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.

In response to the increase in the prevalence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in Korea, the growth of patients requiring renal replacement therapy and the subsequent increase in medical costs, the rapid expansion of patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD), and the decrease in patients receiving home therapy, including peritoneal dialysis, the Korean Society of Nephrology has proclaimed the new policy, Kidney Health Plan 2033 (KHP 2033). KHP 2033 would serve as a milestone to bridge the current issues to a future solution by directing the prevention and progression of CKD and ESKD, particularly diabetic kidney disease, and increasing the proportion of home therapy, thereby reducing the socioeconomic burden of kidney disease and improving the quality of life. Here, we provide the background for the necessity of KHP 2033, as well as the contents of KHP 2033, and enlighten the Korean Society of Nephrology’s future goals. Together with patients, healthcare providers, academic societies, and national policymakers, we need to move forward with goal-oriented drive and leadership to achieve these goals.

OBJECTIVES: This study compared the current smoking prevalence among adults with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection to that of the general Korean population and analyzed changes in smoking prevalence and cessation rates from 2009 to 2020. METHODS: The study included a total of 10,980 adults with HIV infection who underwent a health screening examination (National Health Insurance Service-National Health Information Database; NHIS-NHID), 1,230 individuals with HIV infection who participated in the Korea HIV/AIDS Cohort (KoCosHIV), and 76,783 participants from the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES). We estimated the current smoking prevalence and the quit ratio, defined as the ratio of former smokers to ever-smokers. RESULTS: In the NHIS-NHID and KoCosHIV studies, the prevalence of current and former smoking among adults with HIV was 44.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 43.2 to 45.1) and 15.6% (95% CI, 14.9 to 16.3), and 47.7% (95% CI, 43.7 to 51.8) and 16.9% (95% CI, 11.8 to 22.0), respectively. In the KNHANES, these rates were 22.5% and 18.1%, respectively. The standardized prevalence ratio of current smoking among adults with HIV was 1.76 in the NHIS-NHID and 1.97 in the KoCosHIV. Furthermore, the likelihood of quitting smoking was lower among adults with HIV than in the general population (NHIS-NHID: 26.1%; 95% CI, 25.0 to 27.1; KoCosHIV: 26.2%; 95% CI, 20.2 to 32.1; KNHANES: 44.6%; 95% CI, 44.5 to 44.6). Among HIV-positive adults, there was a 1.53% decline in the current smoking rate and a 2.86% increase in the quit ratio. CONCLUSIONS Adults with HIV were more likely to smoke and less likely to quit smoking than the general adult population. Tobacco screening and cessation strategies should specifically target this population.

OBJECTIVES: This study compared the current smoking prevalence among adults with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection to that of the general Korean population and analyzed changes in smoking prevalence and cessation rates from 2009 to 2020. METHODS: The study included a total of 10,980 adults with HIV infection who underwent a health screening examination (National Health Insurance Service-National Health Information Database; NHIS-NHID), 1,230 individuals with HIV infection who participated in the Korea HIV/AIDS Cohort (KoCosHIV), and 76,783 participants from the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES). We estimated the current smoking prevalence and the quit ratio, defined as the ratio of former smokers to ever-smokers. RESULTS: In the NHIS-NHID and KoCosHIV studies, the prevalence of current and former smoking among adults with HIV was 44.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 43.2 to 45.1) and 15.6% (95% CI, 14.9 to 16.3), and 47.7% (95% CI, 43.7 to 51.8) and 16.9% (95% CI, 11.8 to 22.0), respectively. In the KNHANES, these rates were 22.5% and 18.1%, respectively. The standardized prevalence ratio of current smoking among adults with HIV was 1.76 in the NHIS-NHID and 1.97 in the KoCosHIV. Furthermore, the likelihood of quitting smoking was lower among adults with HIV than in the general population (NHIS-NHID: 26.1%; 95% CI, 25.0 to 27.1; KoCosHIV: 26.2%; 95% CI, 20.2 to 32.1; KNHANES: 44.6%; 95% CI, 44.5 to 44.6). Among HIV-positive adults, there was a 1.53% decline in the current smoking rate and a 2.86% increase in the quit ratio. CONCLUSIONS Adults with HIV were more likely to smoke and less likely to quit smoking than the general adult population. Tobacco screening and cessation strategies should specifically target this population.

