This study explores the development, roles, and key initiatives of the Regional Environmental Health Centers in Korea, detailing their evolution through four distinct phases and their impact on environmental health policy and local governance. It chronicles the establishment and transformation of these centers from their inception in May 2007, through four developmental stages. Originally named Environmental Disease Research Centers, they were subsequently renamed Environmental Health Centers following legislative changes. The analysis includes the expansion in the number of centers, the transfer of responsibilities to local governments, and the launch of significant projects such as the Korean Children’s Environmental Health Study (Ko-CHENS ). During the initial phase (May 2007–February 2009), the 10 centers concentrated on research-driven activities, shifting from a media-centered to a receptor-centered approach. In the second phase, prompted by the enactment of the Environmental Health Act, six additional centers were established, broadening their scope to address national environmental health issues. The third phase introduced Ko-CHENS, a 20-year national cohort project designed to influence environmental health policy by integrating research findings into policy frameworks. The fourth phase marked a decentralization of authority, empowering local governments and redefining the centers' roles to focus on regional environmental health challenges. The Regional Environmental Health Centers have significantly evolved and now play a crucial role in addressing local environmental health issues and supporting local government policies. Their capacity to adapt and respond to region-specific challenges is essential for the effective implementation of environmental health policies, reflecting geographical, socioeconomic, and demographic differences.

Background/Aims: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has significantly impacted global health, exacerbated metabolic health issues, and altered lifestyle behaviors. This study examined the sex-specific impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on the incidence of metabolic syndrome using data from the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES). Methods: Data from the KNHANES VII (2018) and VIII (2019–2021), including 15,499 participants, were analyzed. The study population was stratified by sex, and further subdivisions were conducted based on the timeframe relative to the COVID-19 outbreak. Variables such as age, education level, household income, smoking status, and high-risk drinking were analyzed to assess their influence on the prevalence of metabolic syndrome. Results: The overall prevalence of metabolic syndrome significantly increased from 28.11% before the outbreak to 29.69% after the outbreak. Both males and females reported significant increases in waist circumference and fasting glucose levels. Age and education level differentially influenced the prevalence of metabolic syndrome between the sex. Smoking was significantly associated with increased prevalence in males, whereas high-risk drinking was associated with increased prevalence in males and decreased prevalence in females. Conclusions The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly increased the prevalence of metabolic syndrome with notable sex-specific differences. These findings highlight the need for sex-specific public health interventions to mitigate the impact of the pandemic on metabolic health.

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: Among various emerging catheter-based treatments for severe tricuspid regurgitation (TR), the spacer device can reduce the regurgitation orifice without manipulating the valve leaflet. However, its clinical application has been hampered by traumatic anchoring to the myocardium and the coaxial alignment of the balloon resulting in insufficient TR reduction. This study aimed to evaluate the early-stage safety, technical feasibility, and preliminary efficacy of the novel atraumatic vertical spacer in patients with isolated severe TR. Methods: All procedures were guided by fluoroscopy and transthoracic echocardiography.The maximum device placement time with an inflated balloon was 24 hours. Changes in the amount of TR, right ventricular function, and patient hemodynamics were measured during balloon deployment. Results: A total of 7 patients (median age 74), underwent successful device implantation without procedure-related complications. During balloon inflation (median 25 minutes), there were no symptoms or signs indicative of TR intolerance. TR was reduced by 1 grade or greater in all patients, with 2 patients exhibiting a reduction of 3 grades, from torrential TR to a moderate degree. Mild TR after balloon inflation was achieved in 3 patients with baseline severe TR. The TR reduction observed during initial balloon deployment was sustained during the subsequent balloon maintenance period. Conclusions The Pivot-balloon procedure was safe, technically feasible, and effective in reducing TR in patients with severe TR. No periprocedural complications or adverse cardiovascular events were reported during device placement with TR reduction observed in all patients. However, longer-term follow-up is needed to confirm safety and treatment effect.

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.

Background and Objectives: Electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) is a device that generate vapor by heating e-cigarettes liquid. E-cigarette damages the respiratory immune system and renders the respiratory tract vulnerable to inflammations. However, there are no studies on how the inflammatory reactions in respiratory epithelial cells caused by e-cigarette occur, and the effects of Korean red ginseng (KRG) and saponin on inflammation induced by e-cigarette are unknown. This study aimed to compare the inflammatory reactions caused by e-cigarette and lipopolysaccharide (LPS), and to investigate the effects of KRG and saponin on cytokine and mucin expression induced by e-cigarette in respiratory epithelial cells.Subjects and Method In bronchoalveolar lavage fluid and lung tissue of mice, the effects of KRG and saponin on cytokines (interleukin [IL]-1β, IL-6, IL-8) and mucin 5AC/5B (MUC5AC/5B) expression induced by e-cigarette were investigated using real-time polymerase chain reaction, enzyme linked immunosorbent assay, and immunohistochemistry staining. Results: Inflammatory cells, cytokines (IL-1β, IL-6, IL-8) and MUC5AC/5B messenger RNA expression and protein production were increased by e-cigarette, similar to LPS. KRG and saponin decreased the expression of cytokines (IL-1β, IL-6, IL-8) and MUC5AC/5B induced by e-cigarette. KRG and saponin showed effects similar to that of dexamethasone. Conclusion E-cigarette causes inflammation similar to that caused by LPS. KRG and saponin regulate the expression of cytokine and MUC5AC/5B increased by e-cigarette in respiratory epithelial cells. KRG and saponin may be an effective therapeutic option for inflammatory responses induced by e-cigarette in respiratory epithelial cells.

