ArticleScientific reports2024
Reduced economic disparity in biologics use for psoriasis after introducing the reducing copayment program.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Global health and economic impact of expanding the WHO essential medicines list for psoriasis: a health economic modelling study.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Article
- A Retrospective Review of Real-World Patterns of Biologic Use in Dermatology Across Metropolitan, Regional and Rural Settings.The Australasian journal of dermatology · 2026Article
- Effect of Biological Therapy for Psoriasis on the Development of Psoriatic Arthritis: A Population-Based Cohort Study.BioDrugs : clinical immunotherapeutics, biopharmaceuticals and gene therapy · 2025Article
- Digital technologies in psoriasis management: from precision diagnosis to therapeutic innovation and holistic care.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Biologics for psoriasis are efficient and safe, but very expensive. We investigated the association of the reducing copayment program (RCP) with changes in biologics use patterns depending on the income levels of patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis. This nationwide cohort study included patients identified as having moderate-to-severe psoriasis between 2014 and 2020. Logistic regression models were used to estimate the odds ratio for the use of biologics according to income levels. Among 57,139 patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, 3464 (6.1%) used biologics for psoriasis from 2014 to 2020. After the introduction of RCP in 2017, the proportion of patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis using biologics rapidly increased from 5.0% in 2016 to 19.2% in 2020; the increase was more remarkable in patients with the lowest or mid-low income compared to those with Medical Aid. Drug survival of biologics was higher in patients with the highest income before the RCP, but became comparable between those with high and low incomes after RCP introduction. The introduction of RCP was associated with an increased use of biologics in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis of all income levels; however, the effect was more pronounced in low-income patients. The RCP may contribute to alleviating the disparity in access to biologics.
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.