Real-world systemic treatment of patients with psoriasis: A retrospective study based on German claims data.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Psoriasis is a common skin disorder with a high physical and psychological burden for patients. Up to 30% of the patients are candidates for a systemic treatment. The aim of this study was to describe the characteristics and the real-world systemic treatment of psoriasis patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study was based on German medical claims data. A cross-sectional analysis observed all psoriasis patients in 2020. A longitudinal analysis was conducted, addressing psoriasis patients who newly started a systemic treatment. RESULTS: In total, 116,507 prevalent psoriasis patients and 13,449 newly treated patients were followed. Of all prevalent patients, 15.2% received systemic treatment in 2020 (8.7% systemic corticosteroids). Of the newly treated patients, 95.2% started with conventional treatment (79.2% systemic corticosteroids), 4.0% with biologics and 0.9% with apremilast. The rate of treatment discontinuation/switch after one year was highest for corticosteroids (91.3%) and lowest for biologics (23.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Around 15% of psoriasis patients in Germany received a systemic treatment, with > 50% of these prescribed systemic corticosteroids. Therefore, we conclude that systemic treatment is not in line with guideline recommendations in a substantial number of observed patients. The lowest discontinuation/switch rates for biologics support their wider use.

Economic and clinical benefits of radiofrequency ablation versus hysterectomy in patients suffering from menorrhagia: a retrospective analysis with German health claims data.

OBJECTIVE: To assess clinical and economic benefits of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) compared to hysterectomy when treating patients suffering from menorrhagia. METHODS: Based on German health claims data, a retrospective, longitudinal, observational analysis was performed. Patients having continuously statutory health insurance coverage during the study and being coded for menorrhagia and a relevant treatment option were included in the analysis. The control group was created using propensity score matching. RESULTS: We discovered that using RFA generates cost savings of €1844 during the quarter of performance. As direct costs during a 2-year follow-up show similar levels in both groups, these initial savings can be preserved. This is partly because even if more patients in the RFA group were re-coded for menorrhagia after initial therapy, just a small proportion of these patients required another surgical intervention. CONCLUSION: RFA should more often be considered a relevant treatment option both from an economic and a medical point of view.