This study explores the development, roles, and key initiatives of the Regional Environmental Health Centers in Korea, detailing their evolution through four distinct phases and their impact on environmental health policy and local governance. It chronicles the establishment and transformation of these centers from their inception in May 2007, through four developmental stages. Originally named Environmental Disease Research Centers, they were subsequently renamed Environmental Health Centers following legislative changes. The analysis includes the expansion in the number of centers, the transfer of responsibilities to local governments, and the launch of significant projects such as the Korean Children’s Environmental Health Study (Ko-CHENS ). During the initial phase (May 2007–February 2009), the 10 centers concentrated on research-driven activities, shifting from a media-centered to a receptor-centered approach. In the second phase, prompted by the enactment of the Environmental Health Act, six additional centers were established, broadening their scope to address national environmental health issues. The third phase introduced Ko-CHENS, a 20-year national cohort project designed to influence environmental health policy by integrating research findings into policy frameworks. The fourth phase marked a decentralization of authority, empowering local governments and redefining the centers' roles to focus on regional environmental health challenges. The Regional Environmental Health Centers have significantly evolved and now play a crucial role in addressing local environmental health issues and supporting local government policies. Their capacity to adapt and respond to region-specific challenges is essential for the effective implementation of environmental health policies, reflecting geographical, socioeconomic, and demographic differences.

Background/Aims: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has significantly impacted global health, exacerbated metabolic health issues, and altered lifestyle behaviors. This study examined the sex-specific impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on the incidence of metabolic syndrome using data from the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES). Methods: Data from the KNHANES VII (2018) and VIII (2019–2021), including 15,499 participants, were analyzed. The study population was stratified by sex, and further subdivisions were conducted based on the timeframe relative to the COVID-19 outbreak. Variables such as age, education level, household income, smoking status, and high-risk drinking were analyzed to assess their influence on the prevalence of metabolic syndrome. Results: The overall prevalence of metabolic syndrome significantly increased from 28.11% before the outbreak to 29.69% after the outbreak. Both males and females reported significant increases in waist circumference and fasting glucose levels. Age and education level differentially influenced the prevalence of metabolic syndrome between the sex. Smoking was significantly associated with increased prevalence in males, whereas high-risk drinking was associated with increased prevalence in males and decreased prevalence in females. Conclusions The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly increased the prevalence of metabolic syndrome with notable sex-specific differences. These findings highlight the need for sex-specific public health interventions to mitigate the impact of the pandemic on metabolic health.

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: Considering the high disease burden and unique features of Asian patients with breast cancer (BC), it is essential to have a comprehensive view of genetic characteristics in this population. An institutional targeted sequencing platform was developed through the Korea Research-Driven Hospitals project and was incorporated into clinical practice. This study explores the use of targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS) and its outcomes in patients with advanced/metastatic BC in the real world. Materials and Methods: We reviewed the results of NGS tests administered to BC patients using a customized sequencing platform—FiRST Cancer Panel (FCP)—over 7 years. We systematically described clinical translation of FCP for precise diagnostics, personalized therapeutic strategies, and unraveling disease pathogenesis. Results: NGS tests were conducted on 548 samples from 522 patients with BC. Ninety-seven point six percentage of tested samples harbored at least one pathogenic alteration. The common alterations included mutations in TP53 (56.2%), PIK3CA (31.2%), GATA3 (13.8%), BRCA2 (10.2%), and amplifications of CCND1 (10.8%), FGF19 (10.0%), and ERBB2 (9.5%). NGS analysis of ERBB2 amplification correlated well with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 immunohistochemistry and in situ hybridization. RNA panel analyses found potentially actionable and prognostic fusion genes. FCP effectively screened for potentially germline pathogenic/likely pathogenic mutation. Ten point three percent of BC patients received matched therapy guided by NGS, resulting in a significant overall survival advantage (p=0.022), especially for metastatic BCs. Conclusion Clinical NGS provided multifaceted benefits, deepening our understanding of the disease, improving diagnostic precision, and paving the way for targeted therapies. The concrete advantages of FCP highlight the importance of multi-gene testing for BC, especially for metastatic conditions.