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: 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: 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.

Naegleria fowleri, a brain-eating amoeba, thrives in lakes and rivers with aquatic vegetation and causes primary amoebic meningoencephalitis (PAM) in humans. Most recently, it has become such a serious problem that N. fowleri was detected in tap water in Houston, USA. Several pathogenic factors are considered very important to destroy target cells in the brain. In particular, the food-cup where N. fowleri antigen-1 (Nfa1) is located, is strongly expressed in pseudopodia involved in the movement of N. fowleri, and is involved in phagocytosis by attaching to target cells. In this article, we reviewed the role of the Nfa1 protein and its associated pathogenicity. The nfa1 gene was cloned by cDNA library immunoscreening using infection serum and immune serum. Nfa1 protein is mainly distributed in pseudopodia important to movement and vacuoles. Moreover, heat shock protein 70, cathepsin-like proteare and Nf-actin are also associated with pseudopodia in which Nfa1 is localized. Interestingly, the amount of the nfa1 gene changed as N. fowleri trophozoites transformed into cysts. Polyclonal antiserum against Nfa1 showed a protective effect against cytotoxicity of approximately 19.7%. Nfa1-specific IgA antibodies prevent N. fowleri trophozoites from adhering to the nasal mucosa, delaying invasion. The nfa1-vaccinated mice showed significantly higher levels of Nfa1-specific antibody. The duration of anti-Nfa1 IgG in the vaccinated mice lasted 12 weeks, strongly suggesting that nfa1 is a significant pathogenic gene and that Nfa1 is a pathogenic protein. Several factors related to pseudopodia and locomotion have been linked to Nfa1. A clearer function of N. fowleri targeting nfa1 with other genes might enable target-based inhibition of N. fowleri pathogenicity.

Naegleria fowleri, a brain-eating amoeba, thrives in lakes and rivers with aquatic vegetation and causes primary amoebic meningoencephalitis (PAM) in humans. Most recently, it has become such a serious problem that N. fowleri was detected in tap water in Houston, USA. Several pathogenic factors are considered very important to destroy target cells in the brain. In particular, the food-cup where N. fowleri antigen-1 (Nfa1) is located, is strongly expressed in pseudopodia involved in the movement of N. fowleri, and is involved in phagocytosis by attaching to target cells. In this article, we reviewed the role of the Nfa1 protein and its associated pathogenicity. The nfa1 gene was cloned by cDNA library immunoscreening using infection serum and immune serum. Nfa1 protein is mainly distributed in pseudopodia important to movement and vacuoles. Moreover, heat shock protein 70, cathepsin-like proteare and Nf-actin are also associated with pseudopodia in which Nfa1 is localized. Interestingly, the amount of the nfa1 gene changed as N. fowleri trophozoites transformed into cysts. Polyclonal antiserum against Nfa1 showed a protective effect against cytotoxicity of approximately 19.7%. Nfa1-specific IgA antibodies prevent N. fowleri trophozoites from adhering to the nasal mucosa, delaying invasion. The nfa1-vaccinated mice showed significantly higher levels of Nfa1-specific antibody. The duration of anti-Nfa1 IgG in the vaccinated mice lasted 12 weeks, strongly suggesting that nfa1 is a significant pathogenic gene and that Nfa1 is a pathogenic protein. Several factors related to pseudopodia and locomotion have been linked to Nfa1. A clearer function of N. fowleri targeting nfa1 with other genes might enable target-based inhibition of N. fowleri pathogenicity.

