Background: Group B Streptococcus (GBS) is one of the leading causes of neonatal earlyonset sepsis, resulting in high mortality and significant comorbidity. Intrapartum penicillin prophylaxis is recommended for pregnant women with GBS colonization to prevent vertical transmission. For pregnant women at high risk of anaphylaxis to penicillin, clindamycin is recommended only if the susceptibility of GBS isolates has been identified. We retrospectively examined the GBS detection rate and clindamycin resistance among Korean women of reproductive age over the last 20 years. Methods: Microbiologic studies using vaginal, vaginal–rectal or vaginal–perianal swabs from female patients 15–49 years of age during 2003–2022 were reviewed. Annual GBS detection rates and clindamycin resistance rates were calculated. The study period was divided into two periods (period 1, 2003–2015; period 2, 2016–2022) based on the introduction of universal culture-based GBS screening in our center in 2016. GBS detection rates and clindamycin resistance rates were compared between the periods using χ2 tests. Results: A total of 14,571 women were tested 16,879 times and GBS was isolated in 1,054 tests (6.2%), with 423 clindamycin-resistant isolates (40.1%). The GBS detection rate increased from 3.4% (301/8,869) in period 1 to 9.4% (2,753/8,010) in period 2 (P < 0.001). Even during period 1, the GBS detection rate was higher in 2009–2015 compared to 2003–2008 (P < 0.001). Clindamycin resistance rates have remained at similar levels since 2009, which were 39.5% (199/301) in period 1 and 40.2% (303/753) in period 2 (P = 0.833). Conclusion This study demonstrated that GBS detection rates in Korean women of reproductive age significantly increased almost three times during the twenty years of the study period, with a persistently high clindamycin resistance rate of up to 40%.

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.

Digital therapeutics (DTx) are emerging as a transformative innovation in healthcare offering evidence-based digital interventions for the treatment, management, and prevention of various diseases and disorders. In Korea, DTx have gained significant attention as potential solutions to the increasing burden of chronic diseases and mental health conditions. However, the Korean DTx market faces several challenges that hinder its widespread adoption and integration into the national healthcare system. This study provides a comprehensive analysis of the current state of the DTx market in Korea, identifies the key challenges impeding its growth, and proposes strategies for overcoming these obstacles. This study utilized a literature review and market analysis approach to examine the latest research, industry reports, and regulatory documents related to DTx. The analysis focused on three primary areas: (1) the current regulatory landscape, (2) technological advancements and challenges, and (3) economic and commercial factors influencing DTx adoption in Korea. A comparative analysis of global regulatory practices was also conducted to identify best practices. The findings revealed that while Korea has made significant strides in supporting DTx development, the market remains in its early stages. The key challenges include underdeveloped regulatory frameworks, issues with data quality and security, and a lack of established reimbursement pathways. We recommend developing tailored regulatory frameworks for DTx, enhancing policy support for small and medium-sized enterprises involved in DTx development, and increasing investments in technological infrastructure. By addressing these challenges, Korea could position itself as a leader in the global DTx market, delivering innovative and effective treatments to enhance patient care and outcomes.

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.

Digital therapeutics (DTx) are emerging as a transformative innovation in healthcare offering evidence-based digital interventions for the treatment, management, and prevention of various diseases and disorders. In Korea, DTx have gained significant attention as potential solutions to the increasing burden of chronic diseases and mental health conditions. However, the Korean DTx market faces several challenges that hinder its widespread adoption and integration into the national healthcare system. This study provides a comprehensive analysis of the current state of the DTx market in Korea, identifies the key challenges impeding its growth, and proposes strategies for overcoming these obstacles. This study utilized a literature review and market analysis approach to examine the latest research, industry reports, and regulatory documents related to DTx. The analysis focused on three primary areas: (1) the current regulatory landscape, (2) technological advancements and challenges, and (3) economic and commercial factors influencing DTx adoption in Korea. A comparative analysis of global regulatory practices was also conducted to identify best practices. The findings revealed that while Korea has made significant strides in supporting DTx development, the market remains in its early stages. The key challenges include underdeveloped regulatory frameworks, issues with data quality and security, and a lack of established reimbursement pathways. We recommend developing tailored regulatory frameworks for DTx, enhancing policy support for small and medium-sized enterprises involved in DTx development, and increasing investments in technological infrastructure. By addressing these challenges, Korea could position itself as a leader in the global DTx market, delivering innovative and effective treatments to enhance patient care and outcomes.

