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.

Telemedicine in rheumatology care: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic led to a sudden uptake of telemedicine in rheumatology. We analyzed the recent published literature on telemedicine for the diagnosis and management of inflammatory, non-inflammatory and/or autoimmune rheumatic diseases. METHODS: We performed a registered systematic search (CRD42020202063) for interventional or observational studies published between August 2015 and January 2022. We included studies of telemedicine that reported outcomes (e.g., satisfaction, disease activity, quality of life) in ten or more people with rheumatic disease. Reviewers screened manuscripts, extracted data, and assessed bias. RESULTS: Of the 2,988 potentially eligible studies, 36 reports were included: 27 observational studies, 7 randomized clinical trials, and 2 controlled clinical trials. Studies focused on general rheumatology (n = 18), rheumatoid arthritis (n = 9), gout (n = 3), osteoarthritis (n = 2), unspecified inflammatory arthritis (n = 1), osteoporosis (n = 2), and systemic lupus erythematosus (n = 1). Patient satisfaction with telemedicine was the most common reported outcome (n = 23) with majority of studies demonstrating high levels of satisfaction. Among interventional studies, the effect of telemedicine on the primary outcomes varied, with most finding that telemedicine was as good as usual / in-person care for disease activity control, patient satisfaction, total societal costs, and other patient reported outcomes. Effectiveness and feasibility were high across studies, though most demonstrated a high risk of bias. Meta-analysis was not feasible given the heterogeneity of interventions and outcome instruments utilized. CONCLUSION: Although the number of studies to date is low, telemedicine may be an effective mode to deliver care for people with rheumatic diseases. Most studies demonstrated limitations due to study design and risk of bias. Randomized clinical studies are needed to determine best uses of telemedicine for the diagnosis and management of rheumatic conditions.

The Impact of Immune-Modifying Treatments for Skin Diseases on the Immune Response to COVID-19 Vaccines: a Narrative Review.

Purpose of Review: SARS-CoV-2 has had a devastating global effect, with vaccinations being paramount in the public health strategy against COVID-19. Vaccinations have uncoupled infection from adverse COVID-19 outcomes worldwide. While immune-modifying therapies are effective for the management of skin diseases such as psoriasis and atopic dermatitis, these medications also impair protective immune responses. There has been longstanding uncertainty and concern over the impact of immune-modifying therapies on the effectiveness of vaccines; for example, it is well recognised that methotrexate impairs humoral responses to both influenza and pneumococcal vaccines. This narrative review aims to discuss the evidence to date on the impact of immune-modifying therapies on the immune response to COVID-19 vaccines, with a focus on the first two vaccine doses. Recent Findings: Individuals receiving immune-modifying therapy are more likely to have attenuated humoral responses to a single dose of COVID-19 vaccine compared to healthy controls; however, this may be improved by a complete course of vaccination. B cell targeted biologics such as rituximab markedly impair the humoral response to both the first and second COVID-19 vaccination. There remains a paucity of data on cellular immune responses, with the few available studies indicating lower responses to two vaccine doses in individuals receiving immune-modifying therapies compared to healthy controls, which may impact the durability of immune responses. Summary: Inadequate humoral immune responses to a single dose of vaccine in the context of immune-modifying therapy are improved by a complete course of vaccination. Individuals receiving immune-modifying treatments should be encouraged to take up a complete vaccine course to mitigate their risk against COVID-19. Research in large patient populations on the longevity/kinetics of the complex humoral and cellular response to subsequent vaccine doses, including against newer variants of concern, is warranted, in addition to data on immune correlates of vaccine clinical effectiveness.

Risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes associated with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases and immune-modifying therapies: a nationwide cohort study in the OpenSAFELY platform.

