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 and Objectives: Outcomes of deferring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without invasive physiologic assessment for intermediate coronary lesions is uncertain.We sought to compare long-term outcomes between medical treatment and PCI of intermediate lesions without invasive physiologic assessment. Methods: A total of 899 patients with intermediate coronary lesions between 50% and 70% diameter-stenosis were randomized to the conservative group (n=449) or the aggressive group (n=450). For intermediate lesions, PCI was performed in the aggressive group, but was deferred in the conservative group. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction [MI], or ischemia-driven any revascularization) at 3 years. Results: The number of treated lesions per patient was 0.8±0.9 in the conservative group and 1.7±0.9 in the aggressive group (p=0.001). At 3 years, the conservative group had a significantly higher incidence of MACE than the aggressive group (13.8% vs. 9.3%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00–2.21; p=0.049), mainly driven by revascularization of target intermediate lesion (6.5% vs. 1.1%; HR, 5.69; 95% CI, 2.20–14.73;p<0.001). Between 1 and 3 years after the index procedure, compared to the aggressive group, the conservative group had significantly higher incidence of cardiac death or MI (3.2% vs.0.7%; HR, 4.34; 95% CI, 1.24–15.22; p=0.022) and ischemia-driven any revascularization. Conclusions For intermediate lesions, medical therapy alone, guided only by angiography, was associated with a higher risk of MACE at 3 years compared with performing PCI, mainly due to increased revascularization.

Background: Post-transplantation cyclophosphamide (PTCy) and anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG) are common pro‑ phylactic strategies for graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) after haploidentical hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (haplo-HSCT). Interleukin (IL)-6 is a surrogate marker for cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and acute GVHD.Method The clinical outcomes and complications of haplo-HSCT with PTCy plus ATG versus PTCy monotherapy were compared according to serum IL-6 levels at Chungnam National University Hospital (Daejeon, South Korea) from Jan‑ uary 2019 to February 2023. Results: Forty patients who underwent haplo-HSCT were analyzed. A significant difference in IL-6 levels was observed between the PTCy plus ATG and PTCy alone groups (7.47 ± 10.55 vs. 117.65 ± 127.67; p = 0.003). More patients in the PTCy plus ATG group had a CRS grade of 0 than in the PTCy alone group (p < 0.001). Serum IL-6 levels were associated with grades II–IV acute GVHD (r = 0.547, p < 0.001). The cumulative incidence (CI) of grades II–IV acute GVHD was significantly higher in the PTCy alone group (67.9% vs. 4.8%; p < 0.001). No significant difference in the CI for chronic GVHD was detected between the PTCy plus ATG and PTCy alone groups (72.1% vs. 82.0%; p = 0.730). The CI of 1-year non-relapse mortality was significantly higher in the PTCy alone group than in the PTCy plus ATG group (42.2% vs. 15.9%; p = 0.022). The 1-year overall survival (OS) was significantly better in the PTCy plus ATG group (75.9% vs. 35.3%; p = 0.011). The 1-year GVHD-free, relapse-free survival rate was 29.4% in the PTCy alone group and 54.0% in the PTCy plus ATG group (p = 0.038). Conclusion Serum IL-6 levels were higher in the PTCy alone group than in the PTCy plus ATG group. The addition of ATG before stem cell infusion affected IL-6 levels and reduced the incidences of CRS and grade II–IV acute GVHD in haplo-HSCT patients. This study suggests that PTCy plus ATG as GVHD prophylaxis in haplo-HSCT is beneficial in terms of clinical outcomes and complications of HSCT.

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.

Background and Objectives: Outcomes of deferring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without invasive physiologic assessment for intermediate coronary lesions is uncertain.We sought to compare long-term outcomes between medical treatment and PCI of intermediate lesions without invasive physiologic assessment. Methods: A total of 899 patients with intermediate coronary lesions between 50% and 70% diameter-stenosis were randomized to the conservative group (n=449) or the aggressive group (n=450). For intermediate lesions, PCI was performed in the aggressive group, but was deferred in the conservative group. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction [MI], or ischemia-driven any revascularization) at 3 years. Results: The number of treated lesions per patient was 0.8±0.9 in the conservative group and 1.7±0.9 in the aggressive group (p=0.001). At 3 years, the conservative group had a significantly higher incidence of MACE than the aggressive group (13.8% vs. 9.3%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00–2.21; p=0.049), mainly driven by revascularization of target intermediate lesion (6.5% vs. 1.1%; HR, 5.69; 95% CI, 2.20–14.73;p<0.001). Between 1 and 3 years after the index procedure, compared to the aggressive group, the conservative group had significantly higher incidence of cardiac death or MI (3.2% vs.0.7%; HR, 4.34; 95% CI, 1.24–15.22; p=0.022) and ischemia-driven any revascularization. Conclusions For intermediate lesions, medical therapy alone, guided only by angiography, was associated with a higher risk of MACE at 3 years compared with performing PCI, mainly due to increased revascularization.

