K Geale1,2, M Henriksson3, M Schmitt-Egenolf1. 1. Department of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Dermatology, Umeå University, Umeå, SE-901 87, Sweden. 2. PAREXEL International, Stockholm, Sweden. 3. Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Inequality in healthcare has been identified in many contexts. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study investigating age inequality in the form of prescription patterns of biologics in psoriasis care. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether patients with psoriasis have equal opportunities to receive biological medications as they age. If patients did not receive equal treatment, a subsequent objective was to determine the magnitude of the disparity. METHODS: A cohort of biologic-naive patients with psoriasis was analysed using Cox proportional hazards models to measure the impact of each additional year of life on the likelihood of initiating biological treatment, after controlling for sex, body mass index, comorbidities, disease activity and educational level. A supporting analysis used a nonparametric graphical method to study the proportion of patients initiating biological treatment as age increased, after controlling for the same covariates. RESULTS: The Cox proportional hazards model resulted in hazard ratios of a 1-year increase in age of 0·96-0·97 depending on calendar-year stratification, which implies that an increase in age of 30 years corresponds to a reduced likelihood of initiating biological treatment by 61·3-67·6%. The estimated proportion of patients initiating biological medication always decreased as age increased, at a statistically significant level. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with psoriasis have fewer opportunities to access biological medications as they age. This result was shown to be applicable at all stages in a patient's life course and was not only restricted to the elderly, although it implies greater disparities as the age difference between patients increases. These results show that inequality in access to biological treatments due to age is prevalent in clinical practice today. Further research is needed to investigate the extent to which this result is influenced by patient preferences.
BACKGROUND: Inequality in healthcare has been identified in many contexts. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study investigating age inequality in the form of prescription patterns of biologics in psoriasis care. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether patients with psoriasis have equal opportunities to receive biological medications as they age. If patients did not receive equal treatment, a subsequent objective was to determine the magnitude of the disparity. METHODS: A cohort of biologic-naive patients with psoriasis was analysed using Cox proportional hazards models to measure the impact of each additional year of life on the likelihood of initiating biological treatment, after controlling for sex, body mass index, comorbidities, disease activity and educational level. A supporting analysis used a nonparametric graphical method to study the proportion of patients initiating biological treatment as age increased, after controlling for the same covariates. RESULTS: The Cox proportional hazards model resulted in hazard ratios of a 1-year increase in age of 0·96-0·97 depending on calendar-year stratification, which implies that an increase in age of 30 years corresponds to a reduced likelihood of initiating biological treatment by 61·3-67·6%. The estimated proportion of patients initiating biological medication always decreased as age increased, at a statistically significant level. CONCLUSIONS:Patients with psoriasis have fewer opportunities to access biological medications as they age. This result was shown to be applicable at all stages in a patient's life course and was not only restricted to the elderly, although it implies greater disparities as the age difference between patients increases. These results show that inequality in access to biological treatments due to age is prevalent in clinical practice today. Further research is needed to investigate the extent to which this result is influenced by patient preferences.
Authors: M Elaine Husni; Eunice Chang; Michael S Broder; Caleb Paydar; Katalin Bognar; Pooja Desai; Yuri Klyachkin; Ibrahim Khilfeh Journal: Open Access Rheumatol Date: 2022-06-15
Authors: Marieke E C van Winden; Elke L M ter Haar; Hans M M Groenewoud; Peter C M van de Kerkhof; Elke M G J de Jong; Satish F K Lubeek Journal: Acta Derm Venereol Date: 2020-07-28 Impact factor: 3.875
Authors: Sofia Löfvendahl; Anna Jöud; Ingemar F Petersson; Elke Theander; Åke Svensson; Katarina Steen Carlsson Journal: Eur J Health Econ Date: 2017-05-19
Authors: Raymond Milan; Jacques LeLorier; Marie-Josée Brouillette; Anne Holbrook; Ivan V Litvinov; Elham Rahme Journal: Front Pharmacol Date: 2022-02-15 Impact factor: 5.810
Authors: E L M Ter Haar; S E Thomas; J M P A van den Reek; M E Otero; M D Njoo; P M Ossenkoppele; E N Kop; S R P Dodemont; J E M Körver; A L A Kuijpers; R J Lindhout; R A Tupker; J M Mommers; M A M Berends; M I A Koetsier; M S de Bruin-Weller; M B Visch; W P Arnold; P P M van Lümig; M M Kleinpenning; S F K Lubeek; E M G J de Jong Journal: Drugs Aging Date: 2022-07-21 Impact factor: 4.271