ArticlePatient preference and adherence2019
Therapeutic strategies utilization and resource consumption in patients treated for psoriatic arthritis: findings from a real-world analysis in an Italian setting.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and Validation of a META-Algorithm to Identify the Indications of Use of Biological Drugs Approved for the Treatment of Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases from Claims Databases: Insights from the VALORE Project.Clinical epidemiology · 2024Article
- Drug utilization and medication adherence for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis: an Italian study.Global & regional health technology assessmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to analyze the therapeutic strategies and estimate the health care resource consumption in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA). PATIENTS AND
methodsAn observational retrospective cohort analysis of administrative databases of six Italian Local Health Units was performed. Patients ≥18 years with a hospitalization discharge diagnosis of PsA (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision code: 696.0) or exemption code (045.696.0) for PsA from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2015 (inclusion period), with at least one prescription of any therapy used for PsA were included. The index date (ID) was the first date matching with at least one of the inclusion criteria during the inclusion period. All patients were followed up after the ID until the end of data availability. Baseline C-reactive protein (CRP) levels (±6 months in relation to the ID) were also analyzed.
resultsA total of 2,408 (prevalence 0.83 per 1,000) patients with PsA (male 52%; median age 54 years) were included in the study; patients were already treated for PsA in 42.4% of cases. At 1 year of follow-up, 73% of the patients received one systemic drug, while 22% of patients received two systemic drugs; in addition, our results show an increase in the number of add-on or switches in a longer follow-up period. The utilization of biologic agents was higher among patients with previous PsA treatment, showing a progression of the pathology. Overall, a medium/high level of CRP at baseline was observed among more than half of the overall sample, with slight changes across subgroups in analysis. The average health care costs were €1,966.4 and €13,914 per year for patients treated with conventional systemic therapy and biological agents, respectively.
conclusionA better knowledge of prescription therapeutic scheme and economic burden of PsA could stimulate the rational development of health programs aimed at potentiating services for its management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.