Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

Background: Histone deacetylase 6 (HDAC6), belonging to class IIb of histone deacetylases, regulates theacetylation of the cytoplasmic protein α-tubulin. The overexpression of HDAC6 is linked to the development oftumors, and inhibiting HDAC6 is known to trigger apoptosis in multiple myeloma cells. In addition to its application in cancer treatment, bortezomib, a proteasome inhibitor, is widely used in managing multiple myeloma and has shown effectiveness in patients with both newly diagnosed and relapsed disease. However, the treatment regimen may be delayed or discontinued due to the risk of peripheral neuropathy, a significant non-hematologic side effect. Methods: Animal models of peripheral neuropathy induced by various anti-cancer drugs were established, confirming the potential of HDAC6 inhibitors as a treatment for this condition. Six- to eight-week-old male Sprague Dawley rats were utilized to create these models. Mechanical allodynia and electron microscopy served as indicators of peripheral neuropathy. The HDAC6 inhibitor CKD-011 was administered at doses of 5, 10, 20, and 40 mg/kg. Results: In an animal model of bortezomib-induced peripheral neuropathy, CKD-011, an HDAC6 inhibitor, effectively ameliorated peripheral neuropathy. Similarly, CKD-011 administration demonstrated recovery from peripheral neuropathy in models induced with oxaliplatin, paclitaxel, and cisplatin. Conclusions These findings suggest that HDAC6 inhibitors have the potential to mitigate peripheral neuropathy induced by chemotherapeutic agents.

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: Lung ultrasound (LUS) has proven valuable in the initial assessment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but its role in detecting pulmonary fibrosis following intensive care remains unclear. This study aims to assess the presence of pulmonary sequelae and fibrosis-like changes using LUS in survivors of severe COVID-19 pneumonia one month after discharge. Methods: We prospectively enrolled patients with severe COVID-19 who required mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit (ICU) and conducted LUS assessments from admission to the outpatient visit after discharge. We tracked changes in key LUS findings and applied our proprietary LUS scoring system. To evaluate LUS accuracy, we correlated measured LUS values with computed tomography scores. Results: We evaluated B-line presence, pleural thickness, and consolidation in 14 eligible patients. The LUS scores exhibited minimal changes, with values of 19.1, 19.2, and 17.5 at admission, discharge, and the outpatient visit, respectively. Notably, the number of B-lines decreased significantly, from 1.92 at admission to 0.56 at the outpatient visit (p<0.05), while pleural thickness increased significantly, from 2.05 at admission to 2.48 at the outpatient visit (p≤0.05). Conclusion This study demonstrates that LUS can track changes in lung abnormalities in severe COVID-19 patients from ICU admission through to outpatient follow-up. While pleural thickening and B-line patterns showed significant changes, no correlation was found between LUS and high-resolution computed tomography fibrosis scores. These findings suggest that LUS may serve as a supplementary tool for assessing pulmonary recovery in severe COVID-19 cases.

Background/Aims: Rectal hyposensitivity (RH), as defined by the London Classification, has been linked to sensory dysfunction caused by diabetes mellitus and Parkinson’s disease (PD); however, its clinical interpretation has not been sufficiently validated. In this study, we aim to explore the correlations between rectal sensory thresholds and the clinical characteristics of patients with functional defecatory disorders. Methods: We reviewed data from patients who underwent high-resolution anorectal manometry and acquired their clinical characteristics using a standardized questionnaire. The associations between RH based on either 1 (borderline RH) or 2 (RH) abnormal rectal sensory thresholds and patients’ clinical and demographic characteristics were analyzed using linear and logistic regression models in the overall sex-stratified populations. Results: We enrolled 2540 patients, of whom 1046 (41.2%) were men. Overall, 150 (5.9%) patients were diagnosed with RH, whereas 422 (16.6%) had borderline RH. Multivariate linear regression analysis revealed that the Cleveland Clinic Constipation Score (CCCS) increased linearly with the increase in the number of abnormal rectal sensory thresholds (effect per threshold: 0.900 [standard deviation: 0.188]). Upon stratification by sex, borderline RH was positively associated with diabetes mellitus, PD, and CCCS (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.11, 95% confidence interval [1.08, 4.15]; aOR = 1.49 [1.03, 2.14]; aOR = 1.03 [1.01, 1.05], respectively) in women. However, RH was positively associated with only the CCCS. Conclusions Defining RH based on 1 or more abnormal sensory thresholds showed better clinical correlation with patient characteristics. However, further prospective studies are needed to validate these findings before proposing revisions to the current London classification criteria.

