Observational studyThe Korean journal of internal medicine2024
Impact of socioeconomic status on biologics utilization in rheumatoid arthritis: revealing inequalities and healthcare efficiency.
Observational study in The Korean journal of internal medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Global inequities in biologic and targeted DMARD use in rheumatoid arthritis: cross-sectional data from the international COVAD-2 cohort.Rheumatology international · 2026Article
- Impact of Health Insurance Type on Access to Biologics and Systemic Corticosteroid Exposure in Patients With Severe Asthma: A Real-World Study From the Korean Severe Asthma Registry (KoSAR).Allergy, asthma & immunology research · 2026Article
- Compounding risks of chronic health conditions and substance use disorder on healthcare burden in the USA: Analysis of NSDUH data (2021-2023).Addictive behaviors reports · 2025Article
- Observational
- Inequalities in biologics utilization for rheumatoid arthritis according to socioeconomic status.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsThis cross-sectional study aimed to investigate biologics treatment disparities in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients based on socioeconomic status (SES).
methodsData from the KOrean Observational Study Network for Arthritis (KORONA) database were analyzed to assess various factors associated with SES, health behaviors, and biologics use. Logistic regression and structured equation modeling (SEM) were utilized for data analysis.
resultsAmong 5,077 RA patients included, 393 (7.7%) patients were identified as biologics users. Within the entire cohort, 31.8% of the participants were in the low-income and low-education groups, and 39.3% of the participants were in the high-income and high-education groups. Despite the patients with low income or low education experienced higher disease activity at diagnosis, had more comorbidities, exhibited higher medication compliance, underwent more check-ups, and had more hospital admissions than their counterparts, the odds of patients with low-income receiving biologics were 34% lower (adjusted odds ratio = 0.76, 95% confidence interval: 0.60-0.96, p = 0.021) after adjustment for demographics and comorbidities. SEM and pathway analyses confirmed the negative impact of low SES on biologics use.
conclusionThe findings suggest that SES plays a significant role in biologics use among RA patients, indicating potential healthcare inefficiencies for low SES patients. Moreover, adverse healthcare habits negatively affect biologics use in RA patients. The study highlights the importance of considering socioeconomic factors while discussing biologics use and promoting equitable access to biologics for optimal RA 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.