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: This study aimed to determine whether a shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen is non-inferior to the standard 6-month tuberculosis regimen. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial enrolled participants with respiratory specimen positivity by Xpert MTB/RIF assay or Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture without rifampicin-resistance. Participants were randomized at 1:1 to the investigational or control group. The investigational group received high-dose rifampicin (30 mg/kg/day), isoniazid, and pyrazinamide until culture conversion, followed by high-dose rifampicin and isoniazid for 12 weeks. The control group received the standard 6-month regimen. The primary outcome was the rate of unfavorable outcomes at 18 months post-randomization. The non-inferiority margin was set at <6% difference in unfavorable outcomes rates. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04485156) Results: Between 4 November 2020 and 3 January 2022, 76 participants were enrolled. Of these, 58 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Unfavorable outcomes occurred in 10 (31.3%) of 32 in the control group and 10 (38.5%) of 26 in the investigational group. The difference was 7.2% (95% confidence interval, ∞ to 31.9%), failing to prove non-inferiority. Serious adverse events and grade 3 or higher adverse events did not differ between the groups. Conclusion The shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen failed to demonstrate non-inferiority but had an acceptable safety profile.

Background/Aims: Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) frequently occurs in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), particularly when influenced by factors such as abdominal infections, IBD flare-ups, or surgical procedures. The implications of PVT range from immediate issues such as intestinal ischemia to long-term concerns including portal hypertension and its complications. However, there is a notable gap in comprehensive studies on PVT in IBD, especially with the increasing incidence of IBD in Asia. This research aimed to evaluate the clinical features and outcomes of PVT in patients with IBD at a leading hospital in South Korea. Methods: This retrospective analysis reviewed adult patients diagnosed with both IBD and PVT from 1989 to 2021 at a renowned South Korean medical center. The study focused on patient characteristics, specifics of PVT, administered treatments, and outcomes, all confirmed through enhanced CT scans. Results: A total of 78 patients met the study’s criteria. Notably, only 20.5% (16/78) were treated with oral anticoagulants; however, a vast majority (96.2%; 75/78) achieved complete radiographic resolution (CRR). When comparing patients receiving anticoagulants to those who did not, a significant preference for anticoagulant use was observed in cases where the main portal vein was affected, as opposed to just the left or right veins (p = 0.006). However, multivariable analysis indicated that neither anticoagulant use nor previous surgeries significantly impacted CRR. Conclusions Patients with IBD and PVT generally had favorable outcomes, regardless of anticoagulant use.

Objective:   This study aimed to evaluate the changes in upper airway (UA) dimensions in growing patients with Pierre-Robin sequence (PRS). Methods: The subjects were 23 PRS patients who had not undergone growth modification therapy or surgical intervention. Their lateral cephalograms were obtained longitudinally at mean ages of 8.81 (T0) and 14.05 (T1). Patients were categorized based on their SNB value at T0 (Criteria: –2 SD): Group-1 (very retrusive mandible, n = 13) and Group-2 (moderately retrusive mandible, n = 10). Skeletal and UA variables at T0 and T1, as well as ∆T0-T1, were statistically analyzed. Results: At T0, Group-1 exhibited more retrusive maxilla and mandible (SNA, P < 0.01; SNB, P < 0.001), a more hyperdivergent pattern (facial height ratio, P < 0.05), and a more posteriorly positioned hyoid bone (H-PTV, P < 0.05), while Group-1 showed larger UA spaces (superior pharyngeal airway space [SPAS] and inferior pharyngeal airway space, all P < 0.05) than Group 2, which might indicate the existence of a compensatory response to maintain the UA patency.At T1, Group-1 maintained significantly retrusive maxilla and mandible (SNA and SNB, all P < 0.01), exhibited a less anteriorly positioned tongue (TT-PTV, P < 0.05), and displayed a more obtuse soft palate angle (SPA, P < 0.05) than Group-2.Between T0 and T1, Group-1 demonstrated significant increases in the hyoid symphysis distance (∆H-RGN, P < 0.001), tongue length (∆TGL, P < 0.01), and pharyngeal UA spaces (∆SPAS and ∆PNS-ad2, all P < 0.001). Conclusions Even in growing PRS patients with severe mandibular retrusion, the UA dimensions increased due to forward growth of the mandible, repositioning of tongue and hyoid bone, and existence of compensatory mechanism.

