Trajectories of systemic agent use and associated depression- and anxiety-related health care costs among patients with psoriasis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Systemic treatment patterns and related mental health disorders and economic burden among patients with psoriasis are largely unknown. Objective: To assess systemic treatment patterns and associated depression and anxiety-related health care costs among patients with psoriasis initiating a conventional systemic treatment (CST). Methods: Using a retrospective cohort design with sequence and cluster analyses, we assessed systemic treatment trajectories (CST and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors or ustekinumab, [TNFi/UST]) over a 2-year period following CST initiation. We compared health care costs between trajectories using 2-part models. Results: We included 781 patients and identified 8 trajectories: persistent methotrexate users, persistent acitretin users, early CST discontinuation, late methotrexate discontinuation, switch to TNFi/UST, adding TNFi/UST, discontinuation then restart on methotrexate, and discontinuation then restart on acitretin or multiple CST switches. Overall, 165 (21%) patients incurred depression- and anxiety-related health care costs (median annual cost, CAN$56; quartiles, $14-$127). Compared with persistent methotrexate users, adding a TNFi/UST (cost ratio, 3.63; 95% CI, 1.47-5.97) and discontinuation then restart on acitretin or multiple switches between systemic agents (cost ratio, 13.3; 95% CI 5.76-22.47) had higher costs. Limitations: Trajectory misclassification may have occured. These date represent an association, and causality cannot be inferred, particularly given the risk of confounding. Conclusion: Depression- and anxiety-related health care costs were high among patients adding TNFi/UST and those discontinuing then restarting on acitretin or experiencing multiple switches between systemic agents.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".