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: s/Aims: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the sixth most common cancer and second leading cause of cancer-related deaths in South Korea. This study evaluated the characteristics of Korean patients newly diagnosed with HCC in 2016-2018. Methods: Data from the Korean Primary Liver Cancer Registry (KPLCR), a representative database of patients newly diagnosed with HCC in South Korea, were analyzed. This study investigated 4,462 patients with HCC registered in the KPLCR in 2016-2018. Results: The median patient age was 63 years (interquartile range, 55-72). 79.7% of patients were male. Hepatitis B infection was the most common underlying liver disease (54.5%). The Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging system classified patients as follows: stage 0 (14.9%), A (28.8%), B (7.5%), C (39.0%), and D (9.8%). The median overall survival was 3.72 years (95% confidence interval, 3.47-4.14), with 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival rates of 71.3%, 54.1%, and 44.3%, respectively. In 2016-2018, there was a significant shift toward BCLC stage 0-A and Child-Turcotte-Pugh liver function class A (P<0.05), although survival rates did not differ by diagnosis year. In the treatment group (n=4,389), the most common initial treatments were transarterial therapy (31.7%), surgical resection (24.9%), best supportive care (18.9%), and local ablation therapy (10.5%). Conclusions Between 2016 and 2018, HCC tended to be diagnosed at earlier stages, with better liver function in later years. However, since approximately half of the patients remained diagnosed at an advanced stage, more rigorous and optimized HCC screening strategies should be implemented.

Human rhinovirus (HRV) causes the common cold and exacerbates chronic respiratory diseases, such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Despite its significant impact on public health, there are currently no approved vaccines or antiviral treatments for HRV infection. Apoptosis is the process through which cells eliminate themselves through the systematic activation of intrinsic death pathways in response to various stimuli. It plays an important role in viral infections and serves as a key immune defense mechanism in the interactions between viruses and the host. In the present study, we investigated the antiviral effects of quercetin-3-methyl ether, a flavonoid isolated from Serratula coronata, on human rhinovirus 1B (HRV1B). Quercetin-3-methyl ether significantly inhibited HRV1B replication in HeLa cells in a concentration-dependent manner, thereby reducing cytopathic effects and viral RNA levels. Time-course and time-of-addition analyses confirmed that quercetin-3-methyl ether exhibited antiviral activity during the early stages of viral infection, potentially targeting the replication and translation phases. Gene expression analysis using microarrays revealed that pro-apoptotic genes were upregulated in quercetin-3-methyl ether-treated cells, suggesting that quercetin-3-methyl ether enhances early apoptosis to counteract HRV1B-induced immune evasion. In vivo administration of quercetin-3-methyl ether to HRV1B-infected mice significantly reduced viral RNA levels and inflammatory cytokine production in the lung tissues. Our findings demonstrated the potential of quercetin-3-methyl ether as a novel antiviral agent against HRV1B, thereby providing a promising therapeutic strategy for the management of HRV1B infections and related complications.

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: This study examined the status of arthroscopic shoulder surgery in ambulatory settings by analyzing a single institutional database. Materials and Methods: Three hundred and eight arthroscopic shoulder surgeries performed between June 2022 and March 2023 were reviewed retrospectively. Propensity score matching (1-to-2) was performed between the day surgery group and the inpatient group according to sex, age, tear size, and interscalene nerve block (ISNB). Finally, 59 patients in the day surgery group and 118 patients in the inpatient group were matched. The indications of the day surgery were pre-determined according to the American Society of Anesthesiologists classification I or II, and the patient's social, medical, and surgical factors were thoroughly analyzed to define the target group of the day surgery. Complications related to voiding difficulty were prevented by classifying the patients using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) before surgery, and preventive medications were prescribed in the higher-risk patients with an IPSS of more than 7. To reduce postoperative pain, ISNB and patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) were applied to all patients during the study period, while day surgery patients received an additional bolus injection (5 cc of 0.375% ropivacaine+5 cc of normal saline) before discharge instead of continuous ISNB PCA. This study compared the postoperative pain assessments at discharge and on postoperative days 1, 2, and 14, as well as the total volume of saline irrigation, surgical time, and complications between the day surgery and inpatient groups. Results: The visual analogue scale for pain (pVAS) at the time of surgery were comparable in the day surgery group (4.1±1.5) and inpatient surgery group (4.1±1.1), with no significant difference between them (p=0.35). Similarly, the postoperative pVAS at 1, 2, and 14 days postoperatively was similar in the two groups (all p>0.05). The surgical-related factors, such as the total volume of saline irrigation and surgical time, were similar in the two groups. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in postoperative complications between the two groups (all p>0.05). Conclusion These results show that arthroscopic shoulder surgery in ambulatory settings is a safe alternative to inpatient surgery.

