MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3108163362 · doi:10.1016/j.jdin.2020.10.009

Prevalence of prurigo nodularis in the United States of America: A retrospective database analysis

2020· article· en· W3108163362 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

fundUn bailleur canadien est enregistré sur le travail.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueJAAD International · 2020
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueDermatology and Skin Diseases
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesStallergenes Greer FranceJanssen BiotechBristol-Myers Squibb CanadaLEO PharmaGaldermaDermiraRegeneron PharmaceuticalsBeiersdorfSanofiMeso Scale DiagnosticsGenzymeAbbVieNovartisAmgenPfizerSandozBayerCelgeneBiogenALK-AbellóAlmirallGlaxoSmithKline
Mots-clésPrurigo nodularisMedicineScopusEpidemiologyPopulationDermatologyFamily medicineMEDLINEInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

To the Editor: Prurigo nodularis (PN) is a chronic disease characterized by multiple intensely pruriginous nodules and papules and presents significant challenges for treatment and quality of life.1Ständer H.F. Elmariah S. Zeidler C. Spellman M. Ständer S. Diagnostic and treatment algorithm for chronic nodular prurigo.J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020; 82: 460-468Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (28) Google Scholar Prevalence data are currently scarce,1Ständer H.F. Elmariah S. Zeidler C. Spellman M. Ständer S. Diagnostic and treatment algorithm for chronic nodular prurigo.J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020; 82: 460-468Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (28) Google Scholar although recent efforts evaluating real-world United States (US) PN prevalence have been made.2Huang A.H. Canner J.K. Khanna R. Kang S. Kwatra S.G. Real-world prevalence of prurigo nodularis and burden of associated diseases.J Invest Dermatol. 2020; 140: 480-483Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (41) Google Scholar We evaluated International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9 data from 2010 and 2015 from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, and ICD-10 data (L28.1) from Medicare (2017) and the US claims databases Symphony Health (2017) and LexisNexis PxDx (2017/2018) to calculate the treatment prevalence based on estimated population size and diagnostic codes for medical claims of unique patients. We used the ICD-9 code of 698.3 for PN; given that this code is used more broadly, we conservatively estimated that 33% of encounters coded as 698.3 actually represented PN. The estimated PN prevalence ranged from 36.7 to 148.3 per 100,000 population (see Table I).3Berchick E.R. Barnett J.C. Upton R.D. Health insurance coverage in the United States.https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2019/demo/p60-267.htmlDate: 2018Google Scholar A higher estimate reflects a predominantly elderly Medicare population (see Table II for age-stratified data). Of note, the PN prevalence, based on National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey ICD-9 data, increased by 27% from 2010 to 2015. Estimates based on the more precise, recent ICD-10 coding suggest a prevalence of 36.7-43.9 per 100,000 population.Table IEstimated prevalence of PN in USANAMCSICD-9Medicare 2017 ICD-10US claims database ICD-10∗Uninsured rates in 2017 and 2018 were 7.9% and 8.5%, respectively.20102015LexisNexisPxDx2017/2018Symphony Health2017Estimated total population, n314 million321 million56.3 million326 millionEstimated PN population, n†Realistic case scenario.129,029167,70983,500119,553143,038Prevalence, %0.0410.0520.1480.0370.044Prevalence per 100,000 population, n41.152.2148.336.743.9ICD-9, International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision; ICD-10, International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision; NAMCS, National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey; PN, prurigo nodularis; USA, United States of America.∗ Uninsured rates in 2017 and 2018 were 7.9% and 8.5%, respectively.† Realistic case scenario. Open table in a new tab Table IIEstimated prevalence of PN in USA stratified by age∗Age-stratified data were only available for the NAMCS ICD-9 codes.Age group (years)<1515-2425-4445-64>652010 NAMCS ICD-9†Realistic case scenario.n7949371724,92332,84459,596%6.22.919.325.546.22015 NAMCS ICD-9†Realistic case scenario.n291916,91438,07630,16479,635%1.710.122.718.047.5ICD-9, International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision; NAMCS, National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey; PN, prurigo nodularis; USA, United States of America.∗ Age-stratified data were only available for the NAMCS ICD-9 codes.† Realistic case scenario. Open table in a new tab ICD-9, International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision; ICD-10, International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision; NAMCS, National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey; PN, prurigo nodularis; USA, United States of America. ICD-9, International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision; NAMCS, National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey; PN, prurigo nodularis; USA, United States of America. The potential limitations are as follows: ICD-9 has no PN-specific code, and ICD-10 has 2 PN codes with unknown coding accuracy.4ICD9Data.com website.http://www.icd9data.com/2015/Volume1/680-709/690-698/698/default.htmGoogle Scholar,5ICD10Data.com website.http://www.icd10data.com/ICD10CM/Codes/L00-L99/L20-L30/L28-Google Scholar The comprehensive, projected ICD-10 data from LexisNexis PxDx, which includes 165 million unique inpatient and outpatient visits, suggest that approximately 120,000 people were diagnosed with and/or treated for PN over a 12-month period (October 2017-September 2018). Despite meeting the Orphan Drug Act 1983 definition of an orphan disease (<200,000 people affected), PN, nevertheless, has a substantial case burden in the United States of America. Assuming shifts in age distribution and a better disease definition, the data may indicate an improved diagnosis of PN over the past decade. Additional clinical research, improved disease awareness, and clinical coding optimization will further improve the accuracy of PN diagnoses. Coding optimization is especially critical because data-entry errors are a source of misclassification in database analyses. Knowledge of such errors and their adjustment is helpful in improving the understanding of the disease's epidemiology. This retrospective database analysis estimates the PN prevalence in the United States of America to range from 36.7 to 43.9 per 100,000 population based on the ICD-10 coding for L28.1 (148.3 per 100,000 for the predominantly elderly Medicare population) and up to 52.2 per 100,000 population using the less accurate ICD-9 coding. In a recent analysis of a claims database providing services to 24 million enrollees, Huang et al2Huang A.H. Canner J.K. Khanna R. Kang S. Kwatra S.G. Real-world prevalence of prurigo nodularis and burden of associated diseases.J Invest Dermatol. 2020; 140: 480-483Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (41) Google Scholar identified 7095 PN cases in individuals aged 18-64 years and estimated the US prevalence to be 87,634 or 72 per 100,000 population in this demographic. Their analysis probably underestimated the true size of the 18-64–year demographic; moreover, it relied on commercial claims from a single small database, which limited generalizability and excluded the >65-year demographic. Together, these data represent recent efforts at estimating the PN prevalence in the general US population. Future challenges will be to expand the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey data to include ICD-10 coding and validate the coding accuracy of this and other databases. Editorial assistance was provided under the direction of the authors by Tom Rouwette of Excerpta Medica, with support from Trevi Therapeutics. The authors thank Brian Zorn from SmartPharma for the database analysis.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,021
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,502

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,017
Tête enseignante GPT0,298
Écart entre enseignants0,281 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle