Evolution of Drug Supply for Psoriasis from 2010 to 2022 – Real-World Claims Data Analysis in Germany
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Kristina Hagenström, Theresa Klinger, Brigitte Stephan, 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: The management of psoriasis has undergone substantial evolution; however, the long-term prescription trends remain ambiguous. This study utilised a comprehensive data set of psoriasis drug prescriptions in Germany from 2010 to 2022, with the objective of evaluating the evolution of treatment modalities over time.Methods: A retrospective longitudinal claims data analysis on systemic biologicals, non-biologicals, and topical treatments for psoriasis was conducted covering prescription rates, medical costs from the payer’s perspective, and defined daily doses (DDDs).Results: Psoriasis prevalence increased slightly from 2.6% in 2010 to 2.7% in 2022. During this period, the proportion of persons receiving prescriptions rose from 55.0% in 2010 to 57.4% in 2022. By 2022, 46.2% of these persons received topical treatments, 13.0% systemic glucocorticosteroids (SCS), 6.7% non-biologicals, and 6.2% biologicals. Compared to 2010, the use of biologicals increased by 449.8%, SCS by 12.6%, non-biologicals by 13.9%, while topical treatments decreased by 3.2%. The annual cost per person treated with a biologic decreased from € 16,315 to € 13,412, while non-biologic and topical therapy costs increased slightly. Adalimumab was the most frequently prescribed systemic drug, followed by ustekinumab and secukinumab. The highest mean costs per-person were for ustekinumab (€ 19,717) and risankizumab (€ 16,986).Conclusion: In more than a decade, the use of innovative systemic drugs, especially biologicals, in Germany has increased substantially. Despite their high cost, biologic expenses per person have slightly decreased over time.Keywords: statutory health insurance, claims data, treatment, prescription
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".