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 and Objectives: Kawasaki disease (KD) is an acute vasculitis that primarily affects children under age 5 years. Approximately 20–25% of untreated children with KD and 3–5% of those treated with intravenous immunoglobulin therapy develop coronary artery aneurysms (CAAs). The prevalence of CAAs is much higher in male than in female patients with KD, but the underlying factors contributing to susceptibility to CAAs in patients with KD remain unclear. This study aimed to identify sex-specific susceptibility loci associated with CAAs in KD patients. Methods: A sex-stratified genome-wide association study (GWAS) was performed using previously obtained GWAS data from 296 KD patients and a new replication study in an independent set of 976 KD patients by comparing KD patients without CAA (controls) and KD patients with aneurysms (internal diameter ≥5 mm) (cases). Results: Six male-specific susceptibility loci, PDE1C, NOS3, DLG2, CPNE8, FUNDC1, and GABRQ (odds ratios [ORs], 2.25–9.98; p=0.00204–1.96×10−6 ), and 2 female-specific susceptibility loci, SMAD3 (OR, 4.59; p=0.00016) and IL1RAPL1 (OR, 4.35; p=0.00026), were significantly associated with CAAs in patients with KD. In addition, the numbers of CAA risk alleles additively contributed to the development of CAAs in patients with KD. Conclusions A sex-stratified GWAS identified 6 male-specific (PDE1C, NOS3, DLG2, CPNE8, FUNDC1, and GABRQ) and 2 female-specific (SMAD3 and IL1RAPL1) CAA susceptibility loci in patients with KD.

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer in Korea and the third leading cause of death from cancer. Treatment outcomes for colon cancer are steadily improving due to national health screening programs with advances in diagnostic methods, surgical techniques, and therapeutic agents.. The Korea Colon Cancer Multidisciplinary (KCCM) Committee intends to provide professionals who treat colon cancer with the most up-to-date, evidence-based practice guidelines to improve outcomes and help them make decisions that reflect their patients’ values and preferences. These guidelines have been established by consensus reached by the KCCM Guideline Committee based on a systematic literature review and evidence synthesis and by considering the national health insurance system in real clinical practice settings. Each recommendation is presented with a recommendation strength and level of evidence based on the consensus of the committee.

Background: Since the emergence of hypervirulent strains of Clostridioides difficile, the incidence of C. difficile infections (CDI) has increased significantly. Methods: To assess the incidence of CDI in Korea, we conducted a prospective multicentre observational study from October 2020 to October 2021. Additionally, we calculated the incidence of CDI from mass data obtained from the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service (HIRA) from 2008 to 2020. Results: In the prospective study with active surveillance, 30,212 patients had diarrhoea and 907 patients were diagnosed with CDI over 1,288,571 patient-days and 193,264 admissions in 18 participating hospitals during 3 months of study period; the CDI per 10,000 patientdays was 7.04 and the CDI per 1,000 admission was 4.69. The incidence of CDI was higher in general hospitals than in tertiary hospitals: 6.38 per 10,000 patient-days (range: 3.25–12.05) and 4.18 per 1,000 admissions (range: 1.92–8.59) in 11 tertiary hospitals, vs. 9.45 per 10,000 patient-days (range: 5.68–13.90) and 6.73 per 1,000 admissions (range: 3.18–15.85) in seven general hospitals. With regard to HIRA data, the incidence of CDI in all hospitals has been increasing over the 13-year-period: from 0.3 to 1.8 per 10,000 patient-days, 0.3 to 1.6 per 1,000 admissions, and 6.9 to 56.9 per 100,000 population, respectively. Conclusion The incidence of CDI in Korea has been gradually increasing, and its recent value is as high as that in the United State and Europe. CDI is underestimated, particularly in general hospitals in Korea.

This study aimed to evaluate the differences in the baseline characteristics and patterns of antibiotic usage among hospitals based on their participation in the Korea National Antimicrobial Use Analysis System (KONAS). We obtained claims data from the National Health Insurance for inpatients admitted to all secondary- and tertiary-care hospitals between January 2020 and December 2021 in Korea. 15.9% (58/395) of hospitals were KONAS participants, among which the proportion of hospitals with > 900 beds (31.0% vs.2.6%, P < 0.001) and tertiary care (50.0% vs. 5.2%, P < 0.001) was higher than that among non-participants. The consumption of antibiotics targeting antimicrobial-resistant gram positive bacteria (33.7 vs. 27.1 days of therapy [DOT]/1,000 patient-days, P = 0.019) and antibiotics predominantly used for resistant gram-negative bacteria (4.8 vs. 3.7 DOT/1,000 patient-days, P = 0.034) was higher in KONAS-participating versus -non-participating hospitals. The current KONAS data do not fully represent all secondary- and tertiary-care hospitals in Korea; thus, the KONAS results should be interpreted with caution.

Background: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, patients with myasthenia gravis (MG) were more susceptible to poor outcomes owing to respiratory muscle weakness and immunotherapy. Several studies conducted in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic reported higher mortality in patients with MG compared to the general population. This study aimed to investigate the clinical course and prognosis of COVID-19 in patients with MG and to compare these parameters between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients in South Korea. Methods: This multicenter, retrospective study, which was conducted at 14 tertiary hospitals in South Korea, reviewed the medical records and identified MG patients who contracted COVID-19 between February 2022 and April 2022. The demographic and clinical characteristics associated with MG and vaccination status were collected. The clinical outcomes of COVID-19 infection and MG were investigated and compared between the vaccinated and unvaccinated patients. Results: Ninety-two patients with MG contracted COVID-19 during the study. Nine (9.8%) patients required hospitalization, 4 (4.3%) of whom were admitted to the intensive care unit. Seventy-five of 92 patients were vaccinated before contracting COVID-19 infection, and 17 were not. During the COVID-19 infection, 6 of 17 (35.3%) unvaccinated patients were hospitalized, whereas 3 of 75 (4.0%) vaccinated patients were hospitalized (P < 0.001). The frequencies of ICU admission and mechanical ventilation were significantly lower in the vaccinated patients than in the unvaccinated patients (P = 0.019 and P = 0.032, respectively). The rate of MG deterioration was significantly lower in the vaccinated patients than in the unvaccinated patients (P = 0.041). Logistic regression after weighting revealed that the risk of hospitalization and MG deterioration after COVID-19 infection was significantly lower in the vaccinated patients than in the unvaccinated patients. Conclusion This study suggests that the clinical course and prognosis of patients with MG who contracted COVID-19 during the dominance of the omicron variant of COVID-19 may be milder than those at the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic when vaccination was unavailable. Vaccination may reduce the morbidity of COVID-19 in patients with MG and effectively prevent MG deterioration induced by COVID-19 infection.