Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 23, 2025

Analyses of Proteinuria, Renal Infiltration of Leukocytes, and Renal Deposition of Proteins in Lupus-prone MRL/lpr Mice
Published on: June 8, 2022
Clinical management of lupus in the United States: A claims-based analysis
Kathryn M Kingsmore1, John M Zent1, Peter E Lipsky1
1AMPEL BioSolutions, LLC, Charlottesville, VA 22902, USA; RILITE Research Institute, Charlottesville, VA 22902, USA.
Objectives:
To understand the evaluation and management of patients coded with lupus in the broad clinical community in the United States.
Methods:
Claims data for diagnoses, procedures, medications, and physician specialties were evaluated for three lupus cohorts [lupus nephritis (LN), systemic lupus erythematosus excluding LN (SLE), and cutaneous lupus erythematosus excluding SLE and LN (CLE)] using the EVERSANA claims databases. Identification of patients was based upon the occurrence of lupus-specific codes, with the requirement that a single patient receive a lupus-related ICD code twice within a six-month period.
Results:
Using ICD codes, we were able to identify 28,372 patients coded with LN, 82,744 patients coded with SLE, and 13,920 patients coded with CLE, and subsequently evaluate the journey of patients in each group in the year before and after being coded as having a diagnosis of lupus. For the three lupus cohorts, the basis of diagnosis was not always apparent, as clinical features of lupus were not often obtained, autoantibody testing was not usual, biopsies were uncommon and subspecialty involvement was not routine. In addition, a significant increase in laboratory testing, non-lupus diagnoses, emergency department visits and cost during the year before receiving a lupus code suggested uncertainty in disease recognition. Nevertheless, these patients received two separate lupus coding events within a six-month period, supporting a sustained or repeated diagnosis of lupus by the evaluating clinicians. When compared, the three lupus cohorts differed with regard to frequency of laboratory testing, subspecialty care, skin and renal biopsies, and medication management. Moreover, there was an increase in the cost of care of patients coded with lupus compared to a reference patient population both during the year before and after being coded with a diagnosis of lupus.
Conclusion:
The data present a comprehensive report of the care of patients coded as having a diagnosis of lupus in the United States, including those outside of specialty centers. 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.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Methods of Documentation VI: Case Management Model
For example, a patient with a chronic...
Autoimmune Disorders
Concept and Mechanism of Autoimmune Diseases
The immune...
Methods Of Healthcare Delivery System
Managed Care System:
The managed care system is designed to control the cost while maintaining the quality of care. The patient's care from admission to discharge is planned by the primary care provider or the case manager, also known as the gatekeeper. In a managed care system, the number of care providers is...
Inflammatory Bowel Disease IV: Pharmacological Management
Pharmacologic...
Nursing Diagnosis
The nursing diagnosis focuses on evidence-based...
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...

