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: 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.

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.

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: 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.

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/Aims: Despite of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, there is little data regarding its impact on colorectal cancer (CRC)-related clinical practice. This study aimed to assess the changes in its impact during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: This was a retrospective national population-based study using the Health Insurance Review and Assessment database from January 2019 to December 2021. The number of patients in 2020 and 2021 was compared with those in 2019 for the diagnostic and therapeutic colonoscopy, CRC-related operation, and any treatment for CRC. Results: The annual number of patients undergoing diagnostic colonoscopies decreased by 6.9% in 2020 but increased 8.1% in 2021, compared to those in 2019; number of patients undergoing therapeutic colonoscopies increased by 6.0% and 37.7% in 2020 and 2021, respectively; number of patients operated for CRC decreased by 4.2% in 2020 and increased by 2.3% in 2021. The number of patients treated for CRC decreased by 2.8% in 2020 and increased by 4.4% in 2021. Diagnostic and therapeutic colonoscopies and any CRC-related treatment decreased by 43.8%, 37.5%, and 11.3% in March 2020, during the first surge of COVID-19, but increased by 26.0%, 58.1%, and 9.5% in June 2021, respectively. CRC-related operations decreased by 24.1% in April 2020 and increased by 12.6% in August 2021. Conclusions Negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinical practices related to CRC completely recovered within second year. It could be considered for the development of an optimal strategy on CRC management in response to the pandemic-driven crisis.

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: 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.

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.