Factors for achieving target serum uric acid levels after initiating urate-lowering therapy in patients with gout: results from the ULTRA registry.

Achieving target serum uric acid (SUA) levels is important in gout management. Guidelines recommend lowering SUA levels to < 6 mg/dL; however, many patients fail to reach this target, even with uric acid-lowering therapy (ULT). This study investigated clinical characteristics of target SUA achievers among Korean patients with gout. This study used data from the ULTRA registry, a nationwide inception cohort established in September 2021 that enrolls patients with gout who initiate ULT. Demographic, clinical, and laboratory data were collected at baseline; the 6-month follow-up. Patients were divided into two groups: target achievers (SUA level < 6 mg/dL at 6 months) and non-achievers. The mean participant (N = 117) age was 56.1 years, and 88.0% were male. At 6 months, 83 patients (70.9%) reached target SUA levels. Target achievers had better drug adherence (≥ 80%) to ULT (97.6% vs. 76.5%; p < 0.01) than non-achievers. Target non-achievers had a higher percentage of a family history of gout (32.4% vs. 10.8%; p < 0.01) and less antihypertensive agent use (38.2% vs. 59.0%; p = 0.03) than target achievers. Multivariate regression analysis revealed that good adherence to ULT, the absence of a family history of gout, and antihypertensive agent use were key factors associated with achieving target SUA levels at 6 months.

Assessing the performance of a method for case-mix adjustment in the Korean Diagnosis-Related Groups (KDRG) system and its policy implications.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the performance of the patient clinical complexity level (PCCL) mechanism, which is the patient-level complexity adjustment factor within the Korean Diagnosis-Related Groups (KDRG) patient classification system, in explaining the variation in resource consumption within age adjacent diagnosis-related groups (AADRGs). METHODS: We used the inpatient claims data from a public hospital in Korea from 1 January 2017 to 30 June 2019, with 18 846 claims and 138 AADRGs. The differences in the total average payment between the four PCCL levels for each AADRG was tested using ANOVA and Duncan's post hoc test. The three patterns of differences with R-squared were as follows: the PCCL reflected the complexity well (valid); the average payment for PCCL 2, 3, and 4 was greater than PCCL 0 (partially valid); the PCCL did not reflect the complexity (not valid). RESULTS: There were 9 (6.52%), 26 (18.84%), and 103 (74.64%) ADRGs included in the valid, partially valid, and not valid categories, respectively. The average R-squared values were 32.18, 40.81, and 35.41%, respectively, with an average R-squared for all patterns of 36.21%. CONCLUSIONS: Adjustment using the PCCL in the KDRG classification system exhibited low performance in explaining the variation in resource consumption within AADRGs. As the KDRG classification system is used for reimbursement under the new DRG-based prospective payment system (PPS) pilot project, with plans for expansion, there should be an overall review of the validity of the complexity and rationality of using the KDRG classification system.

Patient perspectives on biological treatments for inflammatory arthritis: A multi-center study in Korea.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the patient's perception of the use of biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and provide a basis for physicians to understand the patient's perspective. Patients and methods: Between December 2018 and June 2019, a total of 307 patients (162 males, 145 females; mean age: 48 years; range, 18 to 81 years) were included in this investigator-initiated, multi-center, observational, and cross-sectional study in six rheumatology centers. We asked patients using bDMARDs to treat rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or ankylosing spondylitis (AS) to complete a questionnaire regarding major considerations and satisfaction with bDMARDs, preferred administration route, knowledge about bDMARDs, experiences of adverse events, non-adherence, and expectations of their healthcare provider. The satisfaction of physician and clinical information on the patient's disease and treatment were also collected. Results: Of the patients, 139 had RA and 168 had AS. Median disease duration was six years in RA and five years in AS. A total of 80.1% of the patients and 77.1% of the physicians indicated being satisfied or very satisfied with the therapeutic effect of the current bDMARD. Most patients were open to intravenous or subcutaneous injection, with the most preferred route of administration being subcutaneous (41.3%), followed by intravenous (32.0%), and oral (26.7%). The patients considered therapeutic effect to be more important than cost or convenience while choosing a bDMARD (69.3%), and most were willing to be educated about therapeutic effects (46.1%). Only 35.2% of the patients reported well and/or very well knowledge about the therapeutic effects, side effects, and administration methods of their current bDMARD, and 86.6% cited their physician as the primary source of information about biological treatment. Conclusion: Patients value therapeutic effect more than cost or convenience while selecting a bDMARD, and consider their physicians to be the primary information source. Therefore, it is important for physicians to provide appropriate education and encourage patients to cooperate actively with treatment.