Refine
Year of publication
- 2022 (2)
Document Type
- Article (2)
Language
- English (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2)
Keywords
- Analgesics (1)
- Analgetikum (1)
- Atopic (1)
- Atopie (1)
- Chronic low back pain (1)
- Chronic pain (1)
- Chronischer Schmerz (1)
- Claims data (1)
- Claims data analysis (1)
- Corticosteroide (1)
Institute
Aim
Musculoskeletal disorders are a major public health problem in most developed countries. As a main cause of chronic pain, they have resulted in an increasing prescription of opioids worldwide. With regard to the situation in Germany, this study aimed at estimating the prevalence of musculoskeletal diseases such as chronic low back pain (CLBP) and hip/knee osteoarthritis (OA) and at depicting the applied treatment patterns.
Subject and methods
German claims data from the InGef Research Database were analyzed over a 6-year period (2011–2016). The dataset contains over 4 million people, enrolled in German statutory health insurances. Inpatient and outpatient diagnoses were considered for case identification of hip/knee OA and CLBP. The World Health Organization (WHO) analgesic ladder was applied to categorize patients according to their pain management interventions. Information on demographics, comorbidities, and adjuvant medication was collected.
Results
In 2016, n = 2,693,481 individuals (50.5% female, 49.5% male) were assigned to the study population; 62.5% of them were aged 18–60 years. In 2016, n = 146,443 patients (5.4%) with CLBP and n = 307,256 patients (11.4%) with hip/knee OA were identified. Of those with pre-specified pain management interventions (CLBP: 66.3%; hip/knee OA: 65.1%), most patients received WHO I class drugs (CLBP: 73.6%; hip/knee OA: 68.7%) as the highest level.
Conclusion
This study provides indications that CLBP and hip/knee OA are common chronic pain conditions in Germany, which are often subjected to pharmacological pain management. Compared to non-opioid analgesic prescriptions of the WHO I class, the dispensation of WHO class II and III opioids was markedly lower, though present to a considerable extent.
Introduction
Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common inflammatory skin disease. Many patients are initiating a systemic therapy, if the disease is not adequately controlled with topical treatment only. Currently, there is little real-world evidence on the AD-related medical care situation in Germany. This study analyzed patient characteristics, treatment patterns, healthcare resource utilization and costs associated with systemically treated AD for the German healthcare system.
Methods
In this descriptive, retrospective cohort study, aggregated anonymized German health claims data from the InGef research database were used. Within a representative sample of four million insured individuals, patients with AD and systemic drug therapy initiation (SDTI) in the index year 2017 were identified and included into the study cohort. Systemic drug therapy included dupilumab, systemic corticosteroids (SCS) and systemic immunosuppressants (SIS). Patients were observed for one year starting from the date of SDTI in 2017.
Results
9975 patients were included (57.8% female, mean age 39.6 years [SD 25.5]). In the one-year observation period, the most common systemic drug therapy was SCS (> 99.0%). Administrations of dupilumab (0.3%) or dispensations of SIS were rare (cyclosporine: 0.5%, azathioprine: 0.6%, methotrexate: 0.1%). Median treatment duration of SCS, cyclosporine and azathioprine was 27 days, 102 days, and 109 days, respectively. 2.8% of the patients received phototherapy; 41.6% used topical corticosteroids and/or topical calcineurin inhibitor. Average annual costs for medications amounted to € 1237 per patient. Outpatient services were used by 99.6% with associated mean annual costs of € 943; 25.4% had at least one hospitalization (mean annual costs: € 5836). 5.3% of adult patients received sickness benefits with associated mean annual costs of € 5026.
Conclusions
Despite unfavorable risk–benefit profile, this study demonstrated a common treatment with SCS, whereas other systemic drug therapy options were rarely used. Furthermore, the results suggest a substantial economic burden for patients with AD and SDTI.