Nonadherence to systemic immune-modifying therapy in people with psoriasis during the COVID-19 pandemic: findings from a global cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Nonadherence to immune-modifying therapy is a complex behaviour which, before the COVID-19 pandemic, was shown to be associated with mental health disorders in people with immune-mediated diseases. The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a rise in the global prevalence of anxiety and depression, and limited data exist on the association between mental health and nonadherence to immune-modifying therapy during the pandemic. OBJECTIVES: To assess the extent of and reasons underlying nonadherence to systemic immune-modifying therapy during the COVID-19 pandemic in individuals with psoriasis, and the association between mental health and nonadherence. METHODS: Online self-report surveys (PsoProtectMe), including validated screens for anxiety and depression, were completed globally during the first year of the pandemic. We assessed the association between anxiety or depression and nonadherence to systemic immune-modifying therapy using binomial logistic regression, adjusting for potential cofounders (age, sex, ethnicity, comorbidity) and country of residence. RESULTS: Of 3980 participants from 77 countries, 1611 (40.5%) were prescribed a systemic immune-modifying therapy. Of these, 408 (25.3%) reported nonadherence during the pandemic, most commonly due to concerns about their immunity. In the unadjusted model, a positive anxiety screen was associated with nonadherence to systemic immune-modifying therapy [odds ratio (OR) 1.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07-1.76]. Specifically, anxiety was associated with nonadherence to targeted therapy (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.01-1.96) but not standard systemic therapy (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.81-1.67). In the adjusted model, although the directions of the effects remained, anxiety was not significantly associated with nonadherence to overall systemic (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.92-1.56) or targeted (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.94-1.89) immune-modifying therapy. A positive depression screen was not strongly associated with nonadherence to systemic immune-modifying therapy in the unadjusted (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.94-1.57) or adjusted models (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.87-1.49). CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate substantial nonadherence to immune-modifying therapy in people with psoriasis during the pandemic, with attenuation of the association with mental health after adjusting for confounders. Future research in larger populations should further explore pandemic-specific drivers of treatment nonadherence. Clear communication of the reassuring findings from population-based research regarding immune-modifying therapy-associated adverse COVID-19 risks to people with psoriasis is essential, to optimize adherence and disease outcomes.

Immune response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination in patients receiving secukinumab: a literature review.

Purpose: There is a paucity of evidence on the impact of immune-mediated inflammatory disease (IMID) treatments on the immunogenicity of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. The purpose of this literature review is to address the question of whether patients with IMIDs receiving secukinumab, a fully human anti-interleukin-17A monoclonal antibody, have an adequate immune response after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Materials and Methods: Clinical studies that evaluated the effect of secukinumab on immune responses in patients with IMIDs after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination were searched in publication databases, including Medline and Embase, until May 2022. Results: From the 53 articles identified, a total of 11 articles were included. Overall, the majority of the patients treated with secukinumab elicited an adequate immune response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Patients receiving secukinumab for IMIDs developed cellular immune responses following vaccination with the BNT162b2 vaccine, and there were no significant differences in the overall humoral and cellular immune responses between patients and healthy individuals. The third dose of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine resulted in a positive antibody response in secukinumab-treated patients. Conclusion: The available data provide no evidence of impairment in immunological response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines by secukinumab in patients with IMIDs.

Efficacy of early transfusion of convalescent plasma with high-titer SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Despite most controlled trials have shown no measurable benefit of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) in patients with COVID-19, some studies suggest that early administration of CCP with high-titer anti-SARS-CoV-2 can be beneficial in selected patients. We investigated the efficacy of early administration of high-titer CCP to patients with COVID-19 who required hospitalization, STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Observational, propensity score (PS) matched case-control study of COVID-19 patients treated with CCP within 72 h of hospital admission and untreated controls from August 2020 to February 2021. All CCP donations had a Euroimmun anti-SARS-CoV-2 sample-to-cutoff ratio ≥3. PS matching was based on prognostic factors and presented features with high-standardized differences between the treated and control groups. The primary endpoint was mortality within 30 days of diagnosis. RESULTS: A total of 1604 patients were analyzed, 261 of whom received CCP, most (82%) within 24 h after admission. Median age was 67 years (interquartile range: 56-79), and 953 (60%) were men. Presenting factors independently associated with higher 30-day mortality were increased age, cardiac disease, hypoxemic respiratory failure, renal failure, and plasma d-dimer >700 ng/ml. After PS matching, transfusion of CCP was associated with a significant reduction in the 30-day mortality rate (odds ratio [OR]; 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.91-0.98; p = .001) that extended to the 60th day after COVID-19 diagnosis (OR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.92-0.99; p = .01). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that CCP can still be helpful in selected patients with COVID-19 and call for further studies before withdrawing CCP from the COVID-19 therapeutic armamentarium.

SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in blood donors before and after the first wave in Catalonia (Spain).

BACKGROUND: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, a national lockdown was applied in Spain from March to May 2020. It is uncertain when SARS-CoV-2 started to circulate in Catalonia, and only a few cases were diagnosed in this period. We assessed the SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in blood donors before and after the first wave and compared it with public health service (PHS) data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective archive or prospective fresh blood samples were obtained from blood donors aged 18 to 70 and anonymized after demographic data had been recorded (gender, age, place of residence, blood collection date). Two CE-marked enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays were used to test for anti-SARS-CoV-2. A SARS-CoV-2 IgM test was additionally performed in positive samples. Individuals aged 18 to 70 from among the general population diagnosed as having SARS-CoV-2 by the PHS were included for comparison with blood donor results. RESULTS: A total of 10,170 blood donations were included in the first period, between 24 February and 9 March 2020, and 6,829 in the second period, between 16 May and 17 June 2020. The observed SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence among blood donors rose from 0.27% (95% CI: 0.18-0.39) before the first wave to 5.55% (95% CI: 5.03-6.12) after it, and was even higher (6.90% [95% CI: 5.64-8.41]) among blood donors aged 18 to 29. The seroprevalence among blood donors was higher in more populated areas (Barcelona: 7.69%). A comparison of blood donor data with officially diagnosed cases showed a global 87.44% underestimation of SARS-CoV-2 in June 2020. DISCUSSION: We analyzed the explosive 3-month increase in blood donor SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence (from 0.27% to 5.55%) and show that more than 87% of cases went undiagnosed, despite the unprecedented deployment of testing measures. SARS-CoV-2 IgM results suggest that the virus was circulating among blood donors in February 2020. Blood donors are definitively proven to be a valuable resource for emerging disease surveillance studies.

Evolution of Patient Perceptions of Psoriatic Disease: Results from the Understanding Psoriatic Disease Leveraging Insights for Treatment (UPLIFT) Survey.

INTRODUCTION: Since the 2012 Multinational Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (MAPP) survey, several systemic treatments for psoriasis (PsO) and/or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) have been approved. The population-based UPLIFT survey was conducted to understand how perceptions of treatment-related outcomes have evolved, particularly for patients with mild to moderate PsO and/or PsA and their dermatologists. METHODS: This population- and web-based survey was conducted from 2 March to 3 June 2020, in North America, Europe, and Japan. Adults with self-reported healthcare practitioner (HCP)-diagnosed PsO and/or PsA and dermatologists who spent > 50% of time treating patients and treated ≥ 20 patients with PsO, including plaque PsO, per month were included. Patient participants were recruited at random from online panels; dermatologists were recruited randomly from representative physician panels. RESULTS: Of 264,054 patient responses, 3806 who self-reported an HCP diagnosis of PsO and/or PsA were included in the final sample; 67% had PsO alone, 28% had PsO and PsA, and 5% had PsA alone. The estimated population prevalence of psoriatic disease was 7% (PsO only: 4%; PsO and PsA: 2%; PsA only: 1%). Most patients (78%) reported PsO-involved body surface area (BSA) ≤ 3 palms, and ~ 90% or more reported itching, redness, flaking, and scales. Many PsO patients without diagnosed PsA reported musculoskeletal symptoms suggestive of PsA (63%). Across BSA categories, approximately one in four patients was not currently receiving treatment and > 50% had Dermatology Life Quality Index score > 5. Patients and dermatologists had different perceptions of PsO severity, office visit discussions, treatment goals, and treatment satisfaction. The survey was conducted during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, which could have affected assessments of patient-reported outcomes and ability to have in-person HCP visits. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with PsO and PsA in UPLIFT reported high disease burden, including patients with limited skin involvement. An opportunity exists to align patient and dermatologist perceptions to optimize management of PsO and PsA. INFOGRAPHIC: DIGITAL FEATURE: This article is published with digital features, including an infographic, to facilitate understanding of the article. To view digital features for this article go to https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.17104586 .

In recent years, several new treatments for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis have become available. The UPLIFT survey was conducted to understand how viewpoints on psoriatic disease outcomes have changed, especially for patients whose disease is mild or moderate. UPLIFT was a large, online, population-based survey conducted in North America, Europe, and Japan. Adults with psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis and dermatologists who treated at least 20 patients with psoriasis per month were included. There were 3806 patients who participated; of these, most had psoriasis and few had psoriatic arthritis. Most patients (78%) with mild to moderate psoriasis had a limited area of skin affected by psoriasis. Psoriasis symptoms were common and included itching, redness, flaking, and scales. Many patients without a diagnosis of psoriatic arthritis reported symptoms that could be related to this disease (such as joint discomfort). Although many patients had psoriasis symptoms, approximately one in four was not currently receiving treatment and more than half reported psoriasis impacted their quality of life. Patients and dermatologists had different perceptions of psoriasis severity, office visit discussions, treatment goals, and treatment satisfaction. There is an opportunity to improve treatment of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis and to better align patient and physician perceptions of psoriasis. This survey was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, which could have partially affected some assessments and the ability to have in-person doctor visits.

