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 Purpose Treatments for neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) such as eculizumab, ravulizumab, satralizumab, and inebilizumab have significantly advanced relapse prevention, but they remain expensive. Rituximab is an off-label yet popular alternative that offers a cost-effective solution, but its real-world efficacy needs better quantification for guiding the application of newer approved NMOSD treatments (ANTs). This study aimed to determine real-world rituximab failure rates to anticipate the demand for ANTs and aid in resource allocation. Methods: We conducted a nationwide retrospective study involving 605 aquaporin-4-antibody-positive NMOSD patients from 22 centers in South Korea that assessed the efficacy and safety of rituximab over a median follow-up of 47 months. Results: The 605 patients treated with rituximab included 525 (87%) who received continuous therapy throughout the follow-up period (median=47 months, interquartile range=15–87 months). During this period, 117 patients (19%) experienced at least 1 relapse. Notably, 68 of these patients (11% of the total cohort) experienced multiple relapses or at least 1 severe relapse.Additionally, 2% of the patients discontinued rituximab due to adverse events, which included severe infusion reactions, neutropenia, and infections. Conclusions This study has confirmed the efficacy of rituximab in treating NMOSD, as evidenced by an 87% continuation rate among patients over a 4-year follow-up period. Nevertheless, the occurrence of at least one relapse in 19% of the cohort, including 11% who experienced multiple or severe relapses, and a 2% discontinuation rate due to adverse events highlight the urgent need for alternative therapeutic options.

Background: and Purpose Treatments for neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) such as eculizumab, ravulizumab, satralizumab, and inebilizumab have significantly advanced relapse prevention, but they remain expensive. Rituximab is an off-label yet popular alternative that offers a cost-effective solution, but its real-world efficacy needs better quantification for guiding the application of newer approved NMOSD treatments (ANTs). This study aimed to determine real-world rituximab failure rates to anticipate the demand for ANTs and aid in resource allocation. Methods: We conducted a nationwide retrospective study involving 605 aquaporin-4-antibody-positive NMOSD patients from 22 centers in South Korea that assessed the efficacy and safety of rituximab over a median follow-up of 47 months. Results: The 605 patients treated with rituximab included 525 (87%) who received continuous therapy throughout the follow-up period (median=47 months, interquartile range=15–87 months). During this period, 117 patients (19%) experienced at least 1 relapse. Notably, 68 of these patients (11% of the total cohort) experienced multiple relapses or at least 1 severe relapse.Additionally, 2% of the patients discontinued rituximab due to adverse events, which included severe infusion reactions, neutropenia, and infections. Conclusions This study has confirmed the efficacy of rituximab in treating NMOSD, as evidenced by an 87% continuation rate among patients over a 4-year follow-up period. Nevertheless, the occurrence of at least one relapse in 19% of the cohort, including 11% who experienced multiple or severe relapses, and a 2% discontinuation rate due to adverse events highlight the urgent need for alternative therapeutic 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.

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 Purpose Treatments for neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) such as eculizumab, ravulizumab, satralizumab, and inebilizumab have significantly advanced relapse prevention, but they remain expensive. Rituximab is an off-label yet popular alternative that offers a cost-effective solution, but its real-world efficacy needs better quantification for guiding the application of newer approved NMOSD treatments (ANTs). This study aimed to determine real-world rituximab failure rates to anticipate the demand for ANTs and aid in resource allocation. Methods: We conducted a nationwide retrospective study involving 605 aquaporin-4-antibody-positive NMOSD patients from 22 centers in South Korea that assessed the efficacy and safety of rituximab over a median follow-up of 47 months. Results: The 605 patients treated with rituximab included 525 (87%) who received continuous therapy throughout the follow-up period (median=47 months, interquartile range=15–87 months). During this period, 117 patients (19%) experienced at least 1 relapse. Notably, 68 of these patients (11% of the total cohort) experienced multiple relapses or at least 1 severe relapse.Additionally, 2% of the patients discontinued rituximab due to adverse events, which included severe infusion reactions, neutropenia, and infections. Conclusions This study has confirmed the efficacy of rituximab in treating NMOSD, as evidenced by an 87% continuation rate among patients over a 4-year follow-up period. Nevertheless, the occurrence of at least one relapse in 19% of the cohort, including 11% who experienced multiple or severe relapses, and a 2% discontinuation rate due to adverse events highlight the urgent need for alternative therapeutic 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.

With a rapidly aging population and increasing use of antiresorptive agents, medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) represents a growing clinical challenge worldwide. To address the need for tailored clinical guidance, a multidisciplinary task force was convened. Five Korean academic societies—the Korean Society for Bone and Mineral Research, the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons, the Korean Association of Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons, the Korean Society of Osteoporosis, and the Korean Endocrine Society—collaborated to develop this position statement. The consensus was formulated through comprehensive reviews of literature, combined with three rounds of formal surveys to consolidate expert opinion on controversial topics. This position paper provides evidence-based clinical guidelines for the prevention, diagnosis, and management of MRONJ tailored to the Korean healthcare environment. The diagnostic criteria affirm the standard definition but add a provision for diagnosis based on clinical or radiographic evidence of necrotic bone, even if the traditional 8-week timeframe has not been met. The committee advocates for retaining Stage 0 in the staging system to emphasize early detection and preventive intervention. Key recommendations include prescriptive, drug-specific guidelines for prophylactic drug holidays (e.g., a 2-month pause for oral bisphosphonates; timing surgery 3-4 months after the last denosumab injection) to minimize MRONJ risk from dental procedures. This statement also provides a clear framework for therapeutic drug holidays in established MRONJ, carefully balancing the need for jaw healing against systemic fracture risk. For treatment, this statement advocates for early and active surgical intervention across all MRONJ stages, supported by evidence of superior long-term outcomes compared to conservative management.This position statement offers a unique, evidence-based Korean clinical practice guideline for managing MRONJ. It is intended to standardize care, reduce clinical confusion, and ultimately improve patient outcomes by providing a clear framework for decision-making.

With a rapidly aging population and increasing use of antiresorptive agents, medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ) represents a growing clinical challenge worldwide. To address the need for tailored clinical guidance, a multidisciplinary task force was convened. Five Korean academic societies—the Korean Society for Bone and Mineral Research, the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons, the Korean Society of Maxillofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons, the Korean Osteoporosis Society, and the Korean Endocrine Society—collaborated to develop this position statement. The consensus was formulated through comprehensive reviews of literature, combined with three rounds of formal surveys to consolidate expert opinion on controversial topics. This position paper provides evidence-based clinical guidelines for the prevention, diagnosis, and management of MRONJ tailored to the Korean healthcare environment. The diagnostic criteria affirm the standard definition but add a provision for diagnosis based on clinical or radiographic evidence of necrotic bone, even if the traditional 8-week timeframe has not been met. The committee advocates for retaining stage 0 in the staging system to emphasize early detection and preventive intervention. Key recommendations include prescriptive, drug-specific guidelines for prophylactic drug holidays (e.g., a 2-month pause for oral bisphosphonates; timing surgery 3 to 4 months after the last denosumab injection) to minimize MRONJ risk from dental procedures. This statement also provides a clear framework for therapeutic drug holidays in established MRONJ, carefully balancing the need for jaw healing against systemic fracture risk. For treatment, this statement advocates for early and active surgical intervention across all MRONJ stages, supported by evidence of superior long-term outcomes compared to conservative management. This position statement offers a unique, evidence-based Korean clinical practice guideline for managing MRONJ. It is intended to standardize care, reduce clinical confusion, and ultimately improve patient outcomes by providing a clear framework for decision-making.