Background: We evaluated severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific humoral and cellular responses for up to 6 months after the 3rd dose of ancestral coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination in people living with HIV (PLWH) and healthy controls (HCs) who were not infected with COVID-19. Methods: Anti-spike receptor-binding domain IgG (anti-RBD IgG) concentrations using chemiluminescence immunoassay and neutralizing antibodies using focus reduction neutralization test (FRNT) were assessed at 1 week after each dose of vaccination, and 3 and 6 months after the 3rd dose in 62 PLWH and 25 HCs. T-cell responses using intracellular cytokine stain were evaluated at 1 week before, and 1 week and 6 months after the 3rd dose. Results: At 1 week after the 3rd dose, adequate anti-RBD IgG (> 300 binding antibody unit /mL) was elicited in all PLWH except for one patient with 36 CD4 T-cell count/mm3 . The geometric mean titers of 50% FRNT against wild type (WT) and omicron BA.5 strains of SARS-CoV-2 in PLWH with CD4 T-cell count ≥ 500 cells/mm3(high CD4 recovery, HCDR) were comparable to HC, but they were significantly decreased in PLWH with CD4 T-cell count < 500/mm3 (low CD4 recovery, LCDR). After adjusting for age, gender, viral suppression, and number of preexisting comorbidities, CD4 T-cell counts < 500/mm3 significantly predicted a poor magnitude of neutralizing antibodies against WT, omicron BA.5, and XBB 1.5 strains among PLWH. Multivariable linear regression adjusting for age and gender revealed that LCDR was associated with reduced neutralizing activity (P = 0.017) and interferon-γ-producing T-cell responses (P = 0.049 for CD T-cell; P = 0.014 for CD8 T-cell) against WT, and strongly associated with more decreased cross-neutralization against omicron BA.5 strains (P < 0.001). Conclusion HCDR demonstrated robust humoral and cell-mediated immune responses after a booster dose of ancestral SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, whereas LCDR showed diminished immune responses against WT virus and more impaired cross-neutralization against omicron BA.5 strain.

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: We evaluated severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific humoral and cellular responses for up to 6 months after the 3rd dose of ancestral coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination in people living with HIV (PLWH) and healthy controls (HCs) who were not infected with COVID-19. Methods: Anti-spike receptor-binding domain IgG (anti-RBD IgG) concentrations using chemiluminescence immunoassay and neutralizing antibodies using focus reduction neutralization test (FRNT) were assessed at 1 week after each dose of vaccination, and 3 and 6 months after the 3rd dose in 62 PLWH and 25 HCs. T-cell responses using intracellular cytokine stain were evaluated at 1 week before, and 1 week and 6 months after the 3rd dose. Results: At 1 week after the 3rd dose, adequate anti-RBD IgG (> 300 binding antibody unit /mL) was elicited in all PLWH except for one patient with 36 CD4 T-cell count/mm3 . The geometric mean titers of 50% FRNT against wild type (WT) and omicron BA.5 strains of SARS-CoV-2 in PLWH with CD4 T-cell count ≥ 500 cells/mm3(high CD4 recovery, HCDR) were comparable to HC, but they were significantly decreased in PLWH with CD4 T-cell count < 500/mm3 (low CD4 recovery, LCDR). After adjusting for age, gender, viral suppression, and number of preexisting comorbidities, CD4 T-cell counts < 500/mm3 significantly predicted a poor magnitude of neutralizing antibodies against WT, omicron BA.5, and XBB 1.5 strains among PLWH. Multivariable linear regression adjusting for age and gender revealed that LCDR was associated with reduced neutralizing activity (P = 0.017) and interferon-γ-producing T-cell responses (P = 0.049 for CD T-cell; P = 0.014 for CD8 T-cell) against WT, and strongly associated with more decreased cross-neutralization against omicron BA.5 strains (P < 0.001). Conclusion HCDR demonstrated robust humoral and cell-mediated immune responses after a booster dose of ancestral SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, whereas LCDR showed diminished immune responses against WT virus and more impaired cross-neutralization against omicron BA.5 strain.

