Lupus & antiphospholipid syndrome
Clinical management of lupus in the United States: A claims-based analysis
Authors' conclusion
Despite the unclear basis of diagnosis in some patients, evaluation and management of patients coded as having a diagnosis of lupus in the general care community does not closely follow the recommended guidelines set forth by professional societies.
Study context
- Population
- Patients coded with lupus in the broad clinical community in the United Statesyear before and after lupus coding
- Participants
- 28,372 / 82,744 / 13,920
- Exposure
- Lupus nephritis (LN) vs SLE vs CLE cohorts; lupus vs reference patient population
- LNn = 28,372
- SLEn = 82,744
- CLEn = 13,920
Methodological detailsEVERSANA claims databases, case definition: lupus-related ICD code twice within six months
- EVERSANA claims databases
- Case definition: lupus-related ICD code twice within six months
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
- Basis of diagnosis not always apparent: clinical features of lupus not often obtained, autoantibody testing not usual, biopsies uncommon, subspecialty involvement not routine
- Significant increase in laboratory testing, non-lupus diagnoses, ED visits and cost during the year before receiving a lupus code
- The three cohorts differed in frequency of laboratory testing, subspecialty care, skin and renal biopsies, and medication management
- Increased cost of care vs a reference patient population, both in the year before and after lupus coding
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Original publication
Clinical management of lupus in the United States: A claims-based analysis. Semin Arthritis Rheum. Published 3 June 2024. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →