4.3 Article

The economic burden and quality of life of patients with psoriasis treated with biologics in China

期刊

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09546634.2023.2247106

关键词

Psoriasis; cost of illness; biological treatments; quality of life

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the economic cost, quality of life, and patient satisfaction of individuals with psoriasis treated with biologics and non-biologics in China. The results show that patients in the biologic group experience a higher economic burden and better quality of life.
Background: Although biologics improve the quality of life of psoriasis patients, they also impose a substantial economic burden. There is a lack of research addressing the economic and humanistic impact of biologics in China. Objective: This cross-sectional investigation aims to assess the economic cost, quality of life, and patient satisfaction among individuals with psoriasis treated with biologics and non-biologics. Methods: From July 2021 to December 2022, eligible patients with psoriasis were recruited through both on-site and online questionnaire completion. The questionnaires collected sociodemographic data, clinical characteristics of psoriasis, economic costs associated with treatment, and the Dermatological Life Quality Index (DLQI). Results: 481 patients with a mean age of 40.8 +/- 13.4 years old were included and classified into a non-biologic (n = 195) and biologic (n = 286) treatment group. The direct medical cost for non-biologics patients was 7,249 CNY, accounting for 70.0% of the total cost, while biologics patients incurred 15,176 CNY, making up 94.3% of the total cost. The non-biologic group had higher costs related to hospitalization, self-purchase of drugs, and indirect costs than the biologic treatment group. Additionally, DLQI scores were higher in the non-biologic group. Conclusion: Patients in the biologic group experienced a higher economic burden and better quality of life than those in the non-biologic group.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据