Objectives: Adhering to management guidelines, including routine follow-up and education, is crucial for the effective management of chronic diseases such as diabetes. Uncontrolled diabetes is linked to poor sleep quality. We used nationally representative data from community-dwelling Koreans to investigate potential associations between non-adherence to diabetes management and poor sleep quality. Methods: Of the 228 340 participants in the 2018 Korea Community Health Survey, we analyzed data from 68 246 participants aged 65 years and older. Based on their diabetes status and adherence to diabetes-related tests (glycated hemoglobin, fundus examination, and urine microalbuminuria) and management education, study participants were divided into 3 groups: no diabetes, adherence, and non-adherence. Outcome variables included poor overall sleep quality and sleep disturbances, as measured by the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index. Results: The study included 934 participants in the adherence group (2.0%) and 13 420 in the non-adherence group (20.2%). Participants displaying non-adherence were significantly more likely to report poor overall sleep quality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04 to 1.13) and to experience sleep fragmentation, nocturia, pain during sleep, and difficulty falling asleep compared to participants without diabetes. Even in the earlier stage of diabetes, non-adherent participants were more likely to report poor sleep quality (aOR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.18). Conclusions Patients with diabetes who do not follow management guidelines are more likely to experience poor sleep quality than those without diabetes. Emphasizing diabetes management and increasing awareness of management strategies may improve sleep quality among patients with this disease.

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.

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.

The application area of biportal endoscopic spine surgery (BESS) is gradually expanding. Compared with conventional fusion surgery, transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) using BESS (BESS-TLIF) has the advantages of less bleeding, minimal postoperative pain, and faster recovery. This technical note highlights its application in managing complex conditions such as scar tissue adhesion, altered anatomy, and implant removal, common in reoperations. The method focuses on precise dissection, endoscopic visualization, and careful tissue handling to ensure effective decompression and stabilization. Three representative cases, including reoperations for recurrent disc herniation, adjacent segment disease (ASD) following prior fusion, and ASD with nonunion of the prior fusion site requiring fusion extension, were described. All three cases exhibited clinical improvement following surgery. BESS is an effective and safe method for spinal revision surgery not only in simple decompression surgery but also in cases that required fusion surgery. As BESS is advancing, its role in complex spinal surgeries is expected to expand, potentially setting new standards in minimally invasive spine surgery.

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 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.

Purpose: Developmentally regulated GTP-binding protein 2 (DRG2) regulates microtubule dynamics and G2/M arrest during docetaxel treatment. Poly ADP-ribose polymerase (PARP) acts as an important repair system for DNA damage caused by docetaxel treatment. This study investigated whether DRG2 expression affects response to PARP inhibitors (olaparib) using prostate cancer cell lines PC3, DU145, LNCaP-FGC, and LNCaP-LN3. Materials and Methods: The cell viability and DRG2 expression levels were assessed using colorimetric-based cell viability assay and western blot. Cells were transfected with DRG2 siRNA, and pcDNA6/V5-DRG2 was used to overexpress DRG2. Flow cytometry was applied for cell cycle assay and apoptosis analysis using the Annexing V cell death assay. Results: The expression of DRG2 was highest in LNCaP-LN3 and lowest in DU145 cells. Expressions of p53 in PC3, DU145, and the two LNCaP cell lines were null-type, high-expression, and medium-expression, respectively. In PC3 (DRG2 high, p53 null) cells, docetaxel increased G2/M arrest without apoptosis; however, subsequent treatment with olaparib promoted apoptosis. In DU145 and LNCaP-FGC (DRG2 low), docetaxel increased sub-G1 but not G2/M arrest and induced apoptosis, whereas olaparib had no additional effect. In LNCaP-LN3 (DRG2 high, p53 wild-type), docetaxel increased sub-G1 and G2/M arrest, furthermore olaparib enhanced cell death. Docetaxel and olaparib combination treatment had a slight effect on DRG2 knockdown PC3, but increased apoptosis in DRG2-overexpressed DU145 cells. Conclusions DRG2 and p53 expressions play an important role in prostate cancer cell lines treated with docetaxel, and DRG2 levels can predict the response to PARP inhibitors.

The application area of biportal endoscopic spine surgery (BESS) is gradually expanding. Compared with conventional fusion surgery, transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) using BESS (BESS-TLIF) has the advantages of less bleeding, minimal postoperative pain, and faster recovery. This technical note highlights its application in managing complex conditions such as scar tissue adhesion, altered anatomy, and implant removal, common in reoperations. The method focuses on precise dissection, endoscopic visualization, and careful tissue handling to ensure effective decompression and stabilization. Three representative cases, including reoperations for recurrent disc herniation, adjacent segment disease (ASD) following prior fusion, and ASD with nonunion of the prior fusion site requiring fusion extension, were described. All three cases exhibited clinical improvement following surgery. BESS is an effective and safe method for spinal revision surgery not only in simple decompression surgery but also in cases that required fusion surgery. As BESS is advancing, its role in complex spinal surgeries is expected to expand, potentially setting new standards in minimally invasive spine surgery.

Objectives: Adhering to management guidelines, including routine follow-up and education, is crucial for the effective management of chronic diseases such as diabetes. Uncontrolled diabetes is linked to poor sleep quality. We used nationally representative data from community-dwelling Koreans to investigate potential associations between non-adherence to diabetes management and poor sleep quality. Methods: Of the 228 340 participants in the 2018 Korea Community Health Survey, we analyzed data from 68 246 participants aged 65 years and older. Based on their diabetes status and adherence to diabetes-related tests (glycated hemoglobin, fundus examination, and urine microalbuminuria) and management education, study participants were divided into 3 groups: no diabetes, adherence, and non-adherence. Outcome variables included poor overall sleep quality and sleep disturbances, as measured by the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index. Results: The study included 934 participants in the adherence group (2.0%) and 13 420 in the non-adherence group (20.2%). Participants displaying non-adherence were significantly more likely to report poor overall sleep quality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04 to 1.13) and to experience sleep fragmentation, nocturia, pain during sleep, and difficulty falling asleep compared to participants without diabetes. Even in the earlier stage of diabetes, non-adherent participants were more likely to report poor sleep quality (aOR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.18). Conclusions Patients with diabetes who do not follow management guidelines are more likely to experience poor sleep quality than those without diabetes. Emphasizing diabetes management and increasing awareness of management strategies may improve sleep quality among patients with this disease.