Background: We evaluated severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific humoral and cellular responses for up to 6 months after the 3rd dose of ancestral coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination in people living with HIV (PLWH) and healthy controls (HCs) who were not infected with COVID-19. Methods: Anti-spike receptor-binding domain IgG (anti-RBD IgG) concentrations using chemiluminescence immunoassay and neutralizing antibodies using focus reduction neutralization test (FRNT) were assessed at 1 week after each dose of vaccination, and 3 and 6 months after the 3rd dose in 62 PLWH and 25 HCs. T-cell responses using intracellular cytokine stain were evaluated at 1 week before, and 1 week and 6 months after the 3rd dose. Results: At 1 week after the 3rd dose, adequate anti-RBD IgG (> 300 binding antibody unit /mL) was elicited in all PLWH except for one patient with 36 CD4 T-cell count/mm3 . The geometric mean titers of 50% FRNT against wild type (WT) and omicron BA.5 strains of SARS-CoV-2 in PLWH with CD4 T-cell count ≥ 500 cells/mm3(high CD4 recovery, HCDR) were comparable to HC, but they were significantly decreased in PLWH with CD4 T-cell count < 500/mm3 (low CD4 recovery, LCDR). After adjusting for age, gender, viral suppression, and number of preexisting comorbidities, CD4 T-cell counts < 500/mm3 significantly predicted a poor magnitude of neutralizing antibodies against WT, omicron BA.5, and XBB 1.5 strains among PLWH. Multivariable linear regression adjusting for age and gender revealed that LCDR was associated with reduced neutralizing activity (P = 0.017) and interferon-γ-producing T-cell responses (P = 0.049 for CD T-cell; P = 0.014 for CD8 T-cell) against WT, and strongly associated with more decreased cross-neutralization against omicron BA.5 strains (P < 0.001). Conclusion HCDR demonstrated robust humoral and cell-mediated immune responses after a booster dose of ancestral SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, whereas LCDR showed diminished immune responses against WT virus and more impaired cross-neutralization against omicron BA.5 strain.

Background: We evaluated severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific humoral and cellular responses for up to 6 months after the 3rd dose of ancestral coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination in people living with HIV (PLWH) and healthy controls (HCs) who were not infected with COVID-19. Methods: Anti-spike receptor-binding domain IgG (anti-RBD IgG) concentrations using chemiluminescence immunoassay and neutralizing antibodies using focus reduction neutralization test (FRNT) were assessed at 1 week after each dose of vaccination, and 3 and 6 months after the 3rd dose in 62 PLWH and 25 HCs. T-cell responses using intracellular cytokine stain were evaluated at 1 week before, and 1 week and 6 months after the 3rd dose. Results: At 1 week after the 3rd dose, adequate anti-RBD IgG (> 300 binding antibody unit /mL) was elicited in all PLWH except for one patient with 36 CD4 T-cell count/mm3 . The geometric mean titers of 50% FRNT against wild type (WT) and omicron BA.5 strains of SARS-CoV-2 in PLWH with CD4 T-cell count ≥ 500 cells/mm3(high CD4 recovery, HCDR) were comparable to HC, but they were significantly decreased in PLWH with CD4 T-cell count < 500/mm3 (low CD4 recovery, LCDR). After adjusting for age, gender, viral suppression, and number of preexisting comorbidities, CD4 T-cell counts < 500/mm3 significantly predicted a poor magnitude of neutralizing antibodies against WT, omicron BA.5, and XBB 1.5 strains among PLWH. Multivariable linear regression adjusting for age and gender revealed that LCDR was associated with reduced neutralizing activity (P = 0.017) and interferon-γ-producing T-cell responses (P = 0.049 for CD T-cell; P = 0.014 for CD8 T-cell) against WT, and strongly associated with more decreased cross-neutralization against omicron BA.5 strains (P < 0.001). Conclusion HCDR demonstrated robust humoral and cell-mediated immune responses after a booster dose of ancestral SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, whereas LCDR showed diminished immune responses against WT virus and more impaired cross-neutralization against omicron BA.5 strain.