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: 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: Although excessive physical activity (PA) does not always confer additional health benefits, there is a paucity of studies that have quantitatively examined the doseresponse relationship between PA and type 2 diabetes. Therefore, this study investigated the relationship between the type 2 diabetes prevalence and intensity, frequency, and metabolic equivalent of task (MET) score of PA in a large population sample. Methods: We conducted a nationwide cross-sectional analysis examining sociodemographic variables, PA habits, and type 2 diabetes prevalence in 2,428,448 participants included in the Korea Community Health Survey. The non-linear association between MET score and odds ratios (ORs) for type 2 diabetes prevalence was plotted using a weighted generalized additive model. Categorical analysis was used to examine the joint association of moderate-intensity PA (MPA) and vigorous-intensity PA (VPA), and the influence of PA frequency. Results: MET score and diabetes prevalence revealed a non-linear association with the nadir at 1,028 MET-min/week, beyond which ORs increased with additional PA. Joint analysis of MPA and VPA showed the lowest OR of 0.79 (95% confidence interval, 0.75–0.84) for those engaging in 300–600 MET-min/week of MPA and > 600 MET-min/week of VPA concurrently, corresponding with World Health Organization recommendations. Additionally, both “weekend warriors” and “regularly active” individuals showed lower ORs compared to the inactive, although no significant difference was noted between the active groups. Conclusion In a large South Korean sample, higher PA is not always associated with a lower prevalence of type 2 diabetes, as the association follows a non-linear pattern; differences existed across sociodemographic variables. Considering the joint association, an adequate combination of MPA and VPA is recommended. The frequency of PA does not significantly influence the type 2 diabetes prevalence.

Background: Although excessive physical activity (PA) does not always confer additional health benefits, there is a paucity of studies that have quantitatively examined the doseresponse relationship between PA and type 2 diabetes. Therefore, this study investigated the relationship between the type 2 diabetes prevalence and intensity, frequency, and metabolic equivalent of task (MET) score of PA in a large population sample. Methods: We conducted a nationwide cross-sectional analysis examining sociodemographic variables, PA habits, and type 2 diabetes prevalence in 2,428,448 participants included in the Korea Community Health Survey. The non-linear association between MET score and odds ratios (ORs) for type 2 diabetes prevalence was plotted using a weighted generalized additive model. Categorical analysis was used to examine the joint association of moderate-intensity PA (MPA) and vigorous-intensity PA (VPA), and the influence of PA frequency. Results: MET score and diabetes prevalence revealed a non-linear association with the nadir at 1,028 MET-min/week, beyond which ORs increased with additional PA. Joint analysis of MPA and VPA showed the lowest OR of 0.79 (95% confidence interval, 0.75–0.84) for those engaging in 300–600 MET-min/week of MPA and > 600 MET-min/week of VPA concurrently, corresponding with World Health Organization recommendations. Additionally, both “weekend warriors” and “regularly active” individuals showed lower ORs compared to the inactive, although no significant difference was noted between the active groups. Conclusion In a large South Korean sample, higher PA is not always associated with a lower prevalence of type 2 diabetes, as the association follows a non-linear pattern; differences existed across sociodemographic variables. Considering the joint association, an adequate combination of MPA and VPA is recommended. The frequency of PA does not significantly influence the type 2 diabetes prevalence.

Background: Although excessive physical activity (PA) does not always confer additional health benefits, there is a paucity of studies that have quantitatively examined the doseresponse relationship between PA and type 2 diabetes. Therefore, this study investigated the relationship between the type 2 diabetes prevalence and intensity, frequency, and metabolic equivalent of task (MET) score of PA in a large population sample. Methods: We conducted a nationwide cross-sectional analysis examining sociodemographic variables, PA habits, and type 2 diabetes prevalence in 2,428,448 participants included in the Korea Community Health Survey. The non-linear association between MET score and odds ratios (ORs) for type 2 diabetes prevalence was plotted using a weighted generalized additive model. Categorical analysis was used to examine the joint association of moderate-intensity PA (MPA) and vigorous-intensity PA (VPA), and the influence of PA frequency. Results: MET score and diabetes prevalence revealed a non-linear association with the nadir at 1,028 MET-min/week, beyond which ORs increased with additional PA. Joint analysis of MPA and VPA showed the lowest OR of 0.79 (95% confidence interval, 0.75–0.84) for those engaging in 300–600 MET-min/week of MPA and > 600 MET-min/week of VPA concurrently, corresponding with World Health Organization recommendations. Additionally, both “weekend warriors” and “regularly active” individuals showed lower ORs compared to the inactive, although no significant difference was noted between the active groups. Conclusion In a large South Korean sample, higher PA is not always associated with a lower prevalence of type 2 diabetes, as the association follows a non-linear pattern; differences existed across sociodemographic variables. Considering the joint association, an adequate combination of MPA and VPA is recommended. The frequency of PA does not significantly influence the type 2 diabetes prevalence.

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: Although excessive physical activity (PA) does not always confer additional health benefits, there is a paucity of studies that have quantitatively examined the doseresponse relationship between PA and type 2 diabetes. Therefore, this study investigated the relationship between the type 2 diabetes prevalence and intensity, frequency, and metabolic equivalent of task (MET) score of PA in a large population sample. Methods: We conducted a nationwide cross-sectional analysis examining sociodemographic variables, PA habits, and type 2 diabetes prevalence in 2,428,448 participants included in the Korea Community Health Survey. The non-linear association between MET score and odds ratios (ORs) for type 2 diabetes prevalence was plotted using a weighted generalized additive model. Categorical analysis was used to examine the joint association of moderate-intensity PA (MPA) and vigorous-intensity PA (VPA), and the influence of PA frequency. Results: MET score and diabetes prevalence revealed a non-linear association with the nadir at 1,028 MET-min/week, beyond which ORs increased with additional PA. Joint analysis of MPA and VPA showed the lowest OR of 0.79 (95% confidence interval, 0.75–0.84) for those engaging in 300–600 MET-min/week of MPA and > 600 MET-min/week of VPA concurrently, corresponding with World Health Organization recommendations. Additionally, both “weekend warriors” and “regularly active” individuals showed lower ORs compared to the inactive, although no significant difference was noted between the active groups. Conclusion In a large South Korean sample, higher PA is not always associated with a lower prevalence of type 2 diabetes, as the association follows a non-linear pattern; differences existed across sociodemographic variables. Considering the joint association, an adequate combination of MPA and VPA is recommended. The frequency of PA does not significantly influence the type 2 diabetes prevalence.

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.

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) poses significant health risks to both mothers and newborns, requiring rigorous self-management and frequent medical consultations. Advances in information and communications technology (ICT) have shown promising results in reducing the number of in-person visits for GDM management. ICT enhances patient self-care engagement, with some studies reporting reductions in average blood glucose and HbA1c levels. ICT for GDM management has demonstrated benefits such as fewer in-person visits, improved adherence to self-monitoring of blood glucose, increased global user satisfaction, and maintenance of blood glucose control and perinatal outcomes. Common barriers to ICT for GDM include technological literacy, inadequate education, limited technical support, the additional burden of non-customized applications, and restricted interoperability. Further research is needed on the impact of technology on GDM management to optimize digital health solutions.