68-2

31/110

Figure 2　Changes in numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores during the acute stage of herpes zosterData are expressed as box and whisker plots. A solid line in the box depicts the median. Ends of the box represent the 75th and 25th percentiles. Whiskers represent the 90th and 10th percentiles.Table 2　Comparisons of clinical characteristics and primary/secondary clinical outcomes between patients treated with AMNV and patients treated with FCV before and after propensity score matching (PSM)VariablesAntiherpetic agents, n Clinical characteristicsAge (years)Sex; Males and Females Early and Late visitorsAntibiotic therapySteroid userImmunocompromised stateAntidepressant userRash locationsPrimary clinical outcomesRequirements of NSAIDsNRS pain score at Day 0NRS pain score at Day 3-4NRS pain score at Day 7NRS pain score at Week 2-3Secondary clinical outcomesPHNData are shown as Mean ± SD, Median (Interquartile Range), or Number (%), and compared between patients with unpaired t test, Mann-Whitney U test, or Pearson’s chi-square test.PSM, propensity score matching; AMNV, amenamevir; FCV, famciclovir; M, males; F, females; V, trigeminal; C, cervical; TU, upper thoracic (T1-8); TL, lower thoracic (T9-12); L, lumbar; S, sacral; NSAIDs, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; NRS, numerical rating scale; PHN, postherpetic neuralgia Before PSMAMNV (n = 143)FCV (n = 131)62.9 ± 15.4M, 83 (58.0)F, 60 (42.0)Early, 87 (60.8)Late, 56 (39.2)15 (10.5)24 (16.8)29 (20.3)5 (3.5)V, 45 (31.5)C, 21 (14.7)TU, 26 (18.2)TL, 23 (16.1)L, 17 (11.9)S, 11 (7.7)37 (25.9)2 (1, 3)2 (1, 3)1 (0, 3)0 (0, 1)14 (9.8)tors (p = 0.0094 and p = 0.0342, respectively). In AMNV-treated patients, NRS pain scores were significantly lower at Day 3-4, Day 7, and Week 2-3, compared with FCV-treated patients (p = 0.0486, p = 0.0110, and p = 0.0157, respectively), while requirements of NSAIDs did not differ (Table 2). The incidence of PHN did not differ between these patients (Table 2). In 111 PSM pairs with compa-rable clinical characteristics, NRS pain scores at Day 7 and Week 2-3 were significantly lower in AMNV-treated than FCV-treated patients (p = 0.0174 and p = 0.0130, respectively), whereas the incidence of PHN did not differ significantly between them (Table 2, Figure 3).Comparison between early visitors and late visitorsSecond, we compared clinical characteristics and primary/secondary clinical outcomes between 150 p values0.009467.9 ± 16.2M, 71 (54.2) F, 60 (45.8)0.5218Early, 63 (48.1)Late, 68 (51.9)0.034212 (9.2)14 (10.7)20 (15.3)10 (7.6)0.71230.14470.27950.1326V, 30 (22.9)C, 31 (23.7)TU, 33 (25.2)TL, 20 (15.3)0.1134L, 8 (6.1)S, 9 (6.9)33 (25.2)2 (1, 4)3 (1, 4)2 (0, 5)0 (0, 3)0.89690.0905 0.0486 0.0110 0.0157 15 (11.5)0.6554After PSMAMNV (n = 111)FCV (n = 111)66.2 ± 14.3M, 47 (42.3)F, 64 (57.7)66.3 ± 16.8M, 51 (45.9)F, 60 (54.1)Early, 60 (54.1)Late, 51 (45.9)Early, 58 (52.3)Late, 53 (47.7)9 (8.1)13 (11.7)18 (16.2)5 (4.5)V, 33 (29.7)C, 16 (14.4)TU, 20 (18.0)TL, 19 (17.1)L, 14 (12.6)S, 9 (8.1)V, 29 (26.1)C, 25 (22.5)TU, 31 (27.9)TL, 14 (12.6)L, 6 (5.4)S, 6 (5.4)26 (23.4)2 (1, 3)2 (1, 4)1 (0, 3)0 (0, 0)29 (26.1)2 (1, 4)3 (1, 4)2 (0, 5)0 (0, 3)13 (11.7)13 (11.7)p values0.9554 0.5888 0.78798 (7.2)14 (12.6)17 (15.3)3 (2.7)0.8007 0.8373 0.8539 0.7215 0.1027 0.6409 0.4083 0.2725 0.0174 0.0130 1.0000 123