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%.

It is difficult to determine a cause of bile duct stricture and dilatation. Eosinophilic cholangitis, a rare benign condition, may be one cause of bile duct stricture and dilatation. It can be evaluated using various methods of histopathology, radiographs, endoscopy, and hematologic findings. Treatment generally involves steroid therapy which can lead to improvement. This case report will discuss eosinophilic cholangitis, emphasizing that while it can easily be overlooked but should be considered in differential diagnoses.

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.

It is difficult to determine a cause of bile duct stricture and dilatation. Eosinophilic cholangitis, a rare benign condition, may be one cause of bile duct stricture and dilatation. It can be evaluated using various methods of histopathology, radiographs, endoscopy, and hematologic findings. Treatment generally involves steroid therapy which can lead to improvement. This case report will discuss eosinophilic cholangitis, emphasizing that while it can easily be overlooked but should be considered in differential diagnoses.

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.

It is difficult to determine a cause of bile duct stricture and dilatation. Eosinophilic cholangitis, a rare benign condition, may be one cause of bile duct stricture and dilatation. It can be evaluated using various methods of histopathology, radiographs, endoscopy, and hematologic findings. Treatment generally involves steroid therapy which can lead to improvement. This case report will discuss eosinophilic cholangitis, emphasizing that while it can easily be overlooked but should be considered in differential diagnoses.

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.