Objective: To improve our understanding of EPEC, this study focused on analyzing and comparing the genomic characteristics of EPEC isolates from humans and companion animals in Korea. Methods: The whole genome of 26 EPEC isolates from patients with diarrhea and 20 EPEC isolates from companion animals in Korea were sequenced using the Illumina HiSeq X (Illumina, USA) and Oxford Nanopore MinION (Oxford Nanopore Technologies, UK) platforms. Results: Most isolates were atypical EPEC, and did not harbor the bfpA gene. The most prevalent virulence genes were found to be ompT (humans: 61.5%; companion animals:60.0%) followed by lpfA (humans: 46.2%; companion animals: 60.0%). Although pangenome analyses showed no apparent correlation among the origin of the strains, virulence profiles, and antimicrobial resistance profiles, isolates included in clade A obtained from both humans and companion animals exhibited high similarity. Additionally, all the isolates included in clade A encoded the ompT gene and did not encode the hlyE gene. The two isolates from companion animals harbored an incomplete bundle-forming pilus region encoding bfpA and bfpB. Moreover, the type IV secretion system-associated genes tra and trb were found in the bfpA-encoding isolates from humans. Conclusions and Relevance: Whole-genome sequencing enabled a more accurate analysis of the phylogenetic structure of EPEC and provided better insights into the understanding of EPEC epidemiology and pathogenicity.

Objective: To improve our understanding of EPEC, this study focused on analyzing and comparing the genomic characteristics of EPEC isolates from humans and companion animals in Korea. Methods: The whole genome of 26 EPEC isolates from patients with diarrhea and 20 EPEC isolates from companion animals in Korea were sequenced using the Illumina HiSeq X (Illumina, USA) and Oxford Nanopore MinION (Oxford Nanopore Technologies, UK) platforms. Results: Most isolates were atypical EPEC, and did not harbor the bfpA gene. The most prevalent virulence genes were found to be ompT (humans: 61.5%; companion animals:60.0%) followed by lpfA (humans: 46.2%; companion animals: 60.0%). Although pangenome analyses showed no apparent correlation among the origin of the strains, virulence profiles, and antimicrobial resistance profiles, isolates included in clade A obtained from both humans and companion animals exhibited high similarity. Additionally, all the isolates included in clade A encoded the ompT gene and did not encode the hlyE gene. The two isolates from companion animals harbored an incomplete bundle-forming pilus region encoding bfpA and bfpB. Moreover, the type IV secretion system-associated genes tra and trb were found in the bfpA-encoding isolates from humans. Conclusions and Relevance: Whole-genome sequencing enabled a more accurate analysis of the phylogenetic structure of EPEC and provided better insights into the understanding of EPEC epidemiology and pathogenicity.

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: This study aimed to develop a comprehensive practical guide for enteral nutrition (EN) designed to enhance patient safety and reduce complications in Korea. Under the leadership of the Korean Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (KSPEN), the initiative sought to standardize EN procedures, improve decision-making, and promote effective multidisciplinary communication. Methods: The KSPEN EN committee identified key questions related to EN practices and organized them into seven sections such as prescribing, delivery route selection, formula preparation, administration, and quality management. Twenty-one experts, selected based on their expertise, conducted a thorough literature review to formulate evidence-based recommendations. Drafts underwent peer review both within and across disciplines, with final revisions completed by the KSPEN Guideline Committee. The guide, which will be published in three installments, addresses critical elements of EN therapy and safety protocols. Results: The practical guide recommends that EN orders include detailed elements and advocates the use of electronic medical records for communication. Standardized prescription forms and supplementary safety measures are outlined. Review frequency is adjusted according to patient condition—daily for critically ill or unstable patients and as dictated by institutional protocols for stable patients. Evidence indicates that adherence to these protocols reduces mortality, complications, and prescription errors. Conclusion The KSPEN practical guide offers a robust framework for the safe delivery of EN tailored to Korea’s healthcare context. It emphasizes standardized protocols and interdisciplinary collaboration to improve nutritional outcomes, patient safety, and operational efficiency. Rigorous implementation and monitoring of adherence are critical for its success.

