Epidemiology and Health Care of Generalized Pustular Psoriasis in Germany – Methodology and Outcomes of Claims Data Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Kristina Hagenström, Katharina Müller, Nesrine Ben-Anaya, Matthias Augustin Institute for Health Services Research in Dermatology and Nursing (IVDP), University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Hamburg, GermanyCorrespondence: Kristina Hagenström, Institute for Health Services Research in Dermatology and Nursing (IVDP), University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Martinistraße 52, Hamburg, 20246, Germany, Tel +49 40 741059513, Fax +49 40 74105534, Email k.hagenstroem@uke.dePurpose: Epidemiological and health care data on generalized pustular psoriasis (GPP) show large differences in literature. This study assessed GPP epidemiology, comorbidities and health care in Germany.Patients and Methods: Nationwide population-related German claims data were analyzed using different case definitions for internal validation.Results: In 2019, the prevalence of GPP in Germany in adults ranged from 8 to 39 and incidence from 1 to 15 persons per 100,000. Prevalence was higher in women and increased with age. Thirty-three percent had at least one other psoriatic ICD-10 code. People with GPP had significantly more skin diseases as well as cardiovascular and mental diseases than persons without psoriasis/GPP. The average annual drug costs per capita were € 2050 and were highest in those receiving biologicals (€ 15,524). Marked differences in treatment by specialist were observed.Conclusion: Acknowledging that the observed frequency or costs associated with GPP may be underestimated due to a few inherent limitations is important. Differences in GPP coding behavior and diagnostic accuracy may contribute to variations in epidemiology. The high disease burden is reflected by high annual costs and by significant comorbidity.Plain Language Summary: Generalized pustular psoriasis (GPP) is a severe form of psoriasis that causes painful, pus-filled blisters on the skin. Our study, conducted in Germany, aimed to explore how common GPP is, what other health problems people with GPP experience, and how they are treated. We analyzed health insurance data from across the country, using various methods to ensure our findings were accurate.We found that GPP is a rare condition compared to other types of psoriasis, affecting between 8 and 39 adults per 100,000 people in Germany in 2019. The number of people with GPP varied, with new cases ranging from 1 to 15 per 100,000 people. GPP was more common in women and increased with age. In addition, about a third of people with GPP also had other types of psoriasis. People with GPP had more skin diseases, heart problems, and mental health problems than people without psoriasis. The average annual cost of treating GPP was € 2050 per person, but this amount could be as high as € 15,524 for those receiving advanced treatments known as biologics. We also saw significant differences in how GPP is treated depending on which specialist was involved.In conclusion, our study highlights that GPP is a costly condition with a high burden of additional health problems. Variations in how GPP is diagnosed and coded might explain differences in reported prevalence and costs. Improving diagnostic accuracy and treatment approaches could lead to better care and reduced expenses for patients.Keywords: prevalence, incidence, frequency of illness, statutory health insurance data, validation
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 | 0.011 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".