Naegleria fowleri, a brain-eating amoeba, thrives in lakes and rivers with aquatic vegetation and causes primary amoebic meningoencephalitis (PAM) in humans. Most recently, it has become such a serious problem that N. fowleri was detected in tap water in Houston, USA. Several pathogenic factors are considered very important to destroy target cells in the brain. In particular, the food-cup where N. fowleri antigen-1 (Nfa1) is located, is strongly expressed in pseudopodia involved in the movement of N. fowleri, and is involved in phagocytosis by attaching to target cells. In this article, we reviewed the role of the Nfa1 protein and its associated pathogenicity. The nfa1 gene was cloned by cDNA library immunoscreening using infection serum and immune serum. Nfa1 protein is mainly distributed in pseudopodia important to movement and vacuoles. Moreover, heat shock protein 70, cathepsin-like proteare and Nf-actin are also associated with pseudopodia in which Nfa1 is localized. Interestingly, the amount of the nfa1 gene changed as N. fowleri trophozoites transformed into cysts. Polyclonal antiserum against Nfa1 showed a protective effect against cytotoxicity of approximately 19.7%. Nfa1-specific IgA antibodies prevent N. fowleri trophozoites from adhering to the nasal mucosa, delaying invasion. The nfa1-vaccinated mice showed significantly higher levels of Nfa1-specific antibody. The duration of anti-Nfa1 IgG in the vaccinated mice lasted 12 weeks, strongly suggesting that nfa1 is a significant pathogenic gene and that Nfa1 is a pathogenic protein. Several factors related to pseudopodia and locomotion have been linked to Nfa1. A clearer function of N. fowleri targeting nfa1 with other genes might enable target-based inhibition of N. fowleri pathogenicity.

New Korean guidelines for the diagnosis and management of dry eye disease were developed based on literature reviews by the Korean Dry Eye Guideline Establishment Committee, a previous dry eye guideline by Korean Corneal Disease Study Group, a survey of Korean Dry Eye Society (KDES) members, and KDES consensus meetings. The new definition of dry eye was also proposed by KDES regular members. The new definition by the regular members of the KDES is as follows: “Dry eye is a disease of the ocular surface characterized by tear film abnormalities and ocular symptoms.” The combination of ocular symptoms and an unstable tear film (tear breakup time <7 seconds) was considered as essential components for the diagnosis of dry eye. Schirmer test and ocular surface staining were considered adjunctive diagnostic criteria. The treatment guidelines consisted of a simplified stepwise approach according to aqueous deficiency dominant, evaporation dominant, and altered tear distribution subtypes. New Korean guidelines can be used as a simple, valid, and accessible tool for the diagnosis and management of dry eye disease in clinical practice.

Naegleria fowleri, a brain-eating amoeba, thrives in lakes and rivers with aquatic vegetation and causes primary amoebic meningoencephalitis (PAM) in humans. Most recently, it has become such a serious problem that N. fowleri was detected in tap water in Houston, USA. Several pathogenic factors are considered very important to destroy target cells in the brain. In particular, the food-cup where N. fowleri antigen-1 (Nfa1) is located, is strongly expressed in pseudopodia involved in the movement of N. fowleri, and is involved in phagocytosis by attaching to target cells. In this article, we reviewed the role of the Nfa1 protein and its associated pathogenicity. The nfa1 gene was cloned by cDNA library immunoscreening using infection serum and immune serum. Nfa1 protein is mainly distributed in pseudopodia important to movement and vacuoles. Moreover, heat shock protein 70, cathepsin-like proteare and Nf-actin are also associated with pseudopodia in which Nfa1 is localized. Interestingly, the amount of the nfa1 gene changed as N. fowleri trophozoites transformed into cysts. Polyclonal antiserum against Nfa1 showed a protective effect against cytotoxicity of approximately 19.7%. Nfa1-specific IgA antibodies prevent N. fowleri trophozoites from adhering to the nasal mucosa, delaying invasion. The nfa1-vaccinated mice showed significantly higher levels of Nfa1-specific antibody. The duration of anti-Nfa1 IgG in the vaccinated mice lasted 12 weeks, strongly suggesting that nfa1 is a significant pathogenic gene and that Nfa1 is a pathogenic protein. Several factors related to pseudopodia and locomotion have been linked to Nfa1. A clearer function of N. fowleri targeting nfa1 with other genes might enable target-based inhibition of N. fowleri pathogenicity.