Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

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: Lung ultrasound (LUS) has proven valuable in the initial assessment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but its role in detecting pulmonary fibrosis following intensive care remains unclear. This study aims to assess the presence of pulmonary sequelae and fibrosis-like changes using LUS in survivors of severe COVID-19 pneumonia one month after discharge. Methods: We prospectively enrolled patients with severe COVID-19 who required mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit (ICU) and conducted LUS assessments from admission to the outpatient visit after discharge. We tracked changes in key LUS findings and applied our proprietary LUS scoring system. To evaluate LUS accuracy, we correlated measured LUS values with computed tomography scores. Results: We evaluated B-line presence, pleural thickness, and consolidation in 14 eligible patients. The LUS scores exhibited minimal changes, with values of 19.1, 19.2, and 17.5 at admission, discharge, and the outpatient visit, respectively. Notably, the number of B-lines decreased significantly, from 1.92 at admission to 0.56 at the outpatient visit (p<0.05), while pleural thickness increased significantly, from 2.05 at admission to 2.48 at the outpatient visit (p≤0.05). Conclusion This study demonstrates that LUS can track changes in lung abnormalities in severe COVID-19 patients from ICU admission through to outpatient follow-up. While pleural thickening and B-line patterns showed significant changes, no correlation was found between LUS and high-resolution computed tomography fibrosis scores. These findings suggest that LUS may serve as a supplementary tool for assessing pulmonary recovery in severe COVID-19 cases.

Background: Post-transplantation cyclophosphamide (PTCy) and anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG) are common pro‑ phylactic strategies for graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) after haploidentical hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (haplo-HSCT). Interleukin (IL)-6 is a surrogate marker for cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and acute GVHD.Method The clinical outcomes and complications of haplo-HSCT with PTCy plus ATG versus PTCy monotherapy were compared according to serum IL-6 levels at Chungnam National University Hospital (Daejeon, South Korea) from Jan‑ uary 2019 to February 2023. Results: Forty patients who underwent haplo-HSCT were analyzed. A significant difference in IL-6 levels was observed between the PTCy plus ATG and PTCy alone groups (7.47 ± 10.55 vs. 117.65 ± 127.67; p = 0.003). More patients in the PTCy plus ATG group had a CRS grade of 0 than in the PTCy alone group (p < 0.001). Serum IL-6 levels were associated with grades II–IV acute GVHD (r = 0.547, p < 0.001). The cumulative incidence (CI) of grades II–IV acute GVHD was significantly higher in the PTCy alone group (67.9% vs. 4.8%; p < 0.001). No significant difference in the CI for chronic GVHD was detected between the PTCy plus ATG and PTCy alone groups (72.1% vs. 82.0%; p = 0.730). The CI of 1-year non-relapse mortality was significantly higher in the PTCy alone group than in the PTCy plus ATG group (42.2% vs. 15.9%; p = 0.022). The 1-year overall survival (OS) was significantly better in the PTCy plus ATG group (75.9% vs. 35.3%; p = 0.011). The 1-year GVHD-free, relapse-free survival rate was 29.4% in the PTCy alone group and 54.0% in the PTCy plus ATG group (p = 0.038). Conclusion Serum IL-6 levels were higher in the PTCy alone group than in the PTCy plus ATG group. The addition of ATG before stem cell infusion affected IL-6 levels and reduced the incidences of CRS and grade II–IV acute GVHD in haplo-HSCT patients. This study suggests that PTCy plus ATG as GVHD prophylaxis in haplo-HSCT is beneficial in terms of clinical outcomes and complications of HSCT.

Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

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: Lung ultrasound (LUS) has proven valuable in the initial assessment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but its role in detecting pulmonary fibrosis following intensive care remains unclear. This study aims to assess the presence of pulmonary sequelae and fibrosis-like changes using LUS in survivors of severe COVID-19 pneumonia one month after discharge. Methods: We prospectively enrolled patients with severe COVID-19 who required mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit (ICU) and conducted LUS assessments from admission to the outpatient visit after discharge. We tracked changes in key LUS findings and applied our proprietary LUS scoring system. To evaluate LUS accuracy, we correlated measured LUS values with computed tomography scores. Results: We evaluated B-line presence, pleural thickness, and consolidation in 14 eligible patients. The LUS scores exhibited minimal changes, with values of 19.1, 19.2, and 17.5 at admission, discharge, and the outpatient visit, respectively. Notably, the number of B-lines decreased significantly, from 1.92 at admission to 0.56 at the outpatient visit (p<0.05), while pleural thickness increased significantly, from 2.05 at admission to 2.48 at the outpatient visit (p≤0.05). Conclusion This study demonstrates that LUS can track changes in lung abnormalities in severe COVID-19 patients from ICU admission through to outpatient follow-up. While pleural thickening and B-line patterns showed significant changes, no correlation was found between LUS and high-resolution computed tomography fibrosis scores. These findings suggest that LUS may serve as a supplementary tool for assessing pulmonary recovery in severe COVID-19 cases.

Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

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.