Clinical evaluation of the Procleix SARS-CoV-2 assay, a sensitive, high-throughput test that runs on an automated system.

Testing is crucial in controlling COVID-19. The Procleix® SARS-CoV-2 assay, a transcription-mediated amplification nucleic acid test that runs on an automated system, was evaluated using inactivated virus and clinical samples. The sensitivity of the assay was assessed using heat-inactivated SARS-CoV-2 and compared to 3 other tests. Clinical validation utilized 2 sets of samples: (1) Nasal, nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal samples (n = 963) from asymptomatic individuals, and (2) nasopharyngeal samples from symptomatic patients: 100 positive and 100 negative by RT-PCR. The Procleix assay had greater sensitivity (3-fold to 100-fold) than the comparators and had high specificity (100%) in asymptomatic subjects. In symptomatic patients, the Procleix assay detected 100% of PCR-positives and found 24 positives in the initial PCR-negatives. Eighteen of these were confirmed positive and 6 were inconclusive. These studies showed that the Procleix SARS-CoV-2 assay was a sensitive and specific tool for detecting COVID-19.

SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 pandemic: first wave, impact, response and lessons learnt in a fully integrated Regional Blood and Tissue Bank. A narrative report.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic is placing blood and tissue establishments under unprecedented stress, putting its capacity to provide the adequate care needed at risk. Here we reflect on how our integrated organisational model has faced the first impact of the pandemic and describe what challenges, opportunities and lessons have emerged. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The organisational model of the Catalan Blood and Tissue Bank (Banc de Sang i Teixits, BST) is described. The new scenario was managed by following international recommendations and considering the pandemic in a context of volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity (VUCA), allowing rapid measures to be taken. These aimed to: ensure donor safety, promote proper responses to patients' needs, ensure the health and well-being of personnel, and prepare for future scenarios. RESULTS: The BST has adapted its activities to the changes in demand. No shortage of any product or service occurred. Donor acceptance, safety and wellbeing were maintained except for tissue donation, which almost completely stopped. To support the health system, several activities have been promoted: large-scale convalescent plasma (CP) production, clinical trials with CP and mesenchymal stromal cells, massive COVID-19 diagnoses, and participation in co-operative research and publications. Haemovigilance is running smoothly and no adverse effects have been detected among donors or patients. DISCUSSION: Several elements have proven to be critical when addressing the pandemic scenario: a) the early creation of a crisis committee in combination with technical recommendations and the recognition of a VUCA scenario; b) identification of the strategies described; c) the integrated donor-to-patient organisational model; d) active Research and Development (R&D); and e) the flexibility of the staff. It is essential to underline the importance of the need for centralised management, effective contingency strategies, and early collaboration with peers.

Relationship between the ABO blood group and COVID-19 susceptibility, severity and mortality in two cohorts of patients.

BACKGROUND: Several articles reported the existence of an association between ABO blood groups and COVID-19 susceptibility. Group A and group O individuals showed a higher and lower risk, respectively, of becoming infected. No association was observed between ABO groups and mortality. To verify this association, we performed a retrospective study of two cohorts of patients with different demographic and clinical characteristics. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 854 regular blood donors were recruited for convalescent plasma donation after recovering from a mild COVID-19 infection, and a group of 965 patients more severely affected who were transfused during hospitalisation were also included. We also investigated the potential role of the different risk factors on patient outcome and death. To eliminate the confounding effect of risk factors on mortality, a propensity score analysis was performed. RESULTS: Blood group A and blood group O COVID-19 blood donors showed a higher and lower risk, respectively, for acquiring COVID-19. In contrast, this association was not found in the group of patients transfused during hospitalisation, probably due to the great differences in demographic and clinical characteristics between the two groups. Regarding severity, age was one of the most significant risk factors. ABO blood groups were also seen to represent important risk factors for COVID-19 severity and mortality. Mortality risk in group A individuals was significantly higher than in group O individuals (OR: 1.75, 95% CI: 1.22-2.51). DISCUSSION: The association between the ABO blood groups and the susceptibility to acquire COVID-19 infection was confirmed in the group of blood donors. ABO blood groups were also associated to COVID-19 severity and mortality in the group of patients transfused during hospitalisation. Therefore, blood groups A and O are two important factors to be considered when evaluating the prognosis of patients with COVID-19.