68-2

34/110

Table 5　Comparisons of clinical characteristics and primary/secondary clinical outcomes between patients treated with AMNV and patients treated with FCV within late visitors before and after propensity score matching (PSM)VariablesAntiherpetic agents, nClinical characteristicsAge (years)Before PSMFCV (n = 68)AMNV (n = 56)63.9±17.1M, 27 (48.2)F, 29 (51.8)3 (5.4)7 (12.5)8 (14.3)3 (5.4)V, 16 (28.6)C, 7 (12.5)TU, 12 (21.4)TL, 12 (21.4)L, 7 (12.5)S, 2 (3.6)11 (19.6)2 (1, 3)2 (1, 3.5)1 (0, 3)0 (0, 0)3 (5.4)After PSMFCV (n = 46)AMNV (n = 46)67.6±15.7M, 22 (47.8)F, 24 (52.2)67.3±13.7M, 18 (39.1)F, 28 (60.9)2 (4.3)6 (13.0)8 (17.4)3 (6.5)2 (4.3)7 (15.2)7 (15.2)1 (2.2)V, 13 (28.3)C, 7 (15.2)TU, 9 (19.6)TL, 8 (17.4)L, 7 (15.2)S, 2 (4.3)V, 9 (19.6)C, 11 (23.9)TU, 13 (28.3)TL, 9 (19.6)L, 1 (2.2)S, 3 (6.5)16 (34.8)2 (1, 4)3 (1, 5)3 (1, 5)0 (0, 3)9 (19.6)2 (1, 3)2 (1, 3)1 (0, 3)0 (0, 0)9 (19.6)3 (6.5)126visitors, requirements of NSAIDs tended to be less, the pain score at Day 3-4 tended to be lower, and pain scores at Day 7 and Week 2-3 were signifi-cantly lower in AMNV-treated than FCV-treated patients (p = 0.0782, p = 0.0904, p = 0.0015 and p = 0.0111, respectively), although the incidence of PHN did not differ between them (Table 5). In 46 PSM pairs in late visitors with more comparable clinical characteristics, pain scores at Day 7 and Week 2-3 were significantly lower (p = 0.0031 and p = 0.0110, respectively), and the incidence of PHN tended to be lower (3/46 vs. 9/46, p = 0.0633), in AMNV-treated than FCV-treated patients, although requirements of NSAIDs for acute pain control did not differ between them (Table 5, Figure 5).Predisposing factors of PHNFifth, we attempted to identify predisposing factors of PHN as secondary clinical outcomes. In the total cohort, 29 patients out of 274 (10.6%) developed PHN. Sex; Males and FemalesAntibiotic 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 neuralgiap values0.1960 67.7±15.5M, 30 (44.1)F, 38 (55.9)0.6487 6 (8.8)9 (13.2)12 (17.6)5 (7.4)0.4591 0.9033 0.6125 0.6526 V, 12 (17.6)C, 22 (32.4)TU, 14 (20.6)TL, 10 (14.7)0.1010 L, 5 (7.4)S, 5 (7.4)23 (33.8)2 (1, 4)3 (1, 5)3 (1, 5)0 (0, 3)0.0782 0.1974 0.0904 0.00150.0111 9 (13.2)0.1398 Figure 5　Comparison between numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores in 46 propensity score-matched pairs of patients treated with amenamevir (AMNV) and patients treated with famciclovir (FCV) in late visitorsData 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. * Significant difference between patientsp values0.9211 0.40021.0000 0.76470.77780.61660.21320.10090.2823 0.1087 0.0031 0.0110 0.0633