD, and did not cause serious adverse events. The efficacy of EN001 could be confirmed through larger-scale future studies that incorporate repeated dosing and have a randomized controlled trial design.

Background: and Purpose This study was an open-label, dose-escalation, phase 1 clinical trial to determine the safety and dose of EN001 for patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD). EN001, developed by ENCell, are allogeneic early-passage Wharton’s jelly-derived mesenchymal stem cells that originate at the umbilical cord, with preclinical studies demonstrating their high therapeutic efficacy for DMD. Methods: This phase 1 clinical trial explored the safety and tolerability of EN001 as a potential treatment option for patients with DMD. Six pediatric participants with DMD were divided into two subgroups of equal size: low-dose EN001 (5.0×105 cells/kg) and high-dose EN001 (2.5×106 cells/kg). All participants were monitored for 12 weeks after EN001 administration to assess its safety. Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was evaluated across 2 weeks post administration. Exploratory efficacy was evaluated by measuring serum creatine kinase levels, and functional evaluations—including spirometry, myometry, the North Star Ambulatory Assessment, and the 6-minute walk test—were conducted at week 12 and compared with the baseline values. Results: No participants experienced serious adverse events related to EN001 injection during the 12-week follow-up period. Mild adverse events included injection-related local erythema, edema, parosmia, and headache, but DLT was not observed. Functional evaluations at week 12 revealed no significant changes from baseline. Conclusions These results demonstrated that EN001 are safe and well tolerated for patients with DMD, and did not cause serious adverse events. The efficacy of EN001 could be confirmed through larger-scale future studies that incorporate repeated dosing and have a randomized controlled trial design.

Background and Objectives: Angiographic assessment of coronary stenosis severity using quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) is often inconsistent with that based on fractional flow reserve (FFR) or intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). We investigated the incidence of discrepancies between QCA and FFR or IVUS, and the outcomes of FFR- and IVUS-guided strategies in discordant coronary lesions. Methods: This study was a post-hoc analysis of the FLAVOUR study. We used a QCA-derived diameter stenosis (DS) of 60% or greater, the highest tertile, to classify coronary lesions as concordant or discordant with FFR or IVUS criteria for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The patient-oriented composite outcome (POCO) was defined as a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or revascularization at 24 months. Results: The discordance rate between QCA and FFR or IVUS was 30.2% (n=551). The QCAFFR discordance rate was numerically lower than the QCA-IVUS discordance rate (28.2% vs. 32.4%, p=0.050). In 200 patients with ≥60% DS, PCI was deferred according to negative FFR (n=141) and negative IVUS (n=59) (15.3% vs. 6.5%, p<0.001). The POCO incidence was comparable between the FFR- and IVUS-guided deferral strategies (5.9% vs. 3.4%, p=0.479).Conversely, 351 patients with DS <60% underwent PCI according to positive FFR (n=118) and positive IVUS (n=233) (12.8% vs. 25.9%, p<0.001). FFR- and IVUS-guided PCI did not differ in the incidence of POCO (9.5% vs. 6.5%, p=0.294). Conclusions The proportion of QCA-FFR or IVUS discordance was approximately one third for intermediate coronary lesions. FFR- or IVUS-guided strategies for these lesions were comparable with respect to POCO at 24 months.

Background and Objectives: Angiographic assessment of coronary stenosis severity using quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) is often inconsistent with that based on fractional flow reserve (FFR) or intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). We investigated the incidence of discrepancies between QCA and FFR or IVUS, and the outcomes of FFR- and IVUS-guided strategies in discordant coronary lesions. Methods: This study was a post-hoc analysis of the FLAVOUR study. We used a QCA-derived diameter stenosis (DS) of 60% or greater, the highest tertile, to classify coronary lesions as concordant or discordant with FFR or IVUS criteria for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The patient-oriented composite outcome (POCO) was defined as a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or revascularization at 24 months. Results: The discordance rate between QCA and FFR or IVUS was 30.2% (n=551). The QCAFFR discordance rate was numerically lower than the QCA-IVUS discordance rate (28.2% vs. 32.4%, p=0.050). In 200 patients with ≥60% DS, PCI was deferred according to negative FFR (n=141) and negative IVUS (n=59) (15.3% vs. 6.5%, p<0.001). The POCO incidence was comparable between the FFR- and IVUS-guided deferral strategies (5.9% vs. 3.4%, p=0.479).Conversely, 351 patients with DS <60% underwent PCI according to positive FFR (n=118) and positive IVUS (n=233) (12.8% vs. 25.9%, p<0.001). FFR- and IVUS-guided PCI did not differ in the incidence of POCO (9.5% vs. 6.5%, p=0.294). Conclusions The proportion of QCA-FFR or IVUS discordance was approximately one third for intermediate coronary lesions. FFR- or IVUS-guided strategies for these lesions were comparable with respect to POCO at 24 months.

