A UK online survey exploring patient perspectives of remote consultations for managing psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic

The use of remote consultations via telephone or video can contribute to the management of people with psoriasis and has allowed continuity of patient care throughout the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, though little is known about the patient experience. The present study aimed to provide insights into the views and experiences of people with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis on their remote consultations during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and develop guidance for patients and healthcare professionals on how to optimise future remote consultations. We conducted a cross-sectional, on-line survey of people with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and Thematic Analysis. Overall, 126 people reported experiences of telephone (92%) or video (8%) consultations. Most participants were satisfied with (78%), and were happy for, remote consultations to continue (21%); few were not (5%). Others did not always want remote consultations (39%) and preferred alternating with face-to-face consultations (18%). Some wanted remote care during the pandemic only (17%). Five themes were identified: (1) Advantages of Remote Consultations; (2) Disadvantages of Remote Consultations plus sub-themes (2.1) Practical Issues and (2.2) the Absence of Non-Verbal Cues and Emotions; (3) Serving a Purpose; and (4) A 'Good' Remote Consultation; and (5) Advice to Other Patients. Remote consultations form an important part of psoriatic disease management, mainly for routine follow-up appointments in patients with stable disease, and in addition to face-to-face consultations. Additional skills training for clinicians could improve the quality of remote consultations.

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

BACKGROUND

Non-adherence 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 non-adherence to immune modifying therapy during the pandemic.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the extent of and reasons underlying non-adherence to systemic immune-modifying therapy during the COVID-19 pandemic in individuals with psoriasis, and the association between mental health and non-adherence.

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 non-adherence 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 non-adherence during the pandemic, most commonly due to concerns about their immunity. In the unadjusted model, a positive anxiety screen was associated with non-adherence to systemic immune-modifying therapy (OR 1.36, 95%CI 1.07-1.76). Specifically, anxiety was associated with non-adherence 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 non-adherence 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 non-adherence 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).

CONCLUSION

These data indicate substantial non-adherence 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 non-adherence. 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 optimise adherence and disease outcomes.

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.