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: This study aimed to determine whether a shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen is non-inferior to the standard 6-month tuberculosis regimen. Methods: This multicenter, randomized, open-label, non-inferiority trial enrolled participants with respiratory specimen positivity by Xpert MTB/RIF assay or Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture without rifampicin-resistance. Participants were randomized at 1:1 to the investigational or control group. The investigational group received high-dose rifampicin (30 mg/kg/day), isoniazid, and pyrazinamide until culture conversion, followed by high-dose rifampicin and isoniazid for 12 weeks. The control group received the standard 6-month regimen. The primary outcome was the rate of unfavorable outcomes at 18 months post-randomization. The non-inferiority margin was set at <6% difference in unfavorable outcomes rates. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04485156) Results: Between 4 November 2020 and 3 January 2022, 76 participants were enrolled. Of these, 58 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Unfavorable outcomes occurred in 10 (31.3%) of 32 in the control group and 10 (38.5%) of 26 in the investigational group. The difference was 7.2% (95% confidence interval, ∞ to 31.9%), failing to prove non-inferiority. Serious adverse events and grade 3 or higher adverse events did not differ between the groups. Conclusion The shorter high-dose rifampicin regimen failed to demonstrate non-inferiority but had an acceptable safety profile.

Background/Aims: Globus is often linked with gastroesophageal reflux disease, which influences its treatment strategies. This study aims to investigate clinical characteristics of patients with refractory proton pump inhibitor (PPI) globus to better understand its etiology. Methods: Between 2017 and 2023, 122 out of 592 patients with globus from the Samsung Medical Center outpatient clinic who were unresponsive to 8 weeks of PPI treatment were analyzed. Patients underwent 24-hour esophageal pH monitoring and high-resolution manometry (HRM). They were divided into acid reflux, non-acid reflux, and no reflux groups, with basal impedance (BI) measurements taken at 3, 9, and 15 cm along the esophagus. These values were compared against data of healthy volunteers to identify significant differences across groups. Results: The acid reflux group displayed a median impedance of 1152 Ω at 3 cm, which was significantly lower than the median impedance of the non-acid reflux group (2644 Ω) and the no-reflux group (3083 Ω) (P = 0.015). Most patients in non-acid reflux and no-reflux groups showed higher impedance levels at both 3 cm and 15 cm compared to the first quartile of healthy individuals with significant differences (P = 0.032 and P = 0.029, respectively). Proximal BI was significantly lower than distal BI in both groups: 2278 Ω vs 2644 Ω in the non-acid reflux group (P = 0.035) and 2387 Ω vs 3083 Ω in the no-reflux group (P < 0.001). Conclusions Reduced proximal BI values compared to distal BI values suggest increased permeability in globus patients. Further studies with a larger cohort of refractory PPI patients and healthy volunteers are needed to explore these findings and their implications on globus etiology.

Objective: Pain is a significant and debilitating symptom of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) that significantly affects the quality of life and functional ability of patients. In the present study, we examined the association between pain variables and disease activity markers in patients with RA. Methods: We enrolled 133 patients with RA and assessed their clinical characteristics, socioeconomic and psychological factors, and pain measures. The psychological factors assessed included depressive symptoms and pain catastrophizing. Results: The study cohort comprised predominantly female patients with RA with an average age of 55.5±10.1 years. Depressive symptoms had a mean score of 5.83±4.71, while pain catastrophizing had an average score of 14.36±10.70. The mean scores for pain intensity, and pain interference, were 2.98±1.75 and 19.54±16.17, respectively, with significant positive correlations observed with depressive symptoms. Hemoglobin and hematocrit levels were negatively correlated with pain intensity. Multivariable linear regression analysis revealed significant associations between depressive symptoms and pain intensity, catastrophizing, and interference. Other factors associated with pain intensity included tender joint count. Pain catastrophizing was associated with education and economic status. Pain interference was associated with sex and economic status. Conclusion This study shows the influence of disease-related indicators and psychological factors on pain in patients with RA, with depressive symptoms playing a crucial role in predicting pain experience. Effective pain management strategies for RA should include the management of depressive symptoms, in addition to addressing disease-related indicators.

Background: Immunocompromised patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection often have prolonged viral shedding, and some are clinically suspected of reinfection with different SARSCoV-2 variants. However, data on this issue are limited. This study investigated the SARS-CoV-2 variants in serially collected respiratory samples from immunocompromised patients with prolonged viral shedding for over 12 weeks or relapsed viral shedding after at least 2 weeks of viral clearance. Materials and Methods: From February 2022 to September 2023, we prospectively enrolled immunocompromised patients with coronavirus disease 2019 who had hematologic malignancies or had undergone transplantation and were admitted to a tertiary hospital. Weekly saliva or nasopharyngeal swabs were collected from enrolled patients for at least 12 weeks after diagnosis. Genomic RNA polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was performed on samples, and those testing positive underwent viral culture to isolate the live virus. Spike gene full sequencing via Sanger sequencing and real-time reverse transcription-PCR for detecting mutation genes were conducted to identify SARSCoV-2 variants. Results: Among 116 enrolled patients, 20 with prolonged or relapsed viral shedding were screened to identify the variants. Of these 20 patients, 7 (35%) exhibited evidence of re-infection; one of 8 patients with prolonged viral shedding and 6 of 12 with relapsed viral shedding were reinfected with SARS-CoV-2. Conclusion Our data suggest that approximately one-third of immunocompromised patients with persistent or relapsed viral shedding had reinfection with different variants of SARS-CoV-2.