Prevalence and healthcare utilization of herpes zoster and postherpetic neuralgia in South Korea: disparity among patients with different immune statuses

OBJECTIVES Despite the clinical and epidemiological importance of herpes zoster (HZ) and postherpetic neuralgia (PHN), their disease and economic burden related to immune status has not been studied in South Korea. Our aim was to calculate the prevalence and rate of healthcare utilization related to HZ and PHN among Korean patients stratified by immune status. METHODS This retrospective study used the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service National Patients Sample (HIRA K-NPS) database, which includes all medical claims from January to December 2009 on a representative sample of the Korean population. HZ and PHN patients aged ≥ 50 years were categorized into three groups by immune status: severely immunocompromised group, moderately compromised group, and non-compromised group. The prevalence, disease-related healthcare utilization, and medical costs were compared across the three groups. RESULTS We estimated that there were 312,136 HZ patients and 48,461 PHN patients ≥ 50 years in South Korea. The prevalence of HZ and PHN was 18.54 and 2.88 per 1,000 persons, respectively, and increased with deteriorating immune status. The number of outpatient visits and hospitalization rate among HZ patients were highest in the severely immunocompromised group (4.38% and 7.52%, respectively) and lowest in the non-compromised group (3.82% and 4.08%, respectively). The average medical cost per patient in the severe group was the highest (240 US dollars) and that of the non-compromised group was the lowest (161 US dollars). No parameters were significantly different among patients with PHN by immunity. CONCLUSIONS HZ patients with severe immunodeficiency had a higher prevalence of HZ, more outpatient visits and hospitalizations, longer hospitalizations, and higher medical costs than their counterparts did. Efforts should be made to reduce the HZ-related burden of severely immunocompromised patients

Has the Copayment Ceiling Improved Financial Protection in the Korean National Health Insurance System? Evidence From the 2009 Policy Change

Objectives To relieve the financial burden faced by households, the Korean National Health Insurance (NHI) system introduced a “copayment ceiling,” which evolved into a differential ceiling in 2009, with the copayment ceiling depending on patients’ income. This study aimed to examine the effect of the differential copayment ceiling on financial protection and healthcare utilization, particularly focusing on whether its effects varied across different income groups. Methods This study obtained data from the Korea Health Panel. The number of households included in the analysis was 6555 in 2008, 5859 in 2009, 5539 in 2010, and 5372 in 2011. To assess the effects of the differential copayment ceiling on utilization, out-of-pocket (OOP) payments, and catastrophic payments, various random-effects models were applied. Utilization was measured as treatment days, while catastrophic payments were defined as OOP payments exceeding 10% of household income. Among the right-hand side variables were the interaction terms of the new policy with income levels, as well as a set of household characteristics. Results The differential copayment ceiling contributed to increased utilization regardless of income levels both in all patients and in cancer patients. However, the new policy did not seem to reduce significantly the incidence of catastrophic payments among cancer patients, and even increased the incidence among all patients. Conclusions The limited effect of the differential ceiling can be attributed to a high proportion of direct payments for services not covered by the NHI, as well as the relatively small number of households benefiting from the differential ceilings; these considerations warrant a better policy design

Clinical efficacy of inhaled corticosteroids in patients with coronavirus disease 2019: A living review and meta-analysis.

Inhaled corticosteroids are known to be relatively safe for long-term use in inflammatory respiratory diseases and it has been repurposed as one of the potential therapies for outpatients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, inhaled corticosteroids have not been accepted for COVID-19 as a standard therapy because of its lack of proven benefits. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of inhaled corticosteroids in patients with COVID-19. Randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy of inhaled corticosteroid treatment in patients with COVID-19 were identified through literature electronic database searches up to March 10, 2023. Meta-analyses were conducted for predefined outcomes, and the certainty of evidence was graded using the grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation approach. Overall, seven trials (eight articles) were included in this systematic review. Compared with usual care, inhaled corticosteroids was associated with significantly improved clinical recovery at 7 and 14 days in patients with COVID-19. In subgroup analysis, only budesonide showed significant efficacy in clinical recovery, whereas no significant benefit was observed for ciclesonide. Moreover, inhaled corticosteroids use was not significantly associated with all-cause hospitalization, all-cause mortality, admission to intensive care unit, or the use of mechanical ventilation. Our systematic review used evidence with very low to moderate certainty. Although based on limited evidence, our results suggest that inhaled corticosteroids treatment, especially budesonide, improves the clinical recovery of patients with COVID-19. More trials and meta-analyses are needed to assess the efficacy of inhaled corticosteroids for COVID-19 treatment