Background: The risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes in people with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases and on immune-modifying drugs might not be fully mediated by comorbidities and might vary by factors such as ethnicity. We aimed to assess the risk of severe COVID-19 in adults with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases and in those on immune-modifying therapies. Methods: We did a cohort study, using OpenSAFELY (an analytics platform for electronic health records) and TPP (a software provider for general practitioners), analysing routinely collected primary care data linked to hospital admission, death, and previously unavailable hospital prescription data. We included people aged 18 years or older on March 1, 2020, who were registered with TPP practices with at least 12 months of primary care records before March, 2020. We used Cox regression (adjusting for confounders and mediators) to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) comparing the risk of COVID-19-related death, critical care admission or death, and hospital admission (from March 1 to Sept 30, 2020) in people with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases compared with the general population, and in people with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases on targeted immune-modifying drugs (eg, biologics) compared with those on standard systemic treatment (eg, methotrexate). Findings: We identified 17 672 065 adults; 1 163 438 adults (640 164 [55·0%] women and 523 274 [45·0%] men, and 827 457 [71·1%] of White ethnicity) had immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, and 16 508 627 people (8 215 020 [49·8%] women and 8 293 607 [50·2%] men, and 10 614 096 [64·3%] of White ethnicity) were included as the general population. Of 1 163 438 adults with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, 19 119 (1·6%) received targeted immune-modifying therapy and 181 694 (15·6%) received standard systemic therapy. Compared with the general population, adults with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases had an increased risk of COVID-19-related death after adjusting for confounders (age, sex, deprivation, and smoking status; HR 1·23, 95% CI 1·20-1·27) and further adjusting for mediators (body-mass index [BMI], cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and current glucocorticoid use; 1·15, 1·11-1·18). Adults with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases also had an increased risk of COVID-19-related critical care admission or death (confounder-adjusted HR 1·24, 95% CI 1·21-1·28; mediator-adjusted 1·16, 1·12-1·19) and hospital admission (confounder-adjusted 1·32, 1·29-1·35; mediator-adjusted 1·20, 1·17-1·23). In post-hoc analyses, the risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes in people with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases was higher in non-White ethnic groups than in White ethnic groups (as it was in the general population). We saw no evidence of increased COVID-19-related death in adults on targeted, compared with those on standard systemic, therapy after adjusting for confounders (age, sex, deprivation, BMI, immune-mediated inflammatory diseases [bowel, joint, and skin], cardiovascular disease, cancer [excluding non-melanoma skin cancer], stroke, and diabetes (HR 1·03, 95% CI 0·80-1·33), and after additionally adjusting for current glucocorticoid use (1·01, 0·78-1·30). There was no evidence of increased COVID-19-related death in adults prescribed tumour necrosis factor inhibitors, interleukin (IL)-12/IL­23 inhibitors, IL-17 inhibitors, IL-6 inhibitors, or Janus kinase inhibitors compared with those on standard systemic therapy. Rituximab was associated with increased COVID-19-related death (HR 1·68, 95% CI 1·11-2·56), with some attenuation after excluding people with haematological malignancies or organ transplants (1·54, 0·95-2·49). Interpretation: COVID-19 deaths and hospital admissions were higher in people with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. We saw no increased risk of adverse COVID-19 outcomes in those on most targeted immune-modifying drugs for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases compared with those on standard systemic therapy. Funding: UK Medical Research Council, NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at King's College London and Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, and Wellcome Trust.