Background: Post-transplantation cyclophosphamide (PTCy) and anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG) are common pro‑ phylactic strategies for graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) after haploidentical hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (haplo-HSCT). Interleukin (IL)-6 is a surrogate marker for cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and acute GVHD.Method The clinical outcomes and complications of haplo-HSCT with PTCy plus ATG versus PTCy monotherapy were compared according to serum IL-6 levels at Chungnam National University Hospital (Daejeon, South Korea) from Jan‑ uary 2019 to February 2023. Results: Forty patients who underwent haplo-HSCT were analyzed. A significant difference in IL-6 levels was observed between the PTCy plus ATG and PTCy alone groups (7.47 ± 10.55 vs. 117.65 ± 127.67; p = 0.003). More patients in the PTCy plus ATG group had a CRS grade of 0 than in the PTCy alone group (p < 0.001). Serum IL-6 levels were associated with grades II–IV acute GVHD (r = 0.547, p < 0.001). The cumulative incidence (CI) of grades II–IV acute GVHD was significantly higher in the PTCy alone group (67.9% vs. 4.8%; p < 0.001). No significant difference in the CI for chronic GVHD was detected between the PTCy plus ATG and PTCy alone groups (72.1% vs. 82.0%; p = 0.730). The CI of 1-year non-relapse mortality was significantly higher in the PTCy alone group than in the PTCy plus ATG group (42.2% vs. 15.9%; p = 0.022). The 1-year overall survival (OS) was significantly better in the PTCy plus ATG group (75.9% vs. 35.3%; p = 0.011). The 1-year GVHD-free, relapse-free survival rate was 29.4% in the PTCy alone group and 54.0% in the PTCy plus ATG group (p = 0.038). Conclusion Serum IL-6 levels were higher in the PTCy alone group than in the PTCy plus ATG group. The addition of ATG before stem cell infusion affected IL-6 levels and reduced the incidences of CRS and grade II–IV acute GVHD in haplo-HSCT patients. This study suggests that PTCy plus ATG as GVHD prophylaxis in haplo-HSCT is beneficial in terms of clinical outcomes and complications of HSCT.

Background and Objectives: Outcomes of deferring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) without invasive physiologic assessment for intermediate coronary lesions is uncertain.We sought to compare long-term outcomes between medical treatment and PCI of intermediate lesions without invasive physiologic assessment. Methods: A total of 899 patients with intermediate coronary lesions between 50% and 70% diameter-stenosis were randomized to the conservative group (n=449) or the aggressive group (n=450). For intermediate lesions, PCI was performed in the aggressive group, but was deferred in the conservative group. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction [MI], or ischemia-driven any revascularization) at 3 years. Results: The number of treated lesions per patient was 0.8±0.9 in the conservative group and 1.7±0.9 in the aggressive group (p=0.001). At 3 years, the conservative group had a significantly higher incidence of MACE than the aggressive group (13.8% vs. 9.3%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00–2.21; p=0.049), mainly driven by revascularization of target intermediate lesion (6.5% vs. 1.1%; HR, 5.69; 95% CI, 2.20–14.73;p<0.001). Between 1 and 3 years after the index procedure, compared to the aggressive group, the conservative group had significantly higher incidence of cardiac death or MI (3.2% vs.0.7%; HR, 4.34; 95% CI, 1.24–15.22; p=0.022) and ischemia-driven any revascularization. Conclusions For intermediate lesions, medical therapy alone, guided only by angiography, was associated with a higher risk of MACE at 3 years compared with performing PCI, mainly due to increased revascularization.

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: Post-transplantation cyclophosphamide (PTCy) and anti-thymocyte globulin (ATG) are common pro‑ phylactic strategies for graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) after haploidentical hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (haplo-HSCT). Interleukin (IL)-6 is a surrogate marker for cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and acute GVHD.Method The clinical outcomes and complications of haplo-HSCT with PTCy plus ATG versus PTCy monotherapy were compared according to serum IL-6 levels at Chungnam National University Hospital (Daejeon, South Korea) from Jan‑ uary 2019 to February 2023. Results: Forty patients who underwent haplo-HSCT were analyzed. A significant difference in IL-6 levels was observed between the PTCy plus ATG and PTCy alone groups (7.47 ± 10.55 vs. 117.65 ± 127.67; p = 0.003). More patients in the PTCy plus ATG group had a CRS grade of 0 than in the PTCy alone group (p < 0.001). Serum IL-6 levels were associated with grades II–IV acute GVHD (r = 0.547, p < 0.001). The cumulative incidence (CI) of grades II–IV acute GVHD was significantly higher in the PTCy alone group (67.9% vs. 4.8%; p < 0.001). No significant difference in the CI for chronic GVHD was detected between the PTCy plus ATG and PTCy alone groups (72.1% vs. 82.0%; p = 0.730). The CI of 1-year non-relapse mortality was significantly higher in the PTCy alone group than in the PTCy plus ATG group (42.2% vs. 15.9%; p = 0.022). The 1-year overall survival (OS) was significantly better in the PTCy plus ATG group (75.9% vs. 35.3%; p = 0.011). The 1-year GVHD-free, relapse-free survival rate was 29.4% in the PTCy alone group and 54.0% in the PTCy plus ATG group (p = 0.038). Conclusion Serum IL-6 levels were higher in the PTCy alone group than in the PTCy plus ATG group. The addition of ATG before stem cell infusion affected IL-6 levels and reduced the incidences of CRS and grade II–IV acute GVHD in haplo-HSCT patients. This study suggests that PTCy plus ATG as GVHD prophylaxis in haplo-HSCT is beneficial in terms of clinical outcomes and complications of HSCT.