Background and Objectives: Angiographic assessment of coronary stenosis severity using quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) is often inconsistent with that based on fractional flow reserve (FFR) or intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). We investigated the incidence of discrepancies between QCA and FFR or IVUS, and the outcomes of FFR- and IVUS-guided strategies in discordant coronary lesions. Methods: This study was a post-hoc analysis of the FLAVOUR study. We used a QCA-derived diameter stenosis (DS) of 60% or greater, the highest tertile, to classify coronary lesions as concordant or discordant with FFR or IVUS criteria for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The patient-oriented composite outcome (POCO) was defined as a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or revascularization at 24 months. Results: The discordance rate between QCA and FFR or IVUS was 30.2% (n=551). The QCAFFR discordance rate was numerically lower than the QCA-IVUS discordance rate (28.2% vs. 32.4%, p=0.050). In 200 patients with ≥60% DS, PCI was deferred according to negative FFR (n=141) and negative IVUS (n=59) (15.3% vs. 6.5%, p<0.001). The POCO incidence was comparable between the FFR- and IVUS-guided deferral strategies (5.9% vs. 3.4%, p=0.479).Conversely, 351 patients with DS <60% underwent PCI according to positive FFR (n=118) and positive IVUS (n=233) (12.8% vs. 25.9%, p<0.001). FFR- and IVUS-guided PCI did not differ in the incidence of POCO (9.5% vs. 6.5%, p=0.294). Conclusions The proportion of QCA-FFR or IVUS discordance was approximately one third for intermediate coronary lesions. FFR- or IVUS-guided strategies for these lesions were comparable with respect to POCO at 24 months.

Background and Objectives: Angiographic assessment of coronary stenosis severity using quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) is often inconsistent with that based on fractional flow reserve (FFR) or intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). We investigated the incidence of discrepancies between QCA and FFR or IVUS, and the outcomes of FFR- and IVUS-guided strategies in discordant coronary lesions. Methods: This study was a post-hoc analysis of the FLAVOUR study. We used a QCA-derived diameter stenosis (DS) of 60% or greater, the highest tertile, to classify coronary lesions as concordant or discordant with FFR or IVUS criteria for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The patient-oriented composite outcome (POCO) was defined as a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or revascularization at 24 months. Results: The discordance rate between QCA and FFR or IVUS was 30.2% (n=551). The QCAFFR discordance rate was numerically lower than the QCA-IVUS discordance rate (28.2% vs. 32.4%, p=0.050). In 200 patients with ≥60% DS, PCI was deferred according to negative FFR (n=141) and negative IVUS (n=59) (15.3% vs. 6.5%, p<0.001). The POCO incidence was comparable between the FFR- and IVUS-guided deferral strategies (5.9% vs. 3.4%, p=0.479).Conversely, 351 patients with DS <60% underwent PCI according to positive FFR (n=118) and positive IVUS (n=233) (12.8% vs. 25.9%, p<0.001). FFR- and IVUS-guided PCI did not differ in the incidence of POCO (9.5% vs. 6.5%, p=0.294). Conclusions The proportion of QCA-FFR or IVUS discordance was approximately one third for intermediate coronary lesions. FFR- or IVUS-guided strategies for these lesions were comparable with respect to POCO at 24 months.

