Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 6 de 6
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
Ano de publicação
Tipo de documento
Intervalo de ano de publicação
4.
Arch Dermatol Res ; 315(4): 1029-1031, 2023 May.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36307556

RESUMO

Biologic therapy often produces excellent outcomes for psoriasis; however, their high cost may create a barrier to appropriate usage, especially in the working poor population. This study defines working poor as income below 150% of the federal poverty level and holding or seeking work at least half a year. Our study aims to identify gaps in access to biologic therapy for psoriasis based on working poor status. This retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted utilizing data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) from 2007 to 2018. Patients were stratified into working poor (57,091), non-working poor (43,421), and non-poor (693,841) groups for analysis. In univariate analysis, WP (4.0%, ph p = 0.003) and NWP (2.8%, ph p = 0.006) were less likely to use biologics than NP (15.8%) (X2 p < 0.001). A binary logistic regression showed that WP vs. NP status (OR 0.27, p = 0.05), female vs. male sex (OR 0.55, p = 0.05), Black vs. White race (OR 0.14, p = 0.02), and Medicare vs. private insurance (OR 0.09, p = 0.03) had lower odds of using biologics. After correcting for age, sex, race, and insurance, WP confers an independent risk factor to lower biologic prescriptions. The high cost of biologics in the setting of financial barriers for some patients should be considered by physicians prescribing biologic therapy for psoriasis.


Assuntos
Produtos Biológicos , Psoríase , Humanos , Masculino , Feminino , Idoso , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia , Estudos Retrospectivos , Estudos Transversais , Produtos Biológicos/uso terapêutico , Medicare , Psoríase/tratamento farmacológico , Psoríase/epidemiologia
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA