Background: Tinnitus is a multifactorial condition with no universally accepted assessment guidelines. The Korean Tinnitus Study Group previously established consensus statements on the definition, classification, and diagnostic tests for tinnitus. As a continuation of this effort, this study aims to establish expert consensus on tinnitus assessment and treatment outcome evaluation, specifically tailored to the Korean clinical context. Methods: A modified Delphi method involving 26 otology experts from across Korea was used. A two-round Delphi survey was conducted to evaluate statements related to tinnitus assessment before and after treatment. Statements were rated on a scale of 1 to 9 for the level of agreement. Consensus was defined as ≥ 70% agreement (score of 7–9) and ≤ 15% disagreement (score of 1–3). Statistical measures such as content validity ratio and Kendall’s coefficient of concordance (W) were calculated to assess agreement levels. Results: Of the 46 assessment-related statements, 17 (37%) reached consensus, though overall pre-treatment assessments showed weak agreement (Kendall’s W = 0.319). Key areas of agreement included the use of the visual analogue scale, numeric rating scale, and validated questionnaires for pre-treatment evaluation. Five statements, such as the use of computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and angiography for diagnosing pulsatile tinnitus, achieved over 90% agreement. For treatment outcome measurements, 8 of 12 statements (67%) reached a consensus, with moderate agreement (Kendall’s W = 0.513). Validated questionnaires and psychoacoustic tests were recommended for evaluating treatment effects within 12 weeks. While standardized imaging for pulsatile tinnitus and additional clinical tests were strongly recommended, full consensus was not achieved across all imaging modalities. Conclusion This study provides actionable recommendations for tinnitus assessment and treatment evaluation, emphasizing the use of standardized tools and individualized approaches based on patient needs. These findings offer a practical framework to enhance consistency and effectiveness in tinnitus management within Korean clinical settings.

Background/Aims: Elevated troponin levels predict in-hospital mortality and influence decisions regarding thrombolytic therapy in patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE). However, the usefulness of high-sensitivity troponin T (hsTnT) regarding PE remains uncertain. We aimed to establish the optimal cut-off level and compare its performance for precise risk stratification. Methods: 374 patients diagnosed with acute PE were reviewed. PE-related adverse outcomes, a composite of PE-related deaths, cardiopulmonary resuscitation incidents, systolic blood pressure < 90 mmHg, and all-cause mortality within 30 days were evaluated. The optimal hsTnT cut-off for all-cause mortality, and the net reclassification index (NRI) was used to assess the incremental value in risk stratification. Results: Among 343 normotensive patients, 17 (5.0%) experienced all-cause mortality, while 40 (10.7%) had PE-related adverse outcomes. An optimal hsTnT cut-off value of 60 ng/L for all-cause mortality (AUC 0.74, 95% CI 0.61–0.85, p < 0.001) was identified, which was significantly associated with PE-related adverse outcomes (OR 4.07, 95% CI 2.06–8.06, p < 0.001). Patients with hsTnT ≥ 60 ng/L were older, hypotensive, had higher creatinine levels, and right ventricular dysfunction signs. Combining hsTnT ≥ 60 ng/L with simplified pulmonary embolism severity index ≥1 provided additional prognostic information. Reclassification analysis showed a significant shift in risk categories, with an NRI of 1.016 ± 0.201 (p < 0.001). Conclusions We refined troponin’s predictive value in patients with acute PE, proposing a new cut-off value of hsTnT ≥ 60 ng/L. Validation through large-scale studies is essential to offer clinically useful guidance for managing patient population.

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: We previously reported that patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis (UC) often experience common mental disorders (CMDs) such as anxiety and depression, necessitating immediate psychological interventions within the first 4 weeks of diagnosis. In this 3-year follow-up study of the MOSAIK cohort in Korea, we examined the effects of CMDs at initial diagnosis on clinical outcomes and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Methods: We examined differences in clinical outcomes (evaluated based on clinical response, relapse, hospitalization, and medication use) and HRQoL (assessed using the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire [IBDQ] and Short Form 12 [SF-12]) according to Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) scores at diagnosis. Results: In a study involving 199 UC patients, 47.7% exhibited significant psychological distress (anxiety and/or depression) at diagnosis. Clinical follow-up showed no major differences in outcomes, including remission rates, response rates, or hospitalization rates, between patients with anxiety or depression at diagnosis and patients without anxiety or depression at diagnosis. The HRQoL at the end of follow-up was notably lower in those with baseline CMDs, particularly anxiety, across all domains of the IBDQ and SF-12. Linear mixed-effect models revealed that higher HADS scores, as well as higher Mayo scores, were independently associated with lower IBDQ scores and both summary domains of the SF-12. Additionally, regular attendance at follow-up visits during the study period was also related to improvements in HRQoL (all p<0.05). Conclusions While CMDs present at the time of UC diagnosis did not influence long-term clinical outcomes, they persistently impaired HRQoL. Our findings support the routine incorporation of psychological interventions into the long-term management of moderate-to-severe UC.

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.

Background/Aims: Elevated troponin levels predict in-hospital mortality and influence decisions regarding thrombolytic therapy in patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE). However, the usefulness of high-sensitivity troponin T (hsTnT) regarding PE remains uncertain. We aimed to establish the optimal cut-off level and compare its performance for precise risk stratification. Methods: 374 patients diagnosed with acute PE were reviewed. PE-related adverse outcomes, a composite of PE-related deaths, cardiopulmonary resuscitation incidents, systolic blood pressure < 90 mmHg, and all-cause mortality within 30 days were evaluated. The optimal hsTnT cut-off for all-cause mortality, and the net reclassification index (NRI) was used to assess the incremental value in risk stratification. Results: Among 343 normotensive patients, 17 (5.0%) experienced all-cause mortality, while 40 (10.7%) had PE-related adverse outcomes. An optimal hsTnT cut-off value of 60 ng/L for all-cause mortality (AUC 0.74, 95% CI 0.61–0.85, p < 0.001) was identified, which was significantly associated with PE-related adverse outcomes (OR 4.07, 95% CI 2.06–8.06, p < 0.001). Patients with hsTnT ≥ 60 ng/L were older, hypotensive, had higher creatinine levels, and right ventricular dysfunction signs. Combining hsTnT ≥ 60 ng/L with simplified pulmonary embolism severity index ≥1 provided additional prognostic information. Reclassification analysis showed a significant shift in risk categories, with an NRI of 1.016 ± 0.201 (p < 0.001). Conclusions We refined troponin’s predictive value in patients with acute PE, proposing a new cut-off value of hsTnT ≥ 60 ng/L. Validation through large-scale studies is essential to offer clinically useful guidance for managing patient population.

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: Elevated troponin levels predict in-hospital mortality and influence decisions regarding thrombolytic therapy in patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE). However, the usefulness of high-sensitivity troponin T (hsTnT) regarding PE remains uncertain. We aimed to establish the optimal cut-off level and compare its performance for precise risk stratification. Methods: 374 patients diagnosed with acute PE were reviewed. PE-related adverse outcomes, a composite of PE-related deaths, cardiopulmonary resuscitation incidents, systolic blood pressure < 90 mmHg, and all-cause mortality within 30 days were evaluated. The optimal hsTnT cut-off for all-cause mortality, and the net reclassification index (NRI) was used to assess the incremental value in risk stratification. Results: Among 343 normotensive patients, 17 (5.0%) experienced all-cause mortality, while 40 (10.7%) had PE-related adverse outcomes. An optimal hsTnT cut-off value of 60 ng/L for all-cause mortality (AUC 0.74, 95% CI 0.61–0.85, p < 0.001) was identified, which was significantly associated with PE-related adverse outcomes (OR 4.07, 95% CI 2.06–8.06, p < 0.001). Patients with hsTnT ≥ 60 ng/L were older, hypotensive, had higher creatinine levels, and right ventricular dysfunction signs. Combining hsTnT ≥ 60 ng/L with simplified pulmonary embolism severity index ≥1 provided additional prognostic information. Reclassification analysis showed a significant shift in risk categories, with an NRI of 1.016 ± 0.201 (p < 0.001). Conclusions We refined troponin’s predictive value in patients with acute PE, proposing a new cut-off value of hsTnT ≥ 60 ng/L. Validation through large-scale studies is essential to offer clinically useful guidance for managing patient population.

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.

Objective: Acute coronary syndrome often requires urgent intervention. The 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines recommend invasive procedures within 24 hours for high-risk cases. Nevertheless, there have been limited studies on non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) in South Korea. This study compared the risk of complications based on the timing of intervention. Methods: A retrospective observational study was conducted on patients with chest pain and elevated high-sensitivity troponin T from January to December 2021 in the emergency department. Patients were categorized into early (≤24 hr) and late (>24 hr) intervention groups. Primary outcomes (death, restenosis, or stroke) at 12 months were compared. Survival and subgroup analyses were performed to examine the factors affecting the outcomes in the two groups. Results: Three hundred seventy six patients were enrolled in the study, and 115 patients were excluded. Among 261 patients, 106 and 155 patients were in the early intervention group (≤24 hr), and late intervention group (>24 hr), respectively. The primary outcome (death or restenosis) showed no significant difference (hazard ratio [HR] in the early intervention group at 12 mo; 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63-1.70; P=0.905). However, risk of stroke was lower in the early intervention group (HR in the early, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.00-0.66; P=0.013). Subgroup analysis showed no significant advantage for early intervention. Conclusion In NSTEMI patients, early intervention does not reduce death or restenosis but lowers stroke incidence. No specific risk factors favored early intervention.