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: Respiratory infections play a major role in acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD). This study assessed the prevalence of bacterial and viral pathogens and their clinical impact on patients with AECOPD. Methods: This retrospective study included 1,186 patients diagnosed with AECOPD at 28 hospitals in South Korea between 2015 and 2018. We evaluated the identification rates of pathogens, basic patient characteristics, clinical features, and the factors associated with infections by potentially drug-resistant (PDR) pathogens using various microbiological tests. Results: Bacteria, viruses, and both were detected in 262 (22.1%), 265 (22.5%), and 129 (10.9%) of patients, respectively. The most common pathogens included Pseudomonas aeruginosa (17.8%), Mycoplasma pneumoniae (11.2%), Streptococcus pneumoniae (9.0%), influenza A virus (19.0%), rhinovirus (15.8%), and respiratory syncytial virus (6.4%). Notably, a history of pulmonary tuberculosis (odds ratio [OR], 1.66; p=0.046), bronchiectasis (OR, 1.99; p=0.032), and the use of a triple inhaler regimen within the past 6 months (OR, 2.04; p=0.005) were identified as significant factors associated with infection by PDR pathogens. Moreover, patients infected with PDR pathogens exhibited extended hospital stays (15.9 days vs. 12.4 days, p=0.018) and higher intensive care unit admission rates (15.9% vs. 9.5%, p=0.030). Conclusion This study demonstrates that a variety of pathogens are involved in episodes of AECOPD. Nevertheless, additional research is required to confirm their role in the onset and progression of AECOPD.

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: Respiratory infections play a major role in acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD). This study assessed the prevalence of bacterial and viral pathogens and their clinical impact on patients with AECOPD. Methods: This retrospective study included 1,186 patients diagnosed with AECOPD at 28 hospitals in South Korea between 2015 and 2018. We evaluated the identification rates of pathogens, basic patient characteristics, clinical features, and the factors associated with infections by potentially drug-resistant (PDR) pathogens using various microbiological tests. Results: Bacteria, viruses, and both were detected in 262 (22.1%), 265 (22.5%), and 129 (10.9%) of patients, respectively. The most common pathogens included Pseudomonas aeruginosa (17.8%), Mycoplasma pneumoniae (11.2%), Streptococcus pneumoniae (9.0%), influenza A virus (19.0%), rhinovirus (15.8%), and respiratory syncytial virus (6.4%). Notably, a history of pulmonary tuberculosis (odds ratio [OR], 1.66; p=0.046), bronchiectasis (OR, 1.99; p=0.032), and the use of a triple inhaler regimen within the past 6 months (OR, 2.04; p=0.005) were identified as significant factors associated with infection by PDR pathogens. Moreover, patients infected with PDR pathogens exhibited extended hospital stays (15.9 days vs. 12.4 days, p=0.018) and higher intensive care unit admission rates (15.9% vs. 9.5%, p=0.030). Conclusion This study demonstrates that a variety of pathogens are involved in episodes of AECOPD. Nevertheless, additional research is required to confirm their role in the onset and progression of AECOPD.

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: Respiratory infections play a major role in acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD). This study assessed the prevalence of bacterial and viral pathogens and their clinical impact on patients with AECOPD. Methods: This retrospective study included 1,186 patients diagnosed with AECOPD at 28 hospitals in South Korea between 2015 and 2018. We evaluated the identification rates of pathogens, basic patient characteristics, clinical features, and the factors associated with infections by potentially drug-resistant (PDR) pathogens using various microbiological tests. Results: Bacteria, viruses, and both were detected in 262 (22.1%), 265 (22.5%), and 129 (10.9%) of patients, respectively. The most common pathogens included Pseudomonas aeruginosa (17.8%), Mycoplasma pneumoniae (11.2%), Streptococcus pneumoniae (9.0%), influenza A virus (19.0%), rhinovirus (15.8%), and respiratory syncytial virus (6.4%). Notably, a history of pulmonary tuberculosis (odds ratio [OR], 1.66; p=0.046), bronchiectasis (OR, 1.99; p=0.032), and the use of a triple inhaler regimen within the past 6 months (OR, 2.04; p=0.005) were identified as significant factors associated with infection by PDR pathogens. Moreover, patients infected with PDR pathogens exhibited extended hospital stays (15.9 days vs. 12.4 days, p=0.018) and higher intensive care unit admission rates (15.9% vs. 9.5%, p=0.030). Conclusion This study demonstrates that a variety of pathogens are involved in episodes of AECOPD. Nevertheless, additional research is required to confirm their role in the onset and progression of AECOPD.

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.

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: 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: Respiratory infections play a major role in acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD). This study assessed the prevalence of bacterial and viral pathogens and their clinical impact on patients with AECOPD. Methods: This retrospective study included 1,186 patients diagnosed with AECOPD at 28 hospitals in South Korea between 2015 and 2018. We evaluated the identification rates of pathogens, basic patient characteristics, clinical features, and the factors associated with infections by potentially drug-resistant (PDR) pathogens using various microbiological tests. Results: Bacteria, viruses, and both were detected in 262 (22.1%), 265 (22.5%), and 129 (10.9%) of patients, respectively. The most common pathogens included Pseudomonas aeruginosa (17.8%), Mycoplasma pneumoniae (11.2%), Streptococcus pneumoniae (9.0%), influenza A virus (19.0%), rhinovirus (15.8%), and respiratory syncytial virus (6.4%). Notably, a history of pulmonary tuberculosis (odds ratio [OR], 1.66; p=0.046), bronchiectasis (OR, 1.99; p=0.032), and the use of a triple inhaler regimen within the past 6 months (OR, 2.04; p=0.005) were identified as significant factors associated with infection by PDR pathogens. Moreover, patients infected with PDR pathogens exhibited extended hospital stays (15.9 days vs. 12.4 days, p=0.018) and higher intensive care unit admission rates (15.9% vs. 9.5%, p=0.030). Conclusion This study demonstrates that a variety of pathogens are involved in episodes of AECOPD. Nevertheless, additional research is required to confirm their role in the onset and progression of AECOPD.