Risk mitigating behaviours in people with inflammatory skin and joint disease during the COVID-19 pandemic differ by treatment type:a cross-sectional patient survey

BACKGROUND: Registry data suggest that people with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) receiving targeted systemic therapies have fewer adverse coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes compared with patients receiving no systemic treatments. OBJECTIVES: We used international patient survey data to explore the hypothesis that greater risk-mitigating behaviour in those receiving targeted therapies may account, at least in part, for this observation. METHODS: Online surveys were completed by individuals with psoriasis (globally) or rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) (UK only) between 4 May and 7 September 2020. We used multiple logistic regression to assess the association between treatment type and risk-mitigating behaviour, adjusting for clinical and demographic characteristics. We characterized international variation in a mixed-effects model. RESULTS: Of 3720 participants (2869 psoriasis, 851 RMDs) from 74 countries, 2262 (60·8%) reported the most stringent risk-mitigating behaviour (classified here under the umbrella term 'shielding'). A greater proportion of those receiving targeted therapies (biologics and Janus Kinase inhibitors) reported shielding compared with those receiving no systemic therapy [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1·63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1·35-1·97]. The association between targeted therapy and shielding was preserved when standard systemic therapy was used as the reference group (OR 1·39, 95% CI 1·23-1·56). Shielding was associated with established risk factors for severe COVID-19 [male sex (OR 1·14, 95% CI 1·05-1·24), obesity (OR 1·37, 95% CI 1·23-1·54), comorbidity burden (OR 1·43, 95% CI 1·15-1·78)], a primary indication of RMDs (OR 1·37, 95% CI 1·27-1·48) and a positive anxiety or depression screen (OR 1·57, 95% CI 1·36-1·80). Modest differences in the proportion shielding were observed across nations. CONCLUSIONS: Greater risk-mitigating behaviour among people with IMIDs receiving targeted therapies may contribute to the reported lower risk of adverse COVID-19 outcomes. The behaviour variation across treatment groups, IMIDs and nations reinforces the need for clear evidence-based patient communication on risk-mitigation strategies and may help inform updated public health guidelines as the pandemic continues

Global reporting of cases of COVID-19 in psoriasis and atopic dermatitis: an opportunity to inform care during a pandemic.

We wish to bring your attention to the PsoPROTECT (Psoriasis Patient Registry for Outcomes, Therapy and Epidemiology of Covid-19 infecTion) and SECURE-AD (Surveillance Epidemiology of Coronavirus Under Research Exclusion-Atopic Dermatitis) registries; two urgent global initiatives that address an unmet need for delineating the determinants of COVID-19 outcomes in the common cutaneous immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) psoriasis and atopic dermatitis

Describing the burden of the COVID-19 pandemic in people with psoriasis: findings from a global cross-sectional study.

Indirect excess morbidity in the COVID-19 pandemic may arise from public health risk-mitigation efforts such as stay-at-home orders and re-purposing of healthcare services1 . Increased mental health disorders and shortfalls in the care of long-term conditions are described

Association between Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors and the Risk of Hospitalization or Death among Patients with Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Disease and COVID-19