Objective: In South Korea, there is a significant gap in systematic, evidence-based research on intensive case management (ICM) for individuals with severe mental illness (SMI). This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ICM through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ICM with standard case management (non-ICM). Methods: An RCT was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Seoul-intensive case management (S-ICM) vs. non-ICM in individuals with SMI in Seoul. A total of 78 participants were randomly assigned to either the S-ICM group (n=41) or the control group (n=37). Various clinical assessments, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Health of the Nation Outcome Scale, and Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I), along with quality-of-life measures such as the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule, WHO Quality of Life scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) were evaluated over a 3-month period. Statistical analyses, including analysis of covariance and logistic regression, were used to determine the effectiveness of S-ICM. Results: The S-ICM group had significantly lower odds of self-harm or suicidal attempts compared to the control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–1.38). Psychiatric symptoms measured by the BPRS and perceived social support measured by the MSPSS significantly improved in the S-ICM group. The S-ICM group also had significantly higher odds of CGI-I compared to the control group (aOR=8.20, 95% CI: 2.66–25.32). Conclusion This study provides inaugural evidence on the effectiveness of S-ICM services, supporting their standardization and potential nationwide expansion.

Background: Histone deacetylase 6 (HDAC6), belonging to class IIb of histone deacetylases, regulates theacetylation of the cytoplasmic protein α-tubulin. The overexpression of HDAC6 is linked to the development oftumors, and inhibiting HDAC6 is known to trigger apoptosis in multiple myeloma cells. In addition to its application in cancer treatment, bortezomib, a proteasome inhibitor, is widely used in managing multiple myeloma and has shown effectiveness in patients with both newly diagnosed and relapsed disease. However, the treatment regimen may be delayed or discontinued due to the risk of peripheral neuropathy, a significant non-hematologic side effect. Methods: Animal models of peripheral neuropathy induced by various anti-cancer drugs were established, confirming the potential of HDAC6 inhibitors as a treatment for this condition. Six- to eight-week-old male Sprague Dawley rats were utilized to create these models. Mechanical allodynia and electron microscopy served as indicators of peripheral neuropathy. The HDAC6 inhibitor CKD-011 was administered at doses of 5, 10, 20, and 40 mg/kg. Results: In an animal model of bortezomib-induced peripheral neuropathy, CKD-011, an HDAC6 inhibitor, effectively ameliorated peripheral neuropathy. Similarly, CKD-011 administration demonstrated recovery from peripheral neuropathy in models induced with oxaliplatin, paclitaxel, and cisplatin. Conclusions These findings suggest that HDAC6 inhibitors have the potential to mitigate peripheral neuropathy induced by chemotherapeutic agents.

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: Lung ultrasound (LUS) has proven valuable in the initial assessment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but its role in detecting pulmonary fibrosis following intensive care remains unclear. This study aims to assess the presence of pulmonary sequelae and fibrosis-like changes using LUS in survivors of severe COVID-19 pneumonia one month after discharge. Methods: We prospectively enrolled patients with severe COVID-19 who required mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit (ICU) and conducted LUS assessments from admission to the outpatient visit after discharge. We tracked changes in key LUS findings and applied our proprietary LUS scoring system. To evaluate LUS accuracy, we correlated measured LUS values with computed tomography scores. Results: We evaluated B-line presence, pleural thickness, and consolidation in 14 eligible patients. The LUS scores exhibited minimal changes, with values of 19.1, 19.2, and 17.5 at admission, discharge, and the outpatient visit, respectively. Notably, the number of B-lines decreased significantly, from 1.92 at admission to 0.56 at the outpatient visit (p<0.05), while pleural thickness increased significantly, from 2.05 at admission to 2.48 at the outpatient visit (p≤0.05). Conclusion This study demonstrates that LUS can track changes in lung abnormalities in severe COVID-19 patients from ICU admission through to outpatient follow-up. While pleural thickening and B-line patterns showed significant changes, no correlation was found between LUS and high-resolution computed tomography fibrosis scores. These findings suggest that LUS may serve as a supplementary tool for assessing pulmonary recovery in severe COVID-19 cases.