Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is associated with an increased risk of herpes zoster: A retrospective United States claims database analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has been reported as a potential risk factor for developing herpes zoster (HZ). We aimed at comparing incidence rates of HZ between people with versus without COPD in the US. This retrospective cohort study used data from Optum's de-identified Clinformatics Data Mart database from 1/1/2013 through 12/31/2018. We identified two cohorts of people ≥40 years without prior HZ, HZ vaccination, postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) or HZ ophthalmicus: those with (COPD+) and those without (COPD-) a COPD diagnosis. Adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRRs) of HZ and PHN were calculated using generalized linear models, controlling for the propensity score of being diagnosed with COPD and relevant demographic and clinical characteristics. People in the COPD+ cohort (n = 161 970) were considerably older, had more comorbidities and were more likely to use corticosteroids than those in the COPD- cohort (n = 9 643 522). The incidence rate of HZ was 5.7-fold higher in the COPD+ versus COPD- cohorts (13.0 vs. 2.3 per 1000 person-years [PY]; aIRR, 2.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.69 to 2.85; P < 0.001). The unadjusted incidence rate of PHN was 1.7-fold higher in the COPD+/HZ+ versus COPD-/HZ+ cohort (64.8 vs. 37.1 per 1000 PY), but not after adjustment (aIRR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.45). HZ and PHN incidence rates increased with age. After adjustment, COPD+ adults had a 2.8-fold increased risk of developing HZ. These results may help to increase awareness about potential risk factors for HZ and highlight the need for vaccination among those at increased risk.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".