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: This study aimed to determine whether a shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen is non-inferior to the standard 6-month tuberculosis regimen. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial enrolled participants with respiratory specimen positivity by Xpert MTB/RIF assay or Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture without rifampicin-resistance. Participants were randomized at 1:1 to the investigational or control group. The investigational group received high-dose rifampicin (30 mg/kg/day), isoniazid, and pyrazinamide until culture conversion, followed by high-dose rifampicin and isoniazid for 12 weeks. The control group received the standard 6-month regimen. The primary outcome was the rate of unfavorable outcomes at 18 months post-randomization. The non-inferiority margin was set at <6% difference in unfavorable outcomes rates. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04485156) Results: Between 4 November 2020 and 3 January 2022, 76 participants were enrolled. Of these, 58 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Unfavorable outcomes occurred in 10 (31.3%) of 32 in the control group and 10 (38.5%) of 26 in the investigational group. The difference was 7.2% (95% confidence interval, ∞ to 31.9%), failing to prove non-inferiority. Serious adverse events and grade 3 or higher adverse events did not differ between the groups. Conclusion The shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen failed to demonstrate non-inferiority but had an acceptable safety profile.

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: Claudin 18.2 (CLDN18.2) has emerged as a promising therapeutic target for CLDN18.2-expressing gastric cancer (GC). We sought to examine the heterogeneity of CLDN18.2 expression between primary GC (PGC) and metastatic GC (MGC) using various scoring methods. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from 102 patients with pathologically confirmed paired primary and metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinomas. CLDN18.2 expression was evaluated through immunohistochemistry on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue samples. We assessed CLDN18.2 positivity using multiple scoring approaches, including the immunoreactivity score, H-score, and the percentage of tumor cells showing moderate-to-strong staining intensity. We analyzed the concordance rates between PGC and MGC and the association of CLDN18.2 positivity with clinicopathological features. Results: CLDN18.2 positivity varied from 25% to 65% depending on the scoring method, with PGC consistently showing higher expression levels than MGC. Intratumoral heterogeneity was noted in 25.5% of PGCs and 19.6% of MGCs. Intertumoral heterogeneity, manifesting as discordance in CLDN18.2 positivity between PGC and MGC, was observed in about 20% of cases, with moderate agreement across scoring methods (κ=0.47 to 0.60).In PGC, higher CLDN18.2 positivity correlated with synchronous metastasis, presence of peritoneal metastasis, poorly differentiated grade, and biopsy specimens. In MGC, positivity was associated with synchronous metastasis, presence of peritoneal metastasis, and metastatic peritoneal tissues. Conclusions CLDN18.2 expression demonstrates significant heterogeneity between PGC and MGC, with a 20% discordance rate. Comprehensive tissue sampling and reassessment of CLDN18.2 status are crucial, especially before initiating CLDN18.2-targeted therapies.

Background/Aims: The Korean guidelines for Helicobacter pylori treatment were revised in 2020, however, the extent of adherence to these guidelines in clinical practice remains unclear. Herein, we initiated a prospective, nationwide, multicenter registry study in 2021 to evaluate the current management of H.pylori infection in Korea. Methods: This interim report describes the adherence to the revised guidelines and their impact on firstline eradication rates. Data on patient demographics, diagnoses, treatments, and eradication outcomes were collected using a web-based electronic case report form. Results: A total of 7,261 patients from 66 hospitals who received first-line treatment were analyzed.The modified intention-to-treat eradication rate for first-line treatment was 81.0%, with 80.4% of the prescriptions adhering to the revised guidelines. The most commonly prescribed regimen was the 14-day clarithromycin-based triple therapy (CTT; 42.0%), followed by tailored therapy (TT; 21.2%), 7-day CTT (14.1%), and 10-day concomitant therapy (CT; 10.1%). Time-trend analysis demonstrated significant increases in guideline adherence and the use of 10-day CT and TT, along with a decrease in the use of 7-day CTT (all p<0.001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that guideline adherence was significantly associated with first-line eradication success (odds ratio, 2.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.61 to 2.56; p<0.001). Conclusions The revised guidelines for the treatment of H. pylori infection have been increasingly adopted in routine clinical practice in Korea, which may have contributed to improved first-line eradication rates. Notably, the 14-day CTT, 10-day CT, and TT regimens are emerging as the preferred first-line treatment options among Korean physicians.

