Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

Background/Aims: Patients with acute exacerbation of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (AE-IPF) typically have a poor prognosis; however, no effective treatment is available. In recent years, several retrospective studies have suggested the clinical benefits of direct hemoperfusion with a polymyxin B–immobilized fiber column (PMX-DHP) in patients with AE-IPF. Herein, we aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of PMX-DHP treatment in patients with AE-IPF. Methods: Patients diagnosed with AE-IPF (n = 10) with a partial pressure of oxygen to fraction of inspiratory oxygen ratio (P/F ratio) > 100 were prospectively enrolled at a single center. PMX-DHP was performed twice for 6 hours (at 24-h intervals) at a flow rate of 80–100 mL/min, and steroid pulse therapy was concurrently administered (500 mg of methylprednisolone for 3 d). Results: The mean patient age was 67 years, and 80.0% were male. During the follow-up (median, 42.5 d; interquartile range, 16.0–174.0 d), seven (70.0%) patients died (including two who underwent transplantation); the in-hospital mortality rate was 70%, while the 30- and 90-day mortality rates were 50.0% and 70.0%, respectively. After 48 hours of PMX-DHP treatment, the P/F ratio improved (mean, 160.0 vs. 229.0; p = 0.054) and C-reactive protein level decreased (mean, 8.3 mg/dL vs. 3.5 mg/dL; p = 0.012). During hospitalization, no PMX-DHP–associated adverse events were observed. Conclusions Our results suggest that PMX-DHP treatment may be useful at improving oxygenation and reducing inflammation in patients with AE-IPF with acceptable safety profiles, however without affecting their prognosis.

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: Lung ultrasound (LUS) has proven valuable in the initial assessment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but its role in detecting pulmonary fibrosis following intensive care remains unclear. This study aims to assess the presence of pulmonary sequelae and fibrosis-like changes using LUS in survivors of severe COVID-19 pneumonia one month after discharge. Methods: We prospectively enrolled patients with severe COVID-19 who required mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit (ICU) and conducted LUS assessments from admission to the outpatient visit after discharge. We tracked changes in key LUS findings and applied our proprietary LUS scoring system. To evaluate LUS accuracy, we correlated measured LUS values with computed tomography scores. Results: We evaluated B-line presence, pleural thickness, and consolidation in 14 eligible patients. The LUS scores exhibited minimal changes, with values of 19.1, 19.2, and 17.5 at admission, discharge, and the outpatient visit, respectively. Notably, the number of B-lines decreased significantly, from 1.92 at admission to 0.56 at the outpatient visit (p<0.05), while pleural thickness increased significantly, from 2.05 at admission to 2.48 at the outpatient visit (p≤0.05). Conclusion This study demonstrates that LUS can track changes in lung abnormalities in severe COVID-19 patients from ICU admission through to outpatient follow-up. While pleural thickening and B-line patterns showed significant changes, no correlation was found between LUS and high-resolution computed tomography fibrosis scores. These findings suggest that LUS may serve as a supplementary tool for assessing pulmonary recovery in severe COVID-19 cases.

Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

Background/Aims: Patients with acute exacerbation of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (AE-IPF) typically have a poor prognosis; however, no effective treatment is available. In recent years, several retrospective studies have suggested the clinical benefits of direct hemoperfusion with a polymyxin B–immobilized fiber column (PMX-DHP) in patients with AE-IPF. Herein, we aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of PMX-DHP treatment in patients with AE-IPF. Methods: Patients diagnosed with AE-IPF (n = 10) with a partial pressure of oxygen to fraction of inspiratory oxygen ratio (P/F ratio) > 100 were prospectively enrolled at a single center. PMX-DHP was performed twice for 6 hours (at 24-h intervals) at a flow rate of 80–100 mL/min, and steroid pulse therapy was concurrently administered (500 mg of methylprednisolone for 3 d). Results: The mean patient age was 67 years, and 80.0% were male. During the follow-up (median, 42.5 d; interquartile range, 16.0–174.0 d), seven (70.0%) patients died (including two who underwent transplantation); the in-hospital mortality rate was 70%, while the 30- and 90-day mortality rates were 50.0% and 70.0%, respectively. After 48 hours of PMX-DHP treatment, the P/F ratio improved (mean, 160.0 vs. 229.0; p = 0.054) and C-reactive protein level decreased (mean, 8.3 mg/dL vs. 3.5 mg/dL; p = 0.012). During hospitalization, no PMX-DHP–associated adverse events were observed. Conclusions Our results suggest that PMX-DHP treatment may be useful at improving oxygenation and reducing inflammation in patients with AE-IPF with acceptable safety profiles, however without affecting their prognosis.

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: Lung ultrasound (LUS) has proven valuable in the initial assessment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but its role in detecting pulmonary fibrosis following intensive care remains unclear. This study aims to assess the presence of pulmonary sequelae and fibrosis-like changes using LUS in survivors of severe COVID-19 pneumonia one month after discharge. Methods: We prospectively enrolled patients with severe COVID-19 who required mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit (ICU) and conducted LUS assessments from admission to the outpatient visit after discharge. We tracked changes in key LUS findings and applied our proprietary LUS scoring system. To evaluate LUS accuracy, we correlated measured LUS values with computed tomography scores. Results: We evaluated B-line presence, pleural thickness, and consolidation in 14 eligible patients. The LUS scores exhibited minimal changes, with values of 19.1, 19.2, and 17.5 at admission, discharge, and the outpatient visit, respectively. Notably, the number of B-lines decreased significantly, from 1.92 at admission to 0.56 at the outpatient visit (p<0.05), while pleural thickness increased significantly, from 2.05 at admission to 2.48 at the outpatient visit (p≤0.05). Conclusion This study demonstrates that LUS can track changes in lung abnormalities in severe COVID-19 patients from ICU admission through to outpatient follow-up. While pleural thickening and B-line patterns showed significant changes, no correlation was found between LUS and high-resolution computed tomography fibrosis scores. These findings suggest that LUS may serve as a supplementary tool for assessing pulmonary recovery in severe COVID-19 cases.

Purpose: To investigate whether using a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for the second time (2nd_CGM) would be effective after using it for the first time (1st_CGM), depending on age. Materials and Methods: This study included patients aged ≥40 years who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and had used a CGM at least twice between 2017 and 2021. Participants were divided into two groups based on their age: those aged <60 years and those aged ≥60 years. We assessed the glycemic control status of the 1st_CGM and 2nd_CGM, along with the glycemic variability. Results: Overall, 15 patients were included in the study. The mean glucose level in users aged <60 years significantly decreased (p<0.001) owing to the CGM use, while it did not increase in those aged ≥60 years. In users aged ≥60 years, the 1st_CGM group showed a significant decrease in blood glucose levels over time (p<0.05), whereas the 2nd_CGM group only showed a non-significant decreasing trend. The time in range tended to increase in those aged <60 years but decreased in those aged ≥60 years. In those aged <60 years, the mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (p<0.001), standard deviation (p<0.05), and coefficient of variation (p<0.001) significantly decreased. In those aged ≥60 years, these parameters exhibited a non-significant decreasing trend. Conclusion Glycemic effect and variability improved as expected with 1st_CGM use. However, 2nd_CGM did not significantly improve glycemic effect or variability in users aged ≥60 years, contrary to expectations. To address this issue, further investigation is needed to understand why, compared to 1st_CGM, 2nd_CGM fails to achieve better glycemic control in individuals aged ≥60 years.