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: Healthcare-associated infections impose a significant burden on antibiotic usage, healthcare expenditures, and morbidity. Therefore, it is crucial to revise policies to minimize such losses. This nationwide survey aimed to evaluate infection prevention and control (IPC) components in healthcare facilities and encourage improvements in acute care hospitals with inadequate infection prevention settings. This study aims to enhance the infection control capabilities of healthcare facilities. Methods: From December 27, 2021, to May 13, 2022, we conducted a survey of 1,767 acute care hospitals in the Republic of Korea. A survey was conducted to evaluate the infection control components in 1,767 acute care hospitals. Infection control officers provided direct responses to a systematically developed questionnaire. Subsequently, 10% of the respondents were randomly selected for the site investigation. Results: Overall, 1,197 (67.7%) hospitals responded to the online survey. On-site investigations were conducted at 125 hospitals. Hospitals with ≥ 150 beds are advised to have an IPC team under Article 3 of the Medical Service Act; however, only 87.0% (598/687) of hospitals with ≥ 100 beds had one. Conversely, 22.7% (116/510) of hospitals with < 100 beds had an IPC team. Regulations for hand hygiene, waste management, healthcare worker protection and safety, environmental cleaning, standard precautions, and prevention of the transmission of multidrug-resistant pathogens were present in 84.2%, 80.1%, 77.4%, 76.2%, 75.8%, and 63.5% of the hospitals, respectively. Hospitals with < 100 beds had low availability of all categories of standard operating procedures. Conclusion This study is the first national survey of acute care hospitals in the Republic of Korea. The data presented in the current study will improve the understanding of IPC status and will help establish a survey system. Our survey provides a basis for improving policies related to IPC in healthcare facilities.

Background: Healthcare-associated infections impose a significant burden on antibiotic usage, healthcare expenditures, and morbidity. Therefore, it is crucial to revise policies to minimize such losses. This nationwide survey aimed to evaluate infection prevention and control (IPC) components in healthcare facilities and encourage improvements in acute care hospitals with inadequate infection prevention settings. This study aims to enhance the infection control capabilities of healthcare facilities. Methods: From December 27, 2021, to May 13, 2022, we conducted a survey of 1,767 acute care hospitals in the Republic of Korea. A survey was conducted to evaluate the infection control components in 1,767 acute care hospitals. Infection control officers provided direct responses to a systematically developed questionnaire. Subsequently, 10% of the respondents were randomly selected for the site investigation. Results: Overall, 1,197 (67.7%) hospitals responded to the online survey. On-site investigations were conducted at 125 hospitals. Hospitals with ≥ 150 beds are advised to have an IPC team under Article 3 of the Medical Service Act; however, only 87.0% (598/687) of hospitals with ≥ 100 beds had one. Conversely, 22.7% (116/510) of hospitals with < 100 beds had an IPC team. Regulations for hand hygiene, waste management, healthcare worker protection and safety, environmental cleaning, standard precautions, and prevention of the transmission of multidrug-resistant pathogens were present in 84.2%, 80.1%, 77.4%, 76.2%, 75.8%, and 63.5% of the hospitals, respectively. Hospitals with < 100 beds had low availability of all categories of standard operating procedures. Conclusion This study is the first national survey of acute care hospitals in the Republic of Korea. The data presented in the current study will improve the understanding of IPC status and will help establish a survey system. Our survey provides a basis for improving policies related to IPC in healthcare facilities.