Humoral and cellular immunogenicity to a second dose of COVID-19 vaccine BNT162b2 in people receiving methotrexate or targeted immunosuppression: a longitudinal cohort study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 vaccines have robust immunogenicity in the general population. However, data for individuals with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases who are taking immunosuppressants remains scarce. Our previously published cohort study showed that methotrexate, but not targeted biologics, impaired functional humoral immunity to a single dose of COVID-19 vaccine BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech), whereas cellular responses were similar. Here, we aimed to assess immune responses following the second dose. METHODS: In this longitudinal cohort study, we recruited individuals with psoriasis who were receiving methotrexate or targeted biological monotherapy (ie, tumour necrosis factor [TNF] inhibitors, interleukin [IL]-17 inhibitors, or IL-23 inhibitors) from a specialist psoriasis centre serving London and South-East England. The healthy control cohort were volunteers without psoriasis, not receiving immunosuppression. Immunogenicity was evaluated immediately before, on day 28 after the first BNT162b2 vaccination and on day 14 after the second dose (administered according to an extended interval regimen). Here, we report immune responses following the second dose. The primary outcomes were humoral immunity to the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein, defined as titres of total spike-specific IgG and of neutralising antibody to wild-type, alpha (B.1.1.7), and delta (B.1.617.2) SARS-CoV-2 variants, and cellular immunity defined as spike-specific T-cell responses (including numbers of cells producing interferon-γ, IL-2, IL-21). FINDINGS: Between Jan 14 and April 4, 2021, 121 individuals were recruited, and data were available for 82 participants after the second vaccination. The study population included patients with psoriasis receiving methotrexate (n=14), TNF inhibitors (n=19), IL-17 inhibitors (n=14), IL-23 inhibitors (n=20), and 15 healthy controls, who had received both vaccine doses. The median age of the study population was 44 years (IQR 33-52), with 43 (52%) males and 71 (87%) participants of White ethnicity. All participants had detectable spike-specific antibodies following the second dose, and all groups (methotrexate, targeted biologics, and healthy controls) demonstrated similar neutralising antibody titres against wild-type, alpha, and delta variants. By contrast, a lower proportion of participants on methotrexate (eight [62%] of 13, 95% CI 32-86) and targeted biologics (37 [74%] of 50, 60-85; p=0·38) had detectable T-cell responses following the second vaccine dose, compared with controls (14 [100%] of 14, 77-100; p=0·022). There was no difference in the magnitude of T-cell responses between patients receiving methotrexate (median cytokine-secreting cells per 106 cells 160 [IQR 10-625]), targeted biologics (169 [25-503], p=0·56), and controls (185 [133-328], p=0·41). INTERPRETATION: Functional humoral immunity (ie, neutralising antibody responses) at 14 days following a second dose of BNT162b2 was not impaired by methotrexate or targeted biologics. A proportion of patients on immunosuppression did not have detectable T-cell responses following the second dose. The longevity of vaccine-elicited antibody responses is unknown in this population. FUNDING: NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust and King's College London; The Psoriasis Association.

The effect of methotrexate and targeted immunosuppression on humoral and cellular immune responses to the COVID-19 vaccine BNT162b2: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Patients on therapeutic immunosuppressants for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases were excluded from COVID-19 vaccine trials. We therefore aimed to evaluate humoral and cellular immune responses to COVID-19 vaccine BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) in patients taking methotrexate and commonly used targeted biological therapies, compared with healthy controls. Given the roll-out of extended interval vaccination programmes to maximise population coverage, we present findings after the first dose. METHODS: In this cohort study, we recruited consecutive patients with a dermatologist-confirmed diagnosis of psoriasis who were receiving methotrexate or targeted biological monotherapy (tumour necrosis factor [TNF] inhibitors, interleukin [IL]-17 inhibitors, or IL-23 inhibitors) from a specialist psoriasis centre serving London and South East England. Consecutive volunteers without psoriasis and not receiving systemic immunosuppression who presented for vaccination at Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust (London, UK) were included as the healthy control cohort. All participants had to be eligible to receive the BNT162b2 vaccine. Immunogenicity was evaluated immediately before and on day 28 (±2 days) after vaccination. The primary outcomes were humoral immunity to the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein, defined as neutralising antibody responses to wild-type SARS-CoV-2, and spike-specific T-cell responses (including interferon-γ, IL-2, and IL-21) 28 days after vaccination. FINDINGS: Between Jan 14 and April 4, 2021, 84 patients with psoriasis (17 on methotrexate, 27 on TNF inhibitors, 15 on IL-17 inhibitors, and 25 on IL-23 inhibitors) and 17 healthy controls were included. The study population had a median age of 43 years (IQR 31-52), with 56 (55%) males, 45 (45%) females, and 85 (84%) participants of White ethnicity. Seroconversion rates were lower in patients receiving immunosuppressants (60 [78%; 95% CI 67-87] of 77) than in controls (17 [100%; 80-100] of 17), with the lowest rate in those receiving methotrexate (seven [47%; 21-73] of 15). Neutralising activity against wild-type SARS-CoV-2 was significantly lower in patients receiving methotrexate (median 50% inhibitory dilution 129 [IQR 40-236]) than in controls (317 [213-487], p=0·0032), but was preserved in those receiving targeted biologics (269 [141-418]). Neutralising titres against the B.1.1.7 variant were similarly low in all participants. Cellular immune responses were induced in all groups, and were not attenuated in patients receiving methotrexate or targeted biologics compared with controls. INTERPRETATION: Functional humoral immunity to a single dose of BNT162b2 is impaired by methotrexate but not by targeted biologics, whereas cellular responses are preserved. Seroconversion alone might not adequately reflect vaccine immunogenicity in individuals with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases receiving therapeutic immunosuppression. Real-world pharmacovigilance studies will determine how these findings reflect clinical effectiveness. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research.

