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: 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.

Background/Aims: The Korean guidelines for Helicobacter pylori treatment were revised in 2020, however, the extent of adherence to these guidelines in clinical practice remains unclear. Herein, we initiated a prospective, nationwide, multicenter registry study in 2021 to evaluate the current management of H.pylori infection in Korea. Methods: This interim report describes the adherence to the revised guidelines and their impact on firstline eradication rates. Data on patient demographics, diagnoses, treatments, and eradication outcomes were collected using a web-based electronic case report form. Results: A total of 7,261 patients from 66 hospitals who received first-line treatment were analyzed.The modified intention-to-treat eradication rate for first-line treatment was 81.0%, with 80.4% of the prescriptions adhering to the revised guidelines. The most commonly prescribed regimen was the 14-day clarithromycin-based triple therapy (CTT; 42.0%), followed by tailored therapy (TT; 21.2%), 7-day CTT (14.1%), and 10-day concomitant therapy (CT; 10.1%). Time-trend analysis demonstrated significant increases in guideline adherence and the use of 10-day CT and TT, along with a decrease in the use of 7-day CTT (all p<0.001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that guideline adherence was significantly associated with first-line eradication success (odds ratio, 2.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.61 to 2.56; p<0.001). Conclusions The revised guidelines for the treatment of H. pylori infection have been increasingly adopted in routine clinical practice in Korea, which may have contributed to improved first-line eradication rates. Notably, the 14-day CTT, 10-day CT, and TT regimens are emerging as the preferred first-line treatment options among Korean physicians.

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.

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.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the effects of an intervention combining warm therapy (via a thermoelectric-element tourniquet) and a distraction-based approach (via an augmented reality-based app known as TWINKLE) on pain, stress, and satisfaction during intravenous catheterization in adults. Methods: A randomized controlled trial was conducted in South Korea with 93 healthy adults who were randomly assigned to one of three groups: the experimental group (TWINKLE app with warm therapy), the comparison group (warm therapy only), and the control group (no treatment). Participants’ pain, stress, and satisfaction, as well as practitioner satisfaction, were measured after the intervention. Results: Pain scores differed significantly among the three groups (F = 5.68, p = .005), with the experimental group showing significantly lower scores than the control group (p = .003). Stress levels were also significantly lower in the experimental group than in the other groups (F = 9.42, p < .001). Participant satisfaction was highest in the experimental group (F = 17.65, p < .001), while nurse satisfaction was significantly higher in the comparison group than in the experimental and control groups (F = 67.91, p < .001), suggesting that the additional distraction intervention may have increased nurses’ workload. Conclusion Combining digital distraction with warm therapy using a thermoelectric-element tourniquet effectively reduces pain and stress while improving patient satisfaction during intravenous catheterization. Further research is needed to optimize this approach, with a particular focus on targeting digital distraction interventions to patients with higher levels of procedural anxiety and finding ways to minimize practitioner workload.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the effects of an intervention combining warm therapy (via a thermoelectric-element tourniquet) and a distraction-based approach (via an augmented reality-based app known as TWINKLE) on pain, stress, and satisfaction during intravenous catheterization in adults. Methods: A randomized controlled trial was conducted in South Korea with 93 healthy adults who were randomly assigned to one of three groups: the experimental group (TWINKLE app with warm therapy), the comparison group (warm therapy only), and the control group (no treatment). Participants’ pain, stress, and satisfaction, as well as practitioner satisfaction, were measured after the intervention. Results: Pain scores differed significantly among the three groups (F = 5.68, p = .005), with the experimental group showing significantly lower scores than the control group (p = .003). Stress levels were also significantly lower in the experimental group than in the other groups (F = 9.42, p < .001). Participant satisfaction was highest in the experimental group (F = 17.65, p < .001), while nurse satisfaction was significantly higher in the comparison group than in the experimental and control groups (F = 67.91, p < .001), suggesting that the additional distraction intervention may have increased nurses’ workload. Conclusion Combining digital distraction with warm therapy using a thermoelectric-element tourniquet effectively reduces pain and stress while improving patient satisfaction during intravenous catheterization. Further research is needed to optimize this approach, with a particular focus on targeting digital distraction interventions to patients with higher levels of procedural anxiety and finding ways to minimize practitioner workload.