Medication Cost Concerns and Disparities in Patient-Reported Outcomes Among a Multiethnic Cohort of Patients With Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective Concerns about the affordability of medications are common in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), but the relationship between medication cost concerns and health outcomes is poorly understood. We assessed the association of self-reported medication cost concerns and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in a multiethnic SLE cohort. Methods The California Lupus Epidemiology Study is a cohort of individuals with physician-confirmed SLE. Medication cost concerns were defined as having difficulties affording SLE medications, skipping doses, delaying refills, requesting lower-cost alternatives, purchasing medications outside the United States, or applying for patient assistance programs. Linear regression and mixed effects models assessed the cross-sectional and longitudinal association of medication cost concerns and PROs, respectively, adjusting for age, sex, race and ethnicity, income, principal insurance, immunomodulatory medications, and organ damage. Results Of 334 participants, medication cost concerns were reported by 91 (27%). Medication cost concerns were associated with worse Systemic Lupus Activity Questionnaire (SLAQ; beta coefficient [β] 5.9, 95% CI 4.3-7.6;P< 0.001), 8-item Patient Health Questionnaire depression scale (PHQ-8; β 2.7, 95% CI 1.4-4.0;P< 0.001), and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS; β for physical function −4.6, 95% CI −6.7 to −2.4;P< 0.001) scores after adjusting for covariates. Medication cost concerns were not associated with significant changes in PROs over 2-year follow-up. Conclusion More than a quarter of participants reported at least 1 medication cost concern, which was associated with worse PROs. Our results reveal a potentially modifiable risk factor for poor outcomes rooted in the unaffordability of SLE care.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".