OBJECTIVES: This study compared the current smoking prevalence among adults with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection to that of the general Korean population and analyzed changes in smoking prevalence and cessation rates from 2009 to 2020. METHODS: The study included a total of 10,980 adults with HIV infection who underwent a health screening examination (National Health Insurance Service-National Health Information Database; NHIS-NHID), 1,230 individuals with HIV infection who participated in the Korea HIV/AIDS Cohort (KoCosHIV), and 76,783 participants from the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES). We estimated the current smoking prevalence and the quit ratio, defined as the ratio of former smokers to ever-smokers. RESULTS: In the NHIS-NHID and KoCosHIV studies, the prevalence of current and former smoking among adults with HIV was 44.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 43.2 to 45.1) and 15.6% (95% CI, 14.9 to 16.3), and 47.7% (95% CI, 43.7 to 51.8) and 16.9% (95% CI, 11.8 to 22.0), respectively. In the KNHANES, these rates were 22.5% and 18.1%, respectively. The standardized prevalence ratio of current smoking among adults with HIV was 1.76 in the NHIS-NHID and 1.97 in the KoCosHIV. Furthermore, the likelihood of quitting smoking was lower among adults with HIV than in the general population (NHIS-NHID: 26.1%; 95% CI, 25.0 to 27.1; KoCosHIV: 26.2%; 95% CI, 20.2 to 32.1; KNHANES: 44.6%; 95% CI, 44.5 to 44.6). Among HIV-positive adults, there was a 1.53% decline in the current smoking rate and a 2.86% increase in the quit ratio. CONCLUSIONS Adults with HIV were more likely to smoke and less likely to quit smoking than the general adult population. Tobacco screening and cessation strategies should specifically target this population.

OBJECTIVES: This study compared the current smoking prevalence among adults with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection to that of the general Korean population and analyzed changes in smoking prevalence and cessation rates from 2009 to 2020. METHODS: The study included a total of 10,980 adults with HIV infection who underwent a health screening examination (National Health Insurance Service-National Health Information Database; NHIS-NHID), 1,230 individuals with HIV infection who participated in the Korea HIV/AIDS Cohort (KoCosHIV), and 76,783 participants from the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES). We estimated the current smoking prevalence and the quit ratio, defined as the ratio of former smokers to ever-smokers. RESULTS: In the NHIS-NHID and KoCosHIV studies, the prevalence of current and former smoking among adults with HIV was 44.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 43.2 to 45.1) and 15.6% (95% CI, 14.9 to 16.3), and 47.7% (95% CI, 43.7 to 51.8) and 16.9% (95% CI, 11.8 to 22.0), respectively. In the KNHANES, these rates were 22.5% and 18.1%, respectively. The standardized prevalence ratio of current smoking among adults with HIV was 1.76 in the NHIS-NHID and 1.97 in the KoCosHIV. Furthermore, the likelihood of quitting smoking was lower among adults with HIV than in the general population (NHIS-NHID: 26.1%; 95% CI, 25.0 to 27.1; KoCosHIV: 26.2%; 95% CI, 20.2 to 32.1; KNHANES: 44.6%; 95% CI, 44.5 to 44.6). Among HIV-positive adults, there was a 1.53% decline in the current smoking rate and a 2.86% increase in the quit ratio. CONCLUSIONS Adults with HIV were more likely to smoke and less likely to quit smoking than the general adult population. Tobacco screening and cessation strategies should specifically target this population.