COVID-19 and adherence to biologic therapies for psoriasis: An analysis of nationwide pharmacy claims data.

BACKGROUND: Early after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, concerns were raised that the use of psoriasis treatments, particularly biologic therapies because of their immunosuppressant effects, could be associated with a poor prognosis in the case of COVID-19 infection. OBJECTIVE: To examine changes in adherence to systematic biologic therapies for psoriasis after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Using IQVIA medical and pharmacy claims data from January 1, 2018, to October 31, 2020, we identified patients aged 18 years or older who had a diagnosis of plaque psoriasis in 2018 and who received systemic biologic therapies for psoriasis, including both provider-administered and pharmacy-dispensed therapies. We calculated the incidence of 14-day gaps without therapy per 1,000 study participants for each 30-day interval. We constructed interrupted time series analyses to test changes in the incidence of outcomes after the pandemic declaration. RESULTS: The sample included 15,890 study participants: 45.4% were female and 15.2% were aged 65 years or older. For patients using biologic therapies dispensed from the pharmacy, there was a 13.1% decrease in the incidence of 14-day gaps without biologic therapy immediately after pandemic declaration, from 92.4 gaps per 1,000 patients to 80.2 gaps per 1,000 patients, but this decrease was not statistically significant. However, for patients using provider-administered therapies, the incidence of 14-day gaps without biologic therapy increased by 55.1% after pandemic declaration, from 29.0 gaps per 1,000 patients to 44.9 gaps per 1,000 patients (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, we found an increased incidence of gaps in biologic therapy for psoriasis among users of provider-administered treatments but not among users of pharmacy-dispensed therapies. DISCLOSURES: Dr Hernandez reports personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb and personal fees from Pfizer outside the submitted work. Dr Hernandez is funded by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (grant K01HL142847). The funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication. The statements, findings, conclusions, views, and opinions expressed in this publication are based on data obtained under license from IQVIA as part of the IQVIA Institute's Human Data Science Research Collaborative.

COVID-19 vaccine safety and efficacy in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory disease: Review of available evidence.

Dermatologists diagnose and treat many immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMID). Understanding the inherent immune dysregulation of these diseases as well as the additional disruption that comes as a result of IMID treatments has been important during the COVID-19 pandemic. With vaccines becoming widely available, dermatologists need to be familiar with the risks and benefits of vaccination in these patients, particularly those taking biologics, in order to have informed discussions with their patients. In this review, we present the current evidence related to COVID-19 vaccine safety and efficacy in patients with IMID and review existing recommendations for vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. Given the current evidence, there is minimal concern that these patients are at any greater risk of harm from COVID-19 vaccination compared to healthy controls. For most, the benefit of avoiding severe COVID-19 through vaccination will outweigh the theoretical risk of these vaccines. A question that is still outstanding is whether patients on biologics will generate a sufficient immune response to the vaccine, which may be dependent on the specific biologic therapy and indication being treated. This underscores the importance of following patients with IMID after vaccination to determine the safety, efficacy, and duration of the vaccine in this population.

The State of Melanoma: Emergent Challenges and Opportunities.

Five years ago, the Melanoma Research Foundation (MRF) conducted an assessment of the challenges and opportunities facing the melanoma research community and patients with melanoma. Since then, remarkable progress has been made on both the basic and clinical research fronts. However, the incidence, recurrence, and death rates for melanoma remain unacceptably high and significant challenges remain. Hence, the MRF Scientific Advisory Council and Breakthrough Consortium, a group that includes clinicians and scientists, reconvened to facilitate intensive discussions on thematic areas essential to melanoma researchers and patients alike, prevention, detection, diagnosis, metastatic dormancy and progression, response and resistance to targeted and immune-based therapy, and the clinical consequences of COVID-19 for patients with melanoma and providers. These extensive discussions helped to crystalize our understanding of the challenges and opportunities facing the broader melanoma community today. In this report, we discuss the progress made since the last MRF assessment, comment on what remains to be overcome, and offer recommendations for the best path forward.

Utilization of Asynchronous and Synchronous Teledermatology in a Large Health Care System During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Background: Teledermatology offers an opportunity to continually deliver care during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Objective: To provide quantitative data about the use of teledermatology. Methods: Retrospective analysis of teledermatology consultations was performed from March 16 to May 1, 2020. The number/type of encounters, differences in diagnoses, and prescriptions between asynchronous and synchronous teledermatology visits were analyzed. Results: A total of 951 visits (36.2%) were asynchronous whereas 1,672 visits (63.8%) were synchronous. Only 131 (<5%) visits required an acute in-person follow-up. The diagnosis of acne was more frequent with asynchronous visits (p < 0.002, Bonferroni corrected). Antibiotics and nonretinoid acne medications were prescribed more with asynchronous visits, whereas immunomodulators and biologics were more commonly prescribed with synchronous visits (p < 0.02, Bonferroni corrected). Providers at our institution were split on preferred mode (54.2% synchronous, 45.8% asynchronous); however, synchronous visits were preferred for complex medical dermatology patients and return patients (p < 0.05). Limitations: This study is limited by being a single-center study. Conclusions: Asynchronous teledermatology was used more for acne management, whereas synchronous teledermatology was preferable to providers for complex medical dermatology. Postanalysis of the data collected led us to institute a hybridization of our asynchronous and synchronous teledermatology.