Background: Group B Streptococcus (GBS) is one of the leading causes of neonatal earlyonset sepsis, resulting in high mortality and significant comorbidity. Intrapartum penicillin prophylaxis is recommended for pregnant women with GBS colonization to prevent vertical transmission. For pregnant women at high risk of anaphylaxis to penicillin, clindamycin is recommended only if the susceptibility of GBS isolates has been identified. We retrospectively examined the GBS detection rate and clindamycin resistance among Korean women of reproductive age over the last 20 years. Methods: Microbiologic studies using vaginal, vaginal–rectal or vaginal–perianal swabs from female patients 15–49 years of age during 2003–2022 were reviewed. Annual GBS detection rates and clindamycin resistance rates were calculated. The study period was divided into two periods (period 1, 2003–2015; period 2, 2016–2022) based on the introduction of universal culture-based GBS screening in our center in 2016. GBS detection rates and clindamycin resistance rates were compared between the periods using χ2 tests. Results: A total of 14,571 women were tested 16,879 times and GBS was isolated in 1,054 tests (6.2%), with 423 clindamycin-resistant isolates (40.1%). The GBS detection rate increased from 3.4% (301/8,869) in period 1 to 9.4% (2,753/8,010) in period 2 (P < 0.001). Even during period 1, the GBS detection rate was higher in 2009–2015 compared to 2003–2008 (P < 0.001). Clindamycin resistance rates have remained at similar levels since 2009, which were 39.5% (199/301) in period 1 and 40.2% (303/753) in period 2 (P = 0.833). Conclusion This study demonstrated that GBS detection rates in Korean women of reproductive age significantly increased almost three times during the twenty years of the study period, with a persistently high clindamycin resistance rate of up to 40%.

Background: Group B Streptococcus (GBS) is one of the leading causes of neonatal earlyonset sepsis, resulting in high mortality and significant comorbidity. Intrapartum penicillin prophylaxis is recommended for pregnant women with GBS colonization to prevent vertical transmission. For pregnant women at high risk of anaphylaxis to penicillin, clindamycin is recommended only if the susceptibility of GBS isolates has been identified. We retrospectively examined the GBS detection rate and clindamycin resistance among Korean women of reproductive age over the last 20 years. Methods: Microbiologic studies using vaginal, vaginal–rectal or vaginal–perianal swabs from female patients 15–49 years of age during 2003–2022 were reviewed. Annual GBS detection rates and clindamycin resistance rates were calculated. The study period was divided into two periods (period 1, 2003–2015; period 2, 2016–2022) based on the introduction of universal culture-based GBS screening in our center in 2016. GBS detection rates and clindamycin resistance rates were compared between the periods using χ2 tests. Results: A total of 14,571 women were tested 16,879 times and GBS was isolated in 1,054 tests (6.2%), with 423 clindamycin-resistant isolates (40.1%). The GBS detection rate increased from 3.4% (301/8,869) in period 1 to 9.4% (2,753/8,010) in period 2 (P < 0.001). Even during period 1, the GBS detection rate was higher in 2009–2015 compared to 2003–2008 (P < 0.001). Clindamycin resistance rates have remained at similar levels since 2009, which were 39.5% (199/301) in period 1 and 40.2% (303/753) in period 2 (P = 0.833). Conclusion This study demonstrated that GBS detection rates in Korean women of reproductive age significantly increased almost three times during the twenty years of the study period, with a persistently high clindamycin resistance rate of up to 40%.

Digital therapeutics (DTx) are emerging as a transformative innovation in healthcare offering evidence-based digital interventions for the treatment, management, and prevention of various diseases and disorders. In Korea, DTx have gained significant attention as potential solutions to the increasing burden of chronic diseases and mental health conditions. However, the Korean DTx market faces several challenges that hinder its widespread adoption and integration into the national healthcare system. This study provides a comprehensive analysis of the current state of the DTx market in Korea, identifies the key challenges impeding its growth, and proposes strategies for overcoming these obstacles. This study utilized a literature review and market analysis approach to examine the latest research, industry reports, and regulatory documents related to DTx. The analysis focused on three primary areas: (1) the current regulatory landscape, (2) technological advancements and challenges, and (3) economic and commercial factors influencing DTx adoption in Korea. A comparative analysis of global regulatory practices was also conducted to identify best practices. The findings revealed that while Korea has made significant strides in supporting DTx development, the market remains in its early stages. The key challenges include underdeveloped regulatory frameworks, issues with data quality and security, and a lack of established reimbursement pathways. We recommend developing tailored regulatory frameworks for DTx, enhancing policy support for small and medium-sized enterprises involved in DTx development, and increasing investments in technological infrastructure. By addressing these challenges, Korea could position itself as a leader in the global DTx market, delivering innovative and effective treatments to enhance patient care and outcomes.

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.