Purpose: Several types of dermal fillers have been recently introduced and used for penile augmentation (PA). However, few studies have compared outcomes after the injection of different fillers. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of hyaluronic acid (HLA), polylactic acid (PLA), and polymethyl methacrylate (PMA) filler injections, which are the most commonly used for aesthetic purposes. Materials and Methods: This prospective study was conducted for 24 weeks after a filler injection by a surgeon between March 2017 and December 2021. Healthy adult men complaining of small penis were enrolled. Penile girth, satisfaction, and injection-associated adverse events (AEs) were assessed at baseline and 4, 12, and 24 weeks after injection. Results: Of the 301 men who received filler injections, 125, 134, and 42 received HLA, PLA, and PMA fillers, respectively. The augmentation effect was in the order of PMA, HLA, and PLA, respectively, at 24 weeks (PMA vs. HLA, p<0.001; HLA vs. PLA, p=0.006). Satisfaction levels increased significantly at 24 weeks in all groups (each with p<0.001). However, the increase in satisfaction levels was smaller in the PMA group (PMA vs. HLA or PLA, p<0.05, for both penile appearance and sexual life). No serious or systemic AEs were recorded. Filler injection-associated local AEs in the HLA, PLA, and PMA groups occurred in 9 (7.2%), 16 (11.9%), and 6 (14.3%) men, respectively. There was no significant difference in AEs among the groups (p=0.299). Conclusions The augmentative effect was greater in the PMA group than in the HLA and PLA groups, whereas the increase in satisfaction levels was smaller in the PMA group. Our study demonstrated the clinical course of different types of fillers and suggests that the filler type should be selected after detailed counseling considering individual characteristics and preferences.

Peyronie’s disease is an acquired condition characterized by penile deformities caused by fibrosis of the penile tunica albuginea, leading to symptoms such as penile pain, erectile dysfunction, and other associated issues. Despite extensive research, the pathophysiology of this condition remains poorly understood, and standardized diagnostic and treatment protocols are lacking. While clinical guidelines from several professional societies exist, they do not consistently account for factors such as patient ethnicity, geography, and socioeconomic status. Thus, the Korean Society for Sexual Medicine and Andrology (KSSMA) aimed to develop recommendations tailored to clinical practice in Korea. These recommendations summarize the latest evidence, including clinical practice guidelines from various international professional societies, and represent the consensus opinion of an expert group within the KSSMA. They encompass all aspects of Peyronie’s disease, including the definition, diagnosis, non-surgical interventions, and surgical treatment options.

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: Rectal hyposensitivity (RH), as defined by the London Classification, has been linked to sensory dysfunction caused by diabetes mellitus and Parkinson’s disease (PD); however, its clinical interpretation has not been sufficiently validated. In this study, we aim to explore the correlations between rectal sensory thresholds and the clinical characteristics of patients with functional defecatory disorders. Methods: We reviewed data from patients who underwent high-resolution anorectal manometry and acquired their clinical characteristics using a standardized questionnaire. The associations between RH based on either 1 (borderline RH) or 2 (RH) abnormal rectal sensory thresholds and patients’ clinical and demographic characteristics were analyzed using linear and logistic regression models in the overall sex-stratified populations. Results: We enrolled 2540 patients, of whom 1046 (41.2%) were men. Overall, 150 (5.9%) patients were diagnosed with RH, whereas 422 (16.6%) had borderline RH. Multivariate linear regression analysis revealed that the Cleveland Clinic Constipation Score (CCCS) increased linearly with the increase in the number of abnormal rectal sensory thresholds (effect per threshold: 0.900 [standard deviation: 0.188]). Upon stratification by sex, borderline RH was positively associated with diabetes mellitus, PD, and CCCS (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.11, 95% confidence interval [1.08, 4.15]; aOR = 1.49 [1.03, 2.14]; aOR = 1.03 [1.01, 1.05], respectively) in women. However, RH was positively associated with only the CCCS. Conclusions Defining RH based on 1 or more abnormal sensory thresholds showed better clinical correlation with patient characteristics. However, further prospective studies are needed to validate these findings before proposing revisions to the current London classification criteria.

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.

Background and Objectives: Outcomes of deferring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without invasive physiologic assessment for intermediate coronary lesions is uncertain.We sought to compare long-term outcomes between medical treatment and PCI of intermediate lesions without invasive physiologic assessment. Methods: A total of 899 patients with intermediate coronary lesions between 50% and 70% diameter-stenosis were randomized to the conservative group (n=449) or the aggressive group (n=450). For intermediate lesions, PCI was performed in the aggressive group, but was deferred in the conservative group. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction [MI], or ischemia-driven any revascularization) at 3 years. Results: The number of treated lesions per patient was 0.8±0.9 in the conservative group and 1.7±0.9 in the aggressive group (p=0.001). At 3 years, the conservative group had a significantly higher incidence of MACE than the aggressive group (13.8% vs. 9.3%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00–2.21; p=0.049), mainly driven by revascularization of target intermediate lesion (6.5% vs. 1.1%; HR, 5.69; 95% CI, 2.20–14.73;p<0.001). Between 1 and 3 years after the index procedure, compared to the aggressive group, the conservative group had significantly higher incidence of cardiac death or MI (3.2% vs.0.7%; HR, 4.34; 95% CI, 1.24–15.22; p=0.022) and ischemia-driven any revascularization. Conclusions For intermediate lesions, medical therapy alone, guided only by angiography, was associated with a higher risk of MACE at 3 years compared with performing PCI, mainly due to increased revascularization.

Background and Objectives: Evidence remains limited on the real-world prescription of very low-dose oral anticoagulation among frail patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). We described the practice patterns, effectiveness, and safety of very low-dose edoxaban (15 mg once daily). Methods: Patients with AF prescribed edoxaban 15 mg once daily in 2 tertiary hospitals between 2016 and September 2022 were included. Baseline clinical characteristics and clinical outcomes of interest were thromboembolic and bleeding events. Results: A total of 674 patients were included (mean age 78.3±9.1, 49.7% aged ≥80 years, 49.3% women, median follow-up 1.0±1.2 years). Mean CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score was 3.9±1.6, and the modified HAS-BLED score was 2.0±1.1. Between 2016 and 2022, the number of very lowdose edoxaban prescriptions increased. The main reasons for the prescription of very lowdose were low body weight (55.5% below 60 kg), anaemia (62.8%), chronic kidney disease (40.2%), active cancer (15.3%), concomitant anti-platelet use (26.7%), and prior major bleeding (19.7%). During a median follow-up duration of 8 (interquartile range 3–16) months, overall thromboembolic and bleeding events occurred in 16 (2.3%) and 88 (13.1%) patients, respectively. Compared to the expected event rates on the established risk scoring systems, patients receiving very low-dose edoxaban demonstrated a 61% reduction in ischemic stroke, a 68% reduction of ischemic stroke/transient ischemic attack/systemic embolism, whereas a 49% increase in major bleeding. Conclusions The prescription of very low-dose edoxaban was increased over time, attributable to various clinical factors. The use of very low-dose edoxaban reduced the expected risk of thromboembolic events.