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 Purpose: This clinical practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for treatment of dementia, focusing on cholinesterase inhibitors and N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and other types of dementia. Methods: Using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes (PICO) framework, we developed key clinical questions and conducted systematic literature reviews. A multidisciplinary panel of experts, organized by the Korean Dementia Association, evaluated randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Recommendations were graded for evidence quality and strength using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Results: Three main recommendations are presented: (1) For AD, cholinesterase inhibitors (donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine) are strongly recommended for improving cognition and daily function based on moderate evidence; (2) Cholinesterase inhibitors are conditionally recommended for vascular dementia and Parkinson’s disease dementia, with a strong recommendation for Lewy body dementia; (3) For moderate to severe AD, NMDA receptor antagonist (memantine) is strongly recommended, demonstrating significant cognitive and functional improvements. Both drug classes showed favorable safety profiles with manageable side effects. Conclusions This guideline offers standardized, evidence-based pharmacologic recommendations for dementia management, with specific guidance on cholinesterase inhibitors and NMDA receptor antagonists. It aims to support clinical decision-making and improve patient outcomes in dementia care. Further updates will address emerging treatments, including amyloid-targeting therapies, to reflect advances in dementia management.

Alzheimer disease (AD) diagnosis is confirmed using a medley of modalities, such as the detection of amyloid-β (Aβ) neuritic plaques and neurofibrillary tangles with positron electron tomography (PET) or the appraisal of irregularities in cognitive function with examinations. Although these methods have been efficient in confirming AD pathology, the rising demand for earlier intervention during pathogenesis has led researchers to explore the diagnostic potential of fluid biomarkers in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and plasma. Since CSF sample collection is invasive and limited in quantity, biomarker detection in plasma has become more attractive and modern advancements in technology has permitted more efficient and accurate analysis of plasma biomolecules. In this study, we found that a composite of standard factors, Aβ40 and total tau levels in plasma, divided by the variation factor, plasma Aβ42 level, provide better correlation with amyloid neuroimaging and neuropsychological test results than a level comparison between total tau and Aβ42 in plasma. We collected EDTA-treated blood plasma samples of 53 subjects, of randomly selected 27 AD patients and 26 normal cognition (NC) individuals, who received amyloid-PET scans for plaque quantification, and measured plasma levels of Aβ40, Aβ42, and total tau with digital enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) in a blinded manner. There was difficulty distinguishing AD patients from controls when analyzing biomarkers independently. However, significant differentiation was observed between the two groups when comparing individual ratios of total-tau×Aβ40/Aβ42. Our results indicate that collectively comparing fluctuations of these fluid biomarkers could aid in monitoring AD pathogenesis.

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.

Objective: This study examined the up-to-date facts from real cases of emergency medical litigations to provide information to act appropriately in medical lawsuits against emergency medicine specialists. Methods: Data were collected from lawsuits from 2008 to 2020. Thirty-nine cases were collected and analyzed retrospectively. Six emergency medicine specialists and one resident with a lawyer’s license participated in the analysis. Results: Medical litigations have surged since 2015. The lawsuits were due mainly to misdiagnoses and violations of the duty to explain. Medical staff won in 12 (38.7%) cases and lost in 19 (61.3%). The main reason for losing was a violation of the duty of care. In criminal claims, 50% of cases resulted in confinement. The win rate was 1.4 times higher in cases where consultation was requested from other specialties (42.9% and 29.4% win with consultation and without, respectively). Conclusion The win rate in lawsuits is decreasing, and the level of penalty is becoming more severe. The decrease in the violation of duty to explain was attributed to education through the years. The win rate was higher when consulting with other specialists. Hence, active consultation is recommended. In addition, the system of radiology interpretation requires improvement because of the many misdiagnoses from reading diagnostic images.