Importance: Although tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors are widely prescribed globally because of their ability to ameliorate shared immune pathways across immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs), the impact of COVID-19 among individuals with IMIDs who are receiving TNF inhibitors remains insufficiently understood. Objective: To examine the association between the receipt of TNF inhibitor monotherapy and the risk of COVID-19-associated hospitalization or death compared with other commonly prescribed immunomodulatory treatment regimens among adult patients with IMIDs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was a pooled analysis of data from 3 international COVID-19 registries comprising individuals with rheumatic diseases, inflammatory bowel disease, and psoriasis from March 12, 2020, to February 1, 2021. Clinicians directly reported COVID-19 outcomes as well as demographic and clinical characteristics of individuals with IMIDs and confirmed or suspected COVID-19 using online data entry portals. Adults (age ≥18 years) with a diagnosis of inflammatory arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, or psoriasis were included. Exposures: Treatment exposure categories included TNF inhibitor monotherapy (reference treatment), TNF inhibitors in combination with methotrexate therapy, TNF inhibitors in combination with azathioprine/6-mercaptopurine therapy, methotrexate monotherapy, azathioprine/6-mercaptopurine monotherapy, and Janus kinase (Jak) inhibitor monotherapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was COVID-19-associated hospitalization or death. Registry-level analyses and a pooled analysis of data across the 3 registries were conducted using multilevel multivariable logistic regression models, adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics and accounting for country, calendar month, and registry-level correlations. Results: A total of 6077 patients from 74 countries were included in the analyses; of those, 3215 individuals (52.9%) were from Europe, 3563 individuals (58.6%) were female, and the mean (SD) age was 48.8 (16.5) years. The most common IMID diagnoses were rheumatoid arthritis (2146 patients [35.3%]) and Crohn disease (1537 patients [25.3%]). A total of 1297 patients (21.3%) were hospitalized, and 189 patients (3.1%) died. In the pooled analysis, compared with patients who received TNF inhibitor monotherapy, higher odds of hospitalization or death were observed among those who received a TNF inhibitor in combination with azathioprine/6-mercaptopurine therapy (odds ratio [OR], 1.74; 95% CI, 1.17-2.58; P =.006), azathioprine/6-mercaptopurine monotherapy (OR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.30-2.61; P =.001), methotrexate monotherapy (OR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.57-2.56; P <.001), and Jak inhibitor monotherapy (OR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.21-2.73; P =.004) but not among those who received a TNF inhibitor in combination with methotrexate therapy (OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.85-1.63; P =.33). Similar findings were obtained in analyses that accounted for potential reporting bias and sensitivity analyses that excluded patients with a COVID-19 diagnosis based on symptoms alone. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, TNF inhibitor monotherapy was associated with a lower risk of adverse COVID-19 outcomes compared with other commonly prescribed immunomodulatory treatment regimens among individuals with IMIDs

Psoriasis treat to target: defining outcomes in psoriasis using data from a real‐world, population‐based cohort study (the British Association of Dermatologists Biologics and Immunomodulators Register, BADBIR)

Background: The ‘treat to target’ paradigm improves outcomes and reduces costs in chronic disease management but is not yet established in psoriasis. Objectives: To identify treatment targets in psoriasis using two common measures of disease activity: Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) and Physician's Global Assessment (PGA). Methods: Data from a multicentre longitudinal U.K. cohort of patients with psoriasis receiving systemic or biologic therapies (British Association of Dermatologists Biologics and Immunomodulators Register, BADBIR) were used to identify absolute PASI thresholds for 90% (PASI 90) and 75% (PASI 75) improvements in baseline disease activity, using receiver operating characteristic curves. The relationship between PGA (clear, almost clear, mild, moderate, moderate–severe, severe) and PASI (range 0–72) was described, and the concordance between absolute and relative definitions of response was determined. The same approach was used to establish treatment response and eligibility definitions based on PGA. Results: Data from 13 422 patients were available (58% male, 91% white ethnicity, mean age 44·9 years), including over 23 000 longitudinal PASI and PGA scores. An absolute PASI ≤ 2 was concordant with PASI 90 and an absolute PASI ≤ 4 was concordant with PASI 75 in 90% and 88% of cases, respectively. These findings were robust to subgroups of timing of assessment, baseline disease severity and treatment modality. PASI and PGA were strongly correlated (Spearman's rank correlation coefficient 0·92). The median PASI increased from 0 (interquartile range 0–0, range 0–23) to 19 (interquartile range 15–25, range 0–64) for PGA clear to severe, respectively. PGA clear/almost clear was concordant with PASI ≤ 2 in 90% of cases, and PGA moderate–severe severe was concordant with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence PASI eligibility criteria for biologics in 81% of cases. Conclusions: An absolute PASI ≤ 2 and PGA clear/almost clear represent relevant disease end points to inform treat‐to‐target management strategies in psoriasis