4.7 Article

Burden of illness, quality of life, and healthcare utilization among patients with herpes zoster in South Korea: a prospective clinical-epidemiological study

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijid.2013.11.018

关键词

Herpes zoster; Burden of illness; Observational; South Korea; Pain; Quality of life

资金

  1. Merck Co.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To assess the herpes zoster (HZ) disease burden, including the severity and duration of HZ associated pain, its impact on quality of life (QoL), and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) in a South Korean clinical setting. Methods: Patients aged >= 50 years were followed prospectively for <= 6 months. Based on the duration of their episode at enrolment, cases were classified as incident (<7 days) or prevalent (>= 7 days). HZ pain and discomfort were measured with the HZ Severity of Illness (HZ-SOI) severity-by-duration composite score. Results: One hundred fifty-one patients (69.5% prevalent cases) were enrolled. Prodrome pain was experienced by 68.2% of patients, of whom 95.1% experienced moderate-to-severe pain; post-herpetic neuralgia was experienced by 38.4%. Prevalent disease, higher acute pain, and older age were significant predictors of greater HZ-SOI, while use of antivirals was associated with decreased HZ-SOI. HZassociated pain was associated with reduced QoL and affected all daily living activities (particularly mood, life enjoyment, general activities, and sleep), resulting in significant HCRU, including primary care doctor, specialist, or physiotherapist consultations, hospitalizations, and emergency department visits. Conclusion: Severe morbidity, impaired QoL, and significant HCRU are associated with HZ in South Korea, especially in older patients, supporting the need for early intervention and preventive strategies to reduce the HZ-associated disease burden. (c) 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of International Society for Infectious Diseases. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据