Purpose: This study aimed to assess the impact of aerobic exercise at different intensities over an eight-week period on the expression and activation of cortical synaptic proteins, with the potential to reduce anxiety and improve memory in young mice. Methods: Seven-week-old C57BL/6 mice were subjected to treadmill exercises at low (n = 10), moderate (n = 10), and high intensity (n = 10) for eight weeks. Behavioral assessments were conducted to evaluate anxiety and cognitive function. To explore the underlying mechanisms, we measured the phosphorylated levels of extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK), cyclic adenosine monophosphate response-binding protein (CREB), protein kinase (AKT), adenosine monophosphate activated protein kinase (AMPK), synapsin (S9, S549, S609), and PSD-95 in the cortex, as these are associated with synaptic strength. Additionally, the expression of doublecortin (DCX), a neurogenic factor, was analyzed in the hippocampus. Results: Exercise led to reductions in depressive and anxiety-related behaviors and elevated the levels of phosphorylated ERK, CREB, AKT, AMPK, synapsin (S9, S549, S609), and PSD-95 in the cortex of young mice. Furthermore, exercise increased DCX expression in the hippocampus. Moderate-intensity exercise yielded more pronounced effects than other intensities. Conclusion The findings of this research indicate that consistent moderate-intensity exercise increases synaptic strength and reduces depression and anxiety in young mice by activating multiple factors.

Purpose: This study aimed to assess the impact of aerobic exercise at different intensities over an eight-week period on the expression and activation of cortical synaptic proteins, with the potential to reduce anxiety and improve memory in young mice. Methods: Seven-week-old C57BL/6 mice were subjected to treadmill exercises at low (n = 10), moderate (n = 10), and high intensity (n = 10) for eight weeks. Behavioral assessments were conducted to evaluate anxiety and cognitive function. To explore the underlying mechanisms, we measured the phosphorylated levels of extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK), cyclic adenosine monophosphate response-binding protein (CREB), protein kinase (AKT), adenosine monophosphate activated protein kinase (AMPK), synapsin (S9, S549, S609), and PSD-95 in the cortex, as these are associated with synaptic strength. Additionally, the expression of doublecortin (DCX), a neurogenic factor, was analyzed in the hippocampus. Results: Exercise led to reductions in depressive and anxiety-related behaviors and elevated the levels of phosphorylated ERK, CREB, AKT, AMPK, synapsin (S9, S549, S609), and PSD-95 in the cortex of young mice. Furthermore, exercise increased DCX expression in the hippocampus. Moderate-intensity exercise yielded more pronounced effects than other intensities. Conclusion The findings of this research indicate that consistent moderate-intensity exercise increases synaptic strength and reduces depression and anxiety in young mice by activating multiple factors.

Background: and Purpose We aimed to determine the proportion of Korean patients with early Alzheimer’s disease (AD) who are eligible to receive lecanemab based on the United States Appropriate Use Recommendations (US AUR), and also identify the barriers to this treatment. Methods: We retrospectively enrolled 6,132 patients with amnestic mild cognitive impairment or mild amnestic dementia at 13 hospitals from June 2023 to May 2024. Among them, 2,058 patients underwent amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) and 1,199 (58.3%) of these patients were amyloid-positive on PET. We excluded 732 patients who did not undergo brain magnetic resonance imaging between June 2023 and May 2024. Finally, 467 patients were included in the present study. Results: When applying the criteria of the US AUR, approximately 50% of patients with early AD were eligible to receive lecanemab treatment. Among the 467 included patients, 36.8% did not meet the inclusion criterion of a Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score of ≥22. Conclusions Eligibility for lecanemab treatment was not restricted to Korean patients with early AD except for those with an MMSE score of ≥22. The MMSE criteria should therefore be reconsidered in areas with a higher proportion of older people, who tend to have lower levels of education.

Background: and Purpose: This clinical practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for treatment of dementia, focusing on cholinesterase inhibitors and N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and other types of dementia. Methods: Using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes (PICO) framework, we developed key clinical questions and conducted systematic literature reviews. A multidisciplinary panel of experts, organized by the Korean Dementia Association, evaluated randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Recommendations were graded for evidence quality and strength using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Results: Three main recommendations are presented: (1) For AD, cholinesterase inhibitors (donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine) are strongly recommended for improving cognition and daily function based on moderate evidence; (2) Cholinesterase inhibitors are conditionally recommended for vascular dementia and Parkinson’s disease dementia, with a strong recommendation for Lewy body dementia; (3) For moderate to severe AD, NMDA receptor antagonist (memantine) is strongly recommended, demonstrating significant cognitive and functional improvements. Both drug classes showed favorable safety profiles with manageable side effects. Conclusions This guideline offers standardized, evidence-based pharmacologic recommendations for dementia management, with specific guidance on cholinesterase inhibitors and NMDA receptor antagonists. It aims to support clinical decision-making and improve patient outcomes in dementia care. Further updates will address emerging treatments, including amyloid-targeting therapies, to reflect advances in dementia management.