Use of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs and the subsequent risk of herpes zoster in older adults.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the association between DMARD use and subsequent risk of herpes zoster in a large, heterogeneous and prospective population-based cohort. METHODS: Using data from a cohort of adults (45 and Up Study) recruited between 2006 and 2009 and linked to pharmaceutical, hospital and death data (2004-2015), the effect of DMARD use on zoster risk was analysed using Cox proportional hazards models, adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics, comorbidities and corticosteroid use. RESULTS: Among 254 065 eligible participants, over 1 826 311 person-years follow-up, there were 6295 new DMARD users and 17 024 incident herpes zoster events. Compared with non-users, the risk of zoster was higher in those who used biologic (b)DMARDs, either alone or in combination with conventional synthetic (cs)DMARDs than in those who only used csDMARDs (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 2.53 [95% CI: 2.03, 3.16]) for bDMARDs vs 1.48 [95% CI: 1.33, 1.66] for csDMARDs, P-heterogeneity < 0.001; reference: non-users). Among users of csDMARDs, compared with non-users, zoster risks were highest in those using exclusively cyclophosphamide (aHR 2.69 [95% CI: 1.89, 3.83]), more moderate in those using azathioprine (aHR 1.57 [95% CI: 1.07, 2.30]) and hydroxychloroquine (aHR 1.43 [95%CI: 1.11, 1.83]) and not elevated in users of methotrexate (aHR 1.24 [95% CI: 0.98, 1.57]), sulfasalazine (aHR 1.00 [95% CI: 0.71, 1.42]) and leflunomide (aHR 0.41 [95% CI: 0.06, 2.88]). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of zoster was high among bDMARD and cyclophosphamide users. Also, the risk was increased in those using hydroxychloroquine alone and in combination with methotrexate but not methotrexate alone. Preventative strategies such as zoster vaccination or antiviral therapies should be considered in these populations if not contraindicated.

Corticosteroid Use and Risk of Herpes Zoster in a Population-Based Cohort.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between corticosteroid use and herpes zoster risk. METHODS: With data from a large cohort of adults (the 45 and Up Study) recruited between 2006 and 2009 and linked to health data sets, the effect of corticosteroid use on zoster risk was analyzed by Cox proportional hazards models, adjusting for age, sex, and other characteristics. RESULTS: During 602,152 person-years (median, 7.36 years) of follow-up, there were 20,048 new systemic corticosteroid users and 6294 incident herpes zoster events among 94,677 participants (zoster incidence, 11.0 per 1000 person-years). Compared with nonusers, the risk of zoster was 59% higher in those using systemic corticosteroids (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.59; 95% CI, 1.48 to 1.71) and greater with higher cumulative doses: aHR of 1.32 (95% CI, 1.17 to 1.48), 1.74 (95% CI, 1.55 to 1.95), and 1.80 (95% CI, 1.61 to 2.02) for use of less than 500 mg, 500 mg to less than 1000 mg, and 1000 mg or more prednisolone equivalents, respectively (P value for trend, <.001). Compared with nonusers, zoster risk increased significantly (aHR, 6.00; 95% CI, 4.85 to 7.42) in the month after a single prescription of systemic corticosteroids and returned to levels similar to those in nonusers by the third month after dispensing (aHR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.49 to 1.69). CONCLUSION: Practitioners should be alert to the increased risk of zoster among patients taking systemic corticosteroids. Given the significant morbidity from zoster, particularly in older adults, these findings support judicious prescribing of corticosteroids, including using as low a dose and as short a course as possible.

Protocol of the randomised placebo controlled pilot trial of the management of acute sciatica (SCIATICA): a feasibility study.

INTRODUCTION: Acute sciatica (symptom duration less than 4 weeks), a major cause of pain and disability, is a common presentation to medical practices and hospital emergency departments. Selective CT fluoroscopy transforaminal epidural steroid injection is often used with the hope of reducing pain and improving function. Recently, there has been interest in using systemic corticosteroids in acute sciatica. However, there is limited evidence to inform management of selective CT fluoroscopy transforaminal epidural steroid in subacute and chronic sciatica and there is no evidence in acute sciatica, even though the practice is widespread. There is also limited evidence for the use of systemic corticosteroids in acute sciatica. Furthermore, the management of selective CT fluoroscopy transforaminal epidural steroid versus systemic steroids has never been directly studied. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: SCIATICA is a pilot/feasibility study of patients with acute sciatica designed to evaluate the feasibility of undertaking a blinded four-arm randomised controlled intervention study of (1) selective CT fluoroscopy transforaminal epidural steroid (arm 1), (2) selective CT fluoroscopy transforaminal epidural saline (arm 2), (3) 15 days tapering dose of oral steroids (arm 3) and (4) a sham epidural and oral placebo control (arm 4). This feasibility study is designed to evaluate head-to-head, route versus pharmacology of interventions. The primary outcome measure is the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at 3 weeks. Secondary outcome is the ODI at 48 weeks. Other outcomes include numerical rating scale for leg pain, Pain DETECT Questionnaire, quality of life, medication use, rescue procedures or surgery, and adverse events. Results of outcomes from this randomised controlled trial will be used to determine the feasibility, sample size and power calculations for a large multicentre study. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by South Eastern Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/15/331/POHW/586). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03240783; Pre-results.

Improving quality of care and long-term health outcomes through continuity of care with the use of an electronic or paper patient-held portable health file (COMMUNICATE): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The advantages of patient-held portable health files (PHF) and personal health records (PHR), paper or electronic, are said to include improved health-care provider continuity-of-care and patient empowerment in maintaining health. Top-down approaches are favored by public sector government and health managers. Bottom-up approaches include systems developed directly by health-care providers, consumers and industry, implemented locally on devices carried by patient-consumers or shared via web-based portals. These allow individuals to access, manage and share their health information, and that of others for whom they are authorized, in a private, secure and confidential environment. Few medical record technologies have been evaluated in randomized trials to determine whether there are important clinical benefits of these interventions. The COMMUNICATE trial will assess the acceptability and long-term clinical outcomes of an electronic and paper patient-held PHF. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a 48-month, open-label pragmatic, superiority, parallel-group design randomized controlled trial. Subjects (n = 792) will be randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to each of the trial arms: the electronic PHF added to usual care, the paper PHF added to usual care and usual care alone (no PHF). Inclusion criteria include those 60 years or older living independently in the community, but who have two or more chronic medical conditions that require prescription medication and regular care by at least three medical practitioners (general and specialist care). The primary objective is whether use of a PHF compared to usual care reduces a combined endpoint of deaths, overnight hospitalizations and blindly adjudicated serious out-of-hospital events. All primary analyses will be undertaken masked to randomized arm allocation using intention-to-treat principles. Secondary outcomes include quality of life and health literacy improvements. DISCUSSION: Lack of blinding creates potential for bias in trial conduct and ascertainment of clinical outcomes. Mechanisms are provided to reduce bias, including balanced study contact with all participants, a blinded adjudication committee determining which out-of-hospital events are serious and endpoints that are objective (overnight hospitalizations and mortality). The PRECIS tool provides a summary of the trial's design on the Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered with Clinicaltrials.gov (identifier: NCT01082978) on 8 March 2010.