Learning from disease registries during a pandemic: Moving toward an international federation of patient registries.

High-quality dermatology patient registries often require considerable time to develop and produce meaningful data. Development time is influenced by registry complexity and regulatory hurdles that vary significantly nationally and institutionally. The rapid emergence of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic has challenged health services in an unprecedented manner. Mobilization of the dermatology community in response has included rapid development and deployment of multiple, partially harmonized, international patient registries, reinventing established patient registry timelines. Partnership with patient organizations has demonstrated the critical nature of inclusive patient involvement. This global effort has demonstrated the value, capacity, and necessity for the dermatology community to adopt a more cohesive approach to patient registry development and data sharing that can lead to myriad benefits. These include improved utilization of limited resources, increased data interoperability, improved ability to rapidly collect meaningful data, and shortened response times to generate real-world evidence. We call on the global dermatology community to support the development of an international federation of patient registries to consolidate and operationalize the lessons learned during this pandemic. This will provide an enduring means of applying this knowledge to the maintenance and development of sustainable, coherent, and impactful patient registries of benefit now and in the future.

Dermatology COVID-19 Registries: Updates and Future Directions.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, rapid, real-world evidence is essential for the development of knowledge and subsequent public health response. In dermatology, provider-facing and patient-facing registries focused on COVID-19 have been important sources of research and new information aimed at guiding optimal patient care. The 7 dermatology registries included in this update now include more than 8000 case reports sourced from physicians and patients from countries all over the world.

Factors associated with adverse COVID-19 outcomes in patients with psoriasis-insights from a global registry-based study.

BACKGROUND: The multimorbid burden and use of systemic immunosuppressants in people with psoriasis may confer greater risk of adverse outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but the data are limited. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to characterize the course of COVID-19 in patients with psoriasis and identify factors associated with hospitalization. METHODS: Clinicians reported patients with psoriasis with confirmed/suspected COVID-19 via an international registry, Psoriasis Patient Registry for Outcomes, Therapy and Epidemiology of COVID-19 Infection. Multiple logistic regression was used to assess the association between clinical and/or demographic characteristics and hospitalization. A separate patient-facing registry characterized risk-mitigating behaviors. RESULTS: Of 374 clinician-reported patients from 25 countries, 71% were receiving a biologic, 18% were receiving a nonbiologic, and 10% were not receiving any systemic treatment for psoriasis. In all, 348 patients (93%) were fully recovered from COVID-19, 77 (21%) were hospitalized, and 9 (2%) died. Increased hospitalization risk was associated with older age (multivariable-adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 1.59 per 10 years; 95% CI = 1.19-2.13), male sex (OR = 2.51; 95% CI = 1.23-5.12), nonwhite ethnicity (OR = 3.15; 95% CI = 1.24-8.03), and comorbid chronic lung disease (OR = 3.87; 95% CI = 1.52-9.83). Hospitalization was more frequent in patients using nonbiologic systemic therapy than in those using biologics (OR = 2.84; 95% CI = 1.31-6.18). No significant differences were found between classes of biologics. Independent patient-reported data (n = 1626 across 48 countries) suggested lower levels of social isolation in individuals receiving nonbiologic systemic therapy than in those receiving biologics (OR = 0.68; 95% CI = 0.50-0.94). CONCLUSION: In this international case series of patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, biologic use was associated with lower risk of COVID-19-related hospitalization than with use of nonbiologic systemic therapies; however, further investigation is warranted on account of potential selection bias and unmeasured confounding. Established risk factors (being older, being male, being of nonwhite ethnicity, and having comorbidities) were associated with higher hospitalization rates.