Purpose: Considering the high disease burden and unique features of Asian patients with breast cancer (BC), it is essential to have a comprehensive view of genetic characteristics in this population. An institutional targeted sequencing platform was developed through the Korea Research-Driven Hospitals project and was incorporated into clinical practice. This study explores the use of targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS) and its outcomes in patients with advanced/metastatic BC in the real world. Materials and Methods: We reviewed the results of NGS tests administered to BC patients using a customized sequencing platform—FiRST Cancer Panel (FCP)—over 7 years. We systematically described clinical translation of FCP for precise diagnostics, personalized therapeutic strategies, and unraveling disease pathogenesis. Results: NGS tests were conducted on 548 samples from 522 patients with BC. Ninety-seven point six percentage of tested samples harbored at least one pathogenic alteration. The common alterations included mutations in TP53 (56.2%), PIK3CA (31.2%), GATA3 (13.8%), BRCA2 (10.2%), and amplifications of CCND1 (10.8%), FGF19 (10.0%), and ERBB2 (9.5%). NGS analysis of ERBB2 amplification correlated well with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 immunohistochemistry and in situ hybridization. RNA panel analyses found potentially actionable and prognostic fusion genes. FCP effectively screened for potentially germline pathogenic/likely pathogenic mutation. Ten point three percent of BC patients received matched therapy guided by NGS, resulting in a significant overall survival advantage (p=0.022), especially for metastatic BCs. Conclusion Clinical NGS provided multifaceted benefits, deepening our understanding of the disease, improving diagnostic precision, and paving the way for targeted therapies. The concrete advantages of FCP highlight the importance of multi-gene testing for BC, especially for metastatic conditions.

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: To evaluate the compatibility and usability of test results obtained from the IDRA and Keratograph 5M in clinical settings by comparing their performance in patients with dry eye disease. Methods: From December 27 to 30, 2022, a study was conducted on 30 patients diagnosed with dry eye utilizing both the Keratograph 5M and IDRA devices. The parameters compared and analyzed included lipid layer thickness, tear meniscus height, tear film break-up time, and meibography. A paired t-test was used for statistical comparison. The lipid layer thickness in the Keratograph 5M was graded on a scale from 0 to 4 based on thickness. Results: No significant differences were found between the two devices in tear film break-up time, tear meniscus height, and meibography (p = 0.148, 0.072, 0.124, respectively). However, the tear lipid layer thickness measured by IDRA showed a proportional relationship with the grade assigned by the Keratograph 5M (Kendall R = 0.217, p = 0.037; Spearman R = 0.260, p = 0.045). Conclusions The IDRA device offers the advantage of performing multiple dry eye tests; simultaneously, thereby saving time compared to the Keratograph 5M. Both devices can be used compatibly with IDRA particularly advantageous for providing a numerical value for tear lipid layer thickness which enhances the convenience of dry eye diagnosis and treatment.

Background: and Purpose The National Brain Biobank of Korea (NBBK) is a brain bank consortium supported by the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency and the Korea National Institute of Health, and was launched in 2015 to support research into neurodegenerative disease dementia (NDD). This study aimed to introduce the NBBK and describes clinicopathological correlations based on analyses of data collected from the NBBK. Methods: Four hospital-based brain banks have been established in South Korea: Samsung Medical Center Brain Bank (SMCBB), Seoul National University Hospital Brain Bank (SNUHBB), Pusan National University Hospital Brain Bank (PNUHBB), and Myongji Hospital Brain Bank (MJHBB). Clinical and pathological data were collected from these brain banks using standardized protocols. The prevalence rates of clinical and pathological diagnoses were analyzed in order to characterize the clinicopathological correlations. Results: Between August 2016 and December 2023, 185 brain specimens were collected and pathologically evaluated (SNUHBB: 117; PNUHBB: 27; SMCBB: 34; MJHBB: 7). The age at consent was 70.8±12.6 years, and the age at autopsy was 71.7±12.4 years. The four-most-common clinical diagnoses were Alzheimer’s disease (AD) dementia (20.0%), idiopathic Parkinson’s disease (15.1%), unspecified dementia (11.9%), and cognitively unimpaired (CU) (11.4%).Most cases of unspecified dementia had a pathological diagnosis of central nervous system (CNS) vasculopathy (31.8%) or AD (31.8%). Remarkably, only 14.2% of CU cases had normal pathological findings. The three-most-common pathological diagnoses were AD (26.5%), CNS vasculopathy (14.1%), and Lewy body disease (13.5%). Conclusions These clinical and neuropathological findings provide a deeper understanding of the mechanisms underlying NDD in South Korea.