Background: Long working hours have been associated with adverse physical and mental health outcomes; however, evidence regarding their relationship with satisfaction with work environment remains limited, particularly when long working hours are defined using a specific daily threshold. This study examined the association between working ≥10 hours per day and satisfaction with work environment among Korean wage workers, focusing on the cumulative number of such workdays per month. Methods: This cross-sectional study analyzed data from the 7th Korean Working Conditions Survey. A total of 24,269 wage workers aged ≥18 years were included after excluding self-employed workers, unpaid family workers, shift workers, and respondents with missing data. Working ≥10 hours per day was categorized as 0, 1–9, and ≥10 days per month. Satisfaction with work environment was categorized as satisfied or dissatisfied. Multiple logistic regression analyses were conducted to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dissatisfaction with work environment according to the number of long working days, adjusting for demographic and occupational characteristics. Results: Compared with workers who did not work ≥10 hours per day, those who worked 1–9 days and ≥10 days per month showed progressively higher levels of dissatisfaction with work environment. After adjustment for demographic and occupational factors, the odds of dissatisfaction with work environment were significantly higher among workers who worked ≥10 hours per day for 1–9 days per month (OR: 1.380; 95% CI: 1.145–1.665) and ≥10 days per month (OR: 2.106; 95% CI: 1.627–2.725), demonstrating a dose–response relationship. Conclusions Among the analytic sample of Korean wage workers included in this study, working ≥10 hours per day was associated with greater dissatisfaction with work environment, with a dose–response pattern according to the number of long working days per month.

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.

Background: Although there is general agreement on performing concomitant ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) during left-sided heart valve surgery in low-risk patients due to its proven long-term clinical benefits, its role in reoperative cases remains debated because of perceived high risks. Methods: This study included 338 consecutive patients with AF who underwent redo surgery for left-sided valve disease between 2000 and 2015 at 2 tertiary referral centers.Among them, 143 patients underwent concomitant surgical ablation for AF (ablation group), while 195 did not (no-ablation group). To evaluate comparative long-term clinical outcomes between the 2 groups, inverse probability of treatment weighting was applied. Results: Early mortality rates were 3.5% (4/143) in the ablation group and 9.2% (18/195) in the no-ablation group (p=0.064). At 5 years, the cumulative incidence of AF recurrence was 12.3%±0.1% in the ablation group and 85.2%±0.1% in the no-ablation group (p<0.001). During follow-up (median, 103 months), the ablation group demonstrated significantly lower risks of death (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.495; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.312–0.784; p=0.003) and thromboembolic events (aHR, 0.212; 95% CI, 0.058–0.771;p=0.019) compared with the no-ablation group. Conclusions Concomitant AF ablation during redo valve surgery was associated with improved rhythm outcomes, survival, and freedom from thromboembolic events, supporting its consideration as a reasonable option even in this high-risk group.

Although gemcitabine-based regimens are widely used as an effective treatment for pancreatic cancer, acquired resistance to gemcitabine has become an increasingly common problem. Therefore, a novel therapeutic strategy to treat gemcitabine-resistant pancreatic cancer is urgently required. Piceamycin has been reported to exhibit antiproliferative activity against various cancer cells; however, its underlying molecular mechanism for anticancer activity in pancreatic cancer cells remains unexplored. Therefore, the present study evaluated the antiproliferation activity of piceamycin in a gemcitabine-resistant pancreatic cancer cell line and patient-derived pancreatic cancer organoids. Piceamycin effectively inhibited the proliferation and suppressed the expression of alpha-actinin-4, a gene that plays a pivotal role in tumorigenesis and metastasis of various cancers, in gemcitabine-resistant cells. Long-term exposure to piceamycin induced cell cycle arrest at the G0/G1 phase and caused apoptosis. Piceamycin alsoinhibited the invasion and migration of gemcitabine-resistant cells by modulating focal adhesion and epithelial-mesenchymal transition biomarkers. Moreover, the combination of piceamycin and gemcitabine exhibited a synergistic antiproliferative activity in gemcitabine-resistant cells. Piceamycin also effectively inhibited patient-derived pancreatic cancer organoid growth and induced apoptosis in the organoids. Taken together, these findings demonstrate that piceamycin may be an effective agent for overcoming gemcitabine resistance in pancreatic cancer.

Background: It is well known that a large number of patients with diabetes also have dyslipidemia, which significantly increases the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of combination drugs consisting of metformin and atorvastatin, widely used as therapeutic agents for diabetes and dyslipidemia. Methods: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group and phase III multicenter study included adults with glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels >7.0% and <10.0%, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) >100 and <250 mg/dL. One hundred eighty-five eligible subjects were randomized to the combination group (metformin+atorvastatin), metformin group (metformin+atorvastatin placebo), and atorvastatin group (atorvastatin+metformin placebo). The primary efficacy endpoints were the percent changes in HbA1c and LDL-C levels from baseline at the end of the treatment. Results: After 16 weeks of treatment compared to baseline, HbA1c showed a significant difference of 0.94% compared to the atorvastatin group in the combination group (0.35% vs. −0.58%, respectively; P<0.0001), whereas the proportion of patients with increased HbA1c was also 62% and 15%, respectively, showing a significant difference (P<0.001). The combination group also showed a significant decrease in LDL-C levels compared to the metformin group (−55.20% vs. −7.69%, P<0.001) without previously unknown adverse drug events. Conclusion The addition of atorvastatin to metformin improved HbA1c and LDL-C levels to a significant extent compared to metformin or atorvastatin alone in diabetes and dyslipidemia patients. This study also suggested metformin’s preventive effect on the glucose-elevating potential of atorvastatin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and dyslipidemia, insufficiently controlled with exercise and diet. Metformin and atorvastatin combination might be an effective treatment in reducing the CVD risk in patients with both diabetes and dyslipidemia because of its lowering effect on LDL-C and glucose.

Purpose: This study aimed to develop and evaluate the effectiveness of a preceptor educational program in a children’s hospital. The program’s impact was assessed by measuring improvements in clinical competency, communication competency, and leadership competency. Methods: Four day pediatric nurse preceptor education program was developed using the ADDIE (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation) model. A single-group pretest-posttest design was employed to assess the program’s effects with seventeen participants who were newly trained preceptors. Additionally, participant satisfaction with the program was measured. Results: Following the implementation of the program, significant improvements were observed in clinical competency (Z=-3.62, p<.001), communication competency (Z=-2.77, p=.006), leadership competency (Z=-2.08, p=.038), other competence (Z=-2.64, p=.008), and total competency (Z=-3.52, p<.001) among participants. The overall satisfaction score was 4.41±0.62 on a 5-point scale. Conclusion The pediatric nurse preceptor educational program significantly enhances the overall nursing competencies of preceptor nurses in a children’s hospital. Further research is needed to evaluate the effects of this preceptorship on newly graduated nurses.