Purpose: In men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), new bone lesions are sometimes not properly categorized through a confirmatory bone scan, and clinical significance of the test itself remains unclear. This study aimed to demonstrate the performance rate of confirmatory bone scans in a real-world setting and their prognostic impact in enzalutamide-treated mCRPC. Materials and Methods: Patients who received oral enzalutamide for mCRPC during 2014-2017 at 14 tertiary centers in Korea were included. Patients lacking imaging assessment data or insufficient drug exposure were excluded. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes included performance rate of confirmatory bone scans in a real-world setting. Kaplan-Meier analysis and multivariate Cox regression analysis were performed. Results: Overall, 520 patients with mCRPC were enrolled (240 [26.2%] chemotherapy-naïve and 280 [53.2%] after chemotherapy). Among 352 responders, 92 patients (26.1%) showed new bone lesions in their early bone scan. Confirmatory bone scan was performed in 41 patients (44.6%), and it was associated with prolonged OS in the entire population (median, 30.9 vs. 19.7 months; p < 0.001), as well as in the chemotherapy-naïve (median, 47.2 vs. 20.5 months; p=0.011) and post-chemotherapy sub-groups (median, 25.5 vs. 18.0 months; p=0.006). Multivariate Cox regression showed that confirmatory bone scan performance was an independent prognostic factor for OS (hazard ratio 0.35, 95% confidence interval, 0.18 to 0.69; p=0.002). Conclusion Confirmatory bone scan performance was associated with prolonged OS. Thus, the premature discontinuation of enzalutamide without confirmatory bone scans should be discouraged.

Purpose: Pathologic T3b (pT3b) prostate cancer, characterized by seminal vesicle invasion (SVI), exhibits variable oncological outcomes post–radical prostatectomy (RP). Identifying prognostic factors is crucial for patient-specific management. This study investigates the impact of bilateral SVI on prognosis in pT3b prostate cancer. Materials and Methods: We evaluated the medical records of a multi-institutional cohort of men who underwent RP for prostate cancer with SVI between 2000 and 2012. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed using Kaplan-Meier analysis and covariate-adjusted Cox proportional hazard regression for biochemical recurrence (BCR), clinical progression (CP), and cancer-specific survival (CSS). Results: Among 770 men who underwent RP without neo-adjuvant treatment, median follow-up was 85.7 months. Patients with bilateral SVI had higher preoperative prostate-specific antigen levels and clinical T category (all p < 0.001). Extracapsular extension, tumor volume, lymph node metastasis (p < 0.001), pathologic Gleason grade group (p < 0.001), and resection margin positivity (p < 0.001) were also higher in patients with bilateral SVI. The 5-, 10-, and 15-year BCR-free survival rates were 23.9%, 11.7%, and 8.5%; CP-free survival rates were 82.8%, 62.5%, and 33.4%; and CSS rates were 96.4%, 88.1%, and 69.5%, respectively. The bilateral SVI group demonstrated significantly lower BCR-free survival rates, CP-free survival rates, and CSS rates (all p < 0.001). Bilateral SVI was independently associated with BCR (hazard ratio, 1.197; 95% confidence interval, p=0.049), CP (p=0.022), and CSS (p=0.038) in covariate-adjusted Cox regression. Conclusion Bilateral SVI is a robust, independent prognostic factor for poor oncological outcomes in pT3b prostate cancer.

Background: It is well known that a large number of patients with diabetes also have dyslipidemia, which significantly increases the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of combination drugs consisting of metformin and atorvastatin, widely used as therapeutic agents for diabetes and dyslipidemia. Methods: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group and phase III multicenter study included adults with glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels >7.0% and <10.0%, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) >100 and <250 mg/dL. One hundred eighty-five eligible subjects were randomized to the combination group (metformin+atorvastatin), metformin group (metformin+atorvastatin placebo), and atorvastatin group (atorvastatin+metformin placebo). The primary efficacy endpoints were the percent changes in HbA1c and LDL-C levels from baseline at the end of the treatment. Results: After 16 weeks of treatment compared to baseline, HbA1c showed a significant difference of 0.94% compared to the atorvastatin group in the combination group (0.35% vs. −0.58%, respectively; P<0.0001), whereas the proportion of patients with increased HbA1c was also 62% and 15%, respectively, showing a significant difference (P<0.001). The combination group also showed a significant decrease in LDL-C levels compared to the metformin group (−55.20% vs. −7.69%, P<0.001) without previously unknown adverse drug events. Conclusion The addition of atorvastatin to metformin improved HbA1c and LDL-C levels to a significant extent compared to metformin or atorvastatin alone in diabetes and dyslipidemia patients. This study also suggested metformin’s preventive effect on the glucose-elevating potential of atorvastatin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and dyslipidemia, insufficiently controlled with exercise and diet. Metformin and atorvastatin combination might be an effective treatment in reducing the CVD risk in patients with both diabetes and dyslipidemia because of its lowering effect on LDL-C and glucose.