Background: We evaluated severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific humoral and cellular responses for up to 6 months after the 3rd dose of ancestral coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination in people living with HIV (PLWH) and healthy controls (HCs) who were not infected with COVID-19. Methods: Anti-spike receptor-binding domain IgG (anti-RBD IgG) concentrations using chemiluminescence immunoassay and neutralizing antibodies using focus reduction neutralization test (FRNT) were assessed at 1 week after each dose of vaccination, and 3 and 6 months after the 3rd dose in 62 PLWH and 25 HCs. T-cell responses using intracellular cytokine stain were evaluated at 1 week before, and 1 week and 6 months after the 3rd dose. Results: At 1 week after the 3rd dose, adequate anti-RBD IgG (> 300 binding antibody unit /mL) was elicited in all PLWH except for one patient with 36 CD4 T-cell count/mm3 . The geometric mean titers of 50% FRNT against wild type (WT) and omicron BA.5 strains of SARS-CoV-2 in PLWH with CD4 T-cell count ≥ 500 cells/mm3(high CD4 recovery, HCDR) were comparable to HC, but they were significantly decreased in PLWH with CD4 T-cell count < 500/mm3 (low CD4 recovery, LCDR). After adjusting for age, gender, viral suppression, and number of preexisting comorbidities, CD4 T-cell counts < 500/mm3 significantly predicted a poor magnitude of neutralizing antibodies against WT, omicron BA.5, and XBB 1.5 strains among PLWH. Multivariable linear regression adjusting for age and gender revealed that LCDR was associated with reduced neutralizing activity (P = 0.017) and interferon-γ-producing T-cell responses (P = 0.049 for CD T-cell; P = 0.014 for CD8 T-cell) against WT, and strongly associated with more decreased cross-neutralization against omicron BA.5 strains (P < 0.001). Conclusion HCDR demonstrated robust humoral and cell-mediated immune responses after a booster dose of ancestral SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, whereas LCDR showed diminished immune responses against WT virus and more impaired cross-neutralization against omicron BA.5 strain.

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: We evaluated severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific humoral and cellular responses for up to 6 months after the 3rd dose of ancestral coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination in people living with HIV (PLWH) and healthy controls (HCs) who were not infected with COVID-19. Methods: Anti-spike receptor-binding domain IgG (anti-RBD IgG) concentrations using chemiluminescence immunoassay and neutralizing antibodies using focus reduction neutralization test (FRNT) were assessed at 1 week after each dose of vaccination, and 3 and 6 months after the 3rd dose in 62 PLWH and 25 HCs. T-cell responses using intracellular cytokine stain were evaluated at 1 week before, and 1 week and 6 months after the 3rd dose. Results: At 1 week after the 3rd dose, adequate anti-RBD IgG (> 300 binding antibody unit /mL) was elicited in all PLWH except for one patient with 36 CD4 T-cell count/mm3 . The geometric mean titers of 50% FRNT against wild type (WT) and omicron BA.5 strains of SARS-CoV-2 in PLWH with CD4 T-cell count ≥ 500 cells/mm3(high CD4 recovery, HCDR) were comparable to HC, but they were significantly decreased in PLWH with CD4 T-cell count < 500/mm3 (low CD4 recovery, LCDR). After adjusting for age, gender, viral suppression, and number of preexisting comorbidities, CD4 T-cell counts < 500/mm3 significantly predicted a poor magnitude of neutralizing antibodies against WT, omicron BA.5, and XBB 1.5 strains among PLWH. Multivariable linear regression adjusting for age and gender revealed that LCDR was associated with reduced neutralizing activity (P = 0.017) and interferon-γ-producing T-cell responses (P = 0.049 for CD T-cell; P = 0.014 for CD8 T-cell) against WT, and strongly associated with more decreased cross-neutralization against omicron BA.5 strains (P < 0.001). Conclusion HCDR demonstrated robust humoral and cell-mediated immune responses after a booster dose of ancestral SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, whereas LCDR showed diminished immune responses against WT virus and more impaired cross-neutralization against omicron BA.5 strain.

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.

Neonatal chylothorax is a potentially fatal respiratory condition caused by a congenital or traumatic etiology. Conventional therapies, such as fasting, total parenteral nutrition, and intravenous octreotide, are generally successful in such cases; however, more invasive therapeutic measures, such as pleurodesis, should be considered in refractory cases. This case report presents two preterm infants with refractory chylothorax who were non-responsive to conventional treatment but were successfully managed using hypertonic glucose pleurodesis. The first case was that of a female infant born at 24+5 weeks of gestation (585 g) and diagnosed with postsurgical chylothorax at 68 days of life. Even after the initiation of fasting and intravenous octreotide administration, pleural drainage did not reduce. Therefore, the patient underwent three intermittent procedures of 50% glucose pleurodesis, which resulted in the resolution of the chylothorax and subsequent chest tube removal after 37 days. The second case was a female infant born at 34+6 weeks (3,040 g), who was diagnosed with congenital chylothorax immediately after birth. Fasting and intravenous octreotide failed to show any clinical effects; therefore, the patient underwent pleurodesis for 3 consecutive days. After the procedure, the amount of pleural drainage substantially decreased, and the chest tube was removed after 14 days. In both cases, a temporal relation between pleurodesis and chylothorax resolution was observed, suggesting that hypertonic glucose pleurodesis may be an effective and safe alternative for treating refractory chylothorax in preterm infants with minimal side effects. Further studies are needed to establish the optimal protocol for this procedure and to compare its efficacy with that of other pleurodesis agents.