Background: Healthcare-associated infections impose a significant burden on antibiotic usage, healthcare expenditures, and morbidity. Therefore, it is crucial to revise policies to minimize such losses. This nationwide survey aimed to evaluate infection prevention and control (IPC) components in healthcare facilities and encourage improvements in acute care hospitals with inadequate infection prevention settings. This study aims to enhance the infection control capabilities of healthcare facilities. Methods: From December 27, 2021, to May 13, 2022, we conducted a survey of 1,767 acute care hospitals in the Republic of Korea. A survey was conducted to evaluate the infection control components in 1,767 acute care hospitals. Infection control officers provided direct responses to a systematically developed questionnaire. Subsequently, 10% of the respondents were randomly selected for the site investigation. Results: Overall, 1,197 (67.7%) hospitals responded to the online survey. On-site investigations were conducted at 125 hospitals. Hospitals with ≥ 150 beds are advised to have an IPC team under Article 3 of the Medical Service Act; however, only 87.0% (598/687) of hospitals with ≥ 100 beds had one. Conversely, 22.7% (116/510) of hospitals with < 100 beds had an IPC team. Regulations for hand hygiene, waste management, healthcare worker protection and safety, environmental cleaning, standard precautions, and prevention of the transmission of multidrug-resistant pathogens were present in 84.2%, 80.1%, 77.4%, 76.2%, 75.8%, and 63.5% of the hospitals, respectively. Hospitals with < 100 beds had low availability of all categories of standard operating procedures. Conclusion This study is the first national survey of acute care hospitals in the Republic of Korea. The data presented in the current study will improve the understanding of IPC status and will help establish a survey system. Our survey provides a basis for improving policies related to IPC in healthcare facilities.

Background: Healthcare-associated infections impose a significant burden on antibiotic usage, healthcare expenditures, and morbidity. Therefore, it is crucial to revise policies to minimize such losses. This nationwide survey aimed to evaluate infection prevention and control (IPC) components in healthcare facilities and encourage improvements in acute care hospitals with inadequate infection prevention settings. This study aims to enhance the infection control capabilities of healthcare facilities. Methods: From December 27, 2021, to May 13, 2022, we conducted a survey of 1,767 acute care hospitals in the Republic of Korea. A survey was conducted to evaluate the infection control components in 1,767 acute care hospitals. Infection control officers provided direct responses to a systematically developed questionnaire. Subsequently, 10% of the respondents were randomly selected for the site investigation. Results: Overall, 1,197 (67.7%) hospitals responded to the online survey. On-site investigations were conducted at 125 hospitals. Hospitals with ≥ 150 beds are advised to have an IPC team under Article 3 of the Medical Service Act; however, only 87.0% (598/687) of hospitals with ≥ 100 beds had one. Conversely, 22.7% (116/510) of hospitals with < 100 beds had an IPC team. Regulations for hand hygiene, waste management, healthcare worker protection and safety, environmental cleaning, standard precautions, and prevention of the transmission of multidrug-resistant pathogens were present in 84.2%, 80.1%, 77.4%, 76.2%, 75.8%, and 63.5% of the hospitals, respectively. Hospitals with < 100 beds had low availability of all categories of standard operating procedures. Conclusion This study is the first national survey of acute care hospitals in the Republic of Korea. The data presented in the current study will improve the understanding of IPC status and will help establish a survey system. Our survey provides a basis for improving policies related to IPC in healthcare facilities.

This study aimed to elucidate the clinical characteristics of patients diagnosed with toxoplasmosis in Korea. We collected and analyzed the specific research data of 5,917 patients from the Health Insurance Review and Assessment (HIRA; 2007–2020) and 533 electronic medical records (EMRs; 2003–2021) of Korean patients. The HIRA data showed that toxoplasmosis is an endemic disease that occurs constantly in Korea, with a large proportion of patients complaining of ocular symptoms. Of the 533 patients for whom EMR data were available, 54.6% were diagnosed with toxoplasmosis; ocular toxoplasmosis (35.7%), congenital toxoplasmosis (4.7%), cerebral toxoplasmosis (4.1%), pulmonary toxoplasmosis (0.4%), and toxoplasma hepatitis (0.6%), in order of frequency. In ocular cases, 54.4% of the patients had diverse ocular pathologies. Toxoplasmosis in Korea is characterized by a high frequency of ocular symptoms, most patients are adults, and 51.8% of patients with seropositivity were positive for IgG, suggesting prior infection. This study highlights that patients with ocular symptoms are included in the major diagnosis group for acquired toxoplasmosis in Korea.