Background: Menopausal status can increase the risk of cardiocerebrovascular diseases (CCVDs) in women with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Regular exercise is well-known to reduce this risk. This study explored the impact of exercise on CCVD and mortality in women with T2DM according to their menopausal status. Methods: A total of 32,477 premenopausal and 53,690 postmenopausal Korean women with T2DM aged 40 to 60 years from a national health examination cohort (2009 to 2018) were included. We evaluated risks for stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and mortality based on exercise intensity. Cox proportional hazard regression analyses were performed to obtain the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) and 95% confidence interval. Results: Exercise reduced stroke, MI, and mortality risks in women with T2DM, regardless of menopausal status. The highest effects of aHR compared to the sedentary group were 0.68 for stroke, 0.66 for MI, and 0.81 for mortality. Postmenopausal women experienced significant MI risk reductions at most exercise intensities, with the greatest reduction in the ≥1,500 metabolic equivalent of task score group unlike premenopausal women. However, stroke and mortality risk reductions in postmenopausal women were less pronounced compared to premenopausal women. Conclusion Exercise reduces CCVD risk in women with T2DM across menopausal status. Postmenopausal women with T2DM had more benefits from exercise on MI but fewer benefits on stroke and mortality than premenopausal women. In premenopausal women with T2DM, exercise was not associated with a lower MI risk.

Background: The prevalence of diabetes mellitus and early-onset dementia (EOD), defined as dementia diagnosed at an age <65 years, is increasing worldwide, with significant socioeconomic implications. We investigated the association between diabetes, prediabetes, and EOD, focusing on the influence of diabetes duration on EOD risk. Methods: Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, we analyzed data from 1,979,509 patients aged 40–60 years who underwent health checkups in 2009. Patients were categorized into five groups: normal, impaired fasting glucose (IFG), newly diagnosed diabetes, diabetes duration <5 years, and diabetes duration ≥5 years. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate the adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) for EOD after adjusting for demographic and clinical covariates. Results: During the observation period (mean 7.75 years), 8,921 patients with EOD were identified. The diabetes group demonstrated a significantly higher incidence of EOD compared to the normal group (aHR, 1.334; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.226 to 1.451). EOD risk increased with longer diabetes duration, with the highest risk observed in patients with diabetes ≥5 years (aHR, 1.543; 95% CI, 1.368 to 1.741). No significant difference was observed between the IFG and normal groups (aHR, 0.989; 95% CI, 0.938 to 1.043). Additionally, the hypertension group exhibited a significantly higher incidence of EOD compared to the non-hypertension group (aHR, 1.364; 95% CI, 1.291 to 1.442). Conclusion Diabetes is independently associated with increased risk of EOD, and this risk increases with longer diabetes duration. This association remained significant regardless of the presence and duration of hypertension.

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/Aims: Globus is often linked with gastroesophageal reflux disease, which influences its treatment strategies. This study aims to investigate clinical characteristics of patients with refractory proton pump inhibitor (PPI) globus to better understand its etiology. Methods: Between 2017 and 2023, 122 out of 592 patients with globus from the Samsung Medical Center outpatient clinic who were unresponsive to 8 weeks of PPI treatment were analyzed. Patients underwent 24-hour esophageal pH monitoring and high-resolution manometry (HRM). They were divided into acid reflux, non-acid reflux, and no reflux groups, with basal impedance (BI) measurements taken at 3, 9, and 15 cm along the esophagus. These values were compared against data of healthy volunteers to identify significant differences across groups. Results: The acid reflux group displayed a median impedance of 1152 Ω at 3 cm, which was significantly lower than the median impedance of the non-acid reflux group (2644 Ω) and the no-reflux group (3083 Ω) (P = 0.015). Most patients in non-acid reflux and no-reflux groups showed higher impedance levels at both 3 cm and 15 cm compared to the first quartile of healthy individuals with significant differences (P = 0.032 and P = 0.029, respectively). Proximal BI was significantly lower than distal BI in both groups: 2278 Ω vs 2644 Ω in the non-acid reflux group (P = 0.035) and 2387 Ω vs 3083 Ω in the no-reflux group (P < 0.001). Conclusions Reduced proximal BI values compared to distal BI values suggest increased permeability in globus patients. Further studies with a larger cohort of refractory PPI patients and healthy volunteers are needed to explore these findings and their implications on globus etiology.

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/Aims: Globus is often linked with gastroesophageal reflux disease, which influences its treatment strategies. This study aims to investigate clinical characteristics of patients with refractory proton pump inhibitor (PPI) globus to better understand its etiology. Methods: Between 2017 and 2023, 122 out of 592 patients with globus from the Samsung Medical Center outpatient clinic who were unresponsive to 8 weeks of PPI treatment were analyzed. Patients underwent 24-hour esophageal pH monitoring and high-resolution manometry (HRM). They were divided into acid reflux, non-acid reflux, and no reflux groups, with basal impedance (BI) measurements taken at 3, 9, and 15 cm along the esophagus. These values were compared against data of healthy volunteers to identify significant differences across groups. Results: The acid reflux group displayed a median impedance of 1152 Ω at 3 cm, which was significantly lower than the median impedance of the non-acid reflux group (2644 Ω) and the no-reflux group (3083 Ω) (P = 0.015). Most patients in non-acid reflux and no-reflux groups showed higher impedance levels at both 3 cm and 15 cm compared to the first quartile of healthy individuals with significant differences (P = 0.032 and P = 0.029, respectively). Proximal BI was significantly lower than distal BI in both groups: 2278 Ω vs 2644 Ω in the non-acid reflux group (P = 0.035) and 2387 Ω vs 3083 Ω in the no-reflux group (P < 0.001). Conclusions Reduced proximal BI values compared to distal BI values suggest increased permeability in globus patients. Further studies with a larger cohort of refractory PPI patients and healthy volunteers are needed to explore these findings and their implications on globus etiology.

Background/Aims: Globus is often linked with gastroesophageal reflux disease, which influences its treatment strategies. This study aims to investigate clinical characteristics of patients with refractory proton pump inhibitor (PPI) globus to better understand its etiology. Methods: Between 2017 and 2023, 122 out of 592 patients with globus from the Samsung Medical Center outpatient clinic who were unresponsive to 8 weeks of PPI treatment were analyzed. Patients underwent 24-hour esophageal pH monitoring and high-resolution manometry (HRM). They were divided into acid reflux, non-acid reflux, and no reflux groups, with basal impedance (BI) measurements taken at 3, 9, and 15 cm along the esophagus. These values were compared against data of healthy volunteers to identify significant differences across groups. Results: The acid reflux group displayed a median impedance of 1152 Ω at 3 cm, which was significantly lower than the median impedance of the non-acid reflux group (2644 Ω) and the no-reflux group (3083 Ω) (P = 0.015). Most patients in non-acid reflux and no-reflux groups showed higher impedance levels at both 3 cm and 15 cm compared to the first quartile of healthy individuals with significant differences (P = 0.032 and P = 0.029, respectively). Proximal BI was significantly lower than distal BI in both groups: 2278 Ω vs 2644 Ω in the non-acid reflux group (P = 0.035) and 2387 Ω vs 3083 Ω in the no-reflux group (P < 0.001). Conclusions Reduced proximal BI values compared to distal BI values suggest increased permeability in globus patients. Further studies with a larger cohort of refractory PPI patients and healthy volunteers are needed to explore these findings and their implications on globus etiology.