Background/Aims: The Korean guidelines for Helicobacter pylori treatment were revised in 2020, however, the extent of adherence to these guidelines in clinical practice remains unclear. Herein, we initiated a prospective, nationwide, multicenter registry study in 2021 to evaluate the current management of H.pylori infection in Korea. Methods: This interim report describes the adherence to the revised guidelines and their impact on firstline eradication rates. Data on patient demographics, diagnoses, treatments, and eradication outcomes were collected using a web-based electronic case report form. Results: A total of 7,261 patients from 66 hospitals who received first-line treatment were analyzed.The modified intention-to-treat eradication rate for first-line treatment was 81.0%, with 80.4% of the prescriptions adhering to the revised guidelines. The most commonly prescribed regimen was the 14-day clarithromycin-based triple therapy (CTT; 42.0%), followed by tailored therapy (TT; 21.2%), 7-day CTT (14.1%), and 10-day concomitant therapy (CT; 10.1%). Time-trend analysis demonstrated significant increases in guideline adherence and the use of 10-day CT and TT, along with a decrease in the use of 7-day CTT (all p<0.001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that guideline adherence was significantly associated with first-line eradication success (odds ratio, 2.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.61 to 2.56; p<0.001). Conclusions The revised guidelines for the treatment of H. pylori infection have been increasingly adopted in routine clinical practice in Korea, which may have contributed to improved first-line eradication rates. Notably, the 14-day CTT, 10-day CT, and TT regimens are emerging as the preferred first-line treatment options among Korean physicians.

Background/Aims: The Korean guidelines for Helicobacter pylori treatment were revised in 2020, however, the extent of adherence to these guidelines in clinical practice remains unclear. Herein, we initiated a prospective, nationwide, multicenter registry study in 2021 to evaluate the current management of H.pylori infection in Korea. Methods: This interim report describes the adherence to the revised guidelines and their impact on firstline eradication rates. Data on patient demographics, diagnoses, treatments, and eradication outcomes were collected using a web-based electronic case report form. Results: A total of 7,261 patients from 66 hospitals who received first-line treatment were analyzed.The modified intention-to-treat eradication rate for first-line treatment was 81.0%, with 80.4% of the prescriptions adhering to the revised guidelines. The most commonly prescribed regimen was the 14-day clarithromycin-based triple therapy (CTT; 42.0%), followed by tailored therapy (TT; 21.2%), 7-day CTT (14.1%), and 10-day concomitant therapy (CT; 10.1%). Time-trend analysis demonstrated significant increases in guideline adherence and the use of 10-day CT and TT, along with a decrease in the use of 7-day CTT (all p<0.001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that guideline adherence was significantly associated with first-line eradication success (odds ratio, 2.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.61 to 2.56; p<0.001). Conclusions The revised guidelines for the treatment of H. pylori infection have been increasingly adopted in routine clinical practice in Korea, which may have contributed to improved first-line eradication rates. Notably, the 14-day CTT, 10-day CT, and TT regimens are emerging as the preferred first-line treatment options among Korean physicians.

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: This study aimed to determine whether a shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen is non-inferior to the standard 6-month tuberculosis regimen. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial enrolled participants with respiratory specimen positivity by Xpert MTB/RIF assay or Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture without rifampicin-resistance. Participants were randomized at 1:1 to the investigational or control group. The investigational group received high-dose rifampicin (30 mg/kg/day), isoniazid, and pyrazinamide until culture conversion, followed by high-dose rifampicin and isoniazid for 12 weeks. The control group received the standard 6-month regimen. The primary outcome was the rate of unfavorable outcomes at 18 months post-randomization. The non-inferiority margin was set at <6% difference in unfavorable outcomes rates. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04485156) Results: Between 4 November 2020 and 3 January 2022, 76 participants were enrolled. Of these, 58 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Unfavorable outcomes occurred in 10 (31.3%) of 32 in the control group and 10 (38.5%) of 26 in the investigational group. The difference was 7.2% (95% confidence interval, ∞ to 31.9%), failing to prove non-inferiority. Serious adverse events and grade 3 or higher adverse events did not differ between the groups. Conclusion The shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen failed to demonstrate non-inferiority but had an acceptable safety profile.

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.