Equity, expense, and expertise in biologic commissioning: adding the patient to the equation

INTRODUCTION

Immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) are increasingly managed effectively with biologic medicines. However, with relatively high unit costs, there remains a meaningful pressure to ensure streamlined, equitable, and inclusive prescription of biologics in the UK. Despite an increased awareness of the benefits of patient-centric shared decision making, patients remain on the periphery of biologic selection for the treatment of IMIDs.

AREAS COVERED

We provide a patient perspective on core issues in the commissioning, prescription, and decision making around biologics for IMIDs in the UK, focusing on England. In particular, the crucial aspect of determining 'value' for different stakeholders, who necessarily have different priorities, is considered.

EXPERT OPINION

There are disparities in commissioning, access to, and prescription of biologics for IMIDs in the UK. This creates an unequal treatment model and drives patient dissatisfaction with an 'experience lottery' for the management of disease. A more transparent approach to prescribing decisions, made in close consultation with patients, is essential for improving equity and experience with biologic treatment of IMIDs.

Defining disease severity in atopic dermatitis and psoriasis for the application to biomarker research- an inter-disciplinary perspective

More severe atopic dermatitis (AD) and psoriasis are associated with a higher cumulative impact on quality of life, multimorbidity and healthcare costs. Proactive, early intervention in those most at risk of severe disease may reduce this cumulative burden and modify the disease trajectory to limit progression. The lack of reliable biomarkers for this at-risk group represents a barrier to such a paradigm shift in practice. To expedite discovery and validation, the BIOMAP consortium (Biomarkers in AD and Psoriasis, a large-scale European, inter-disciplinary research initiative) has curated clinical and molecular data across diverse study designs and sources including cross-sectional and cohort studies (small scale through to large multi-centre registries), clinical trials, electronic health records and large-scale population-based biobanks. We map all dataset disease severity instruments and measures to three key domains (symptoms, inflammatory activity and disease course), and describe important co-dependencies and relationships across variables and domains. We prioritise definitions for more severe disease with reference to international consensus, reference standards and/or expert opinion. Key factors to consider when analysing datasets across these diverse study types include explicit early consideration of biomarker purpose and clinical context, candidate biomarkers associated with disease severity at a point in time and over time and how they are related, taking the stage of biomarker development into account when selecting disease severity measures for analyses and, validating biomarker associations with disease severity outcomes using both physician- and patient-reported measures and across domains. The outputs from this exercise will ensure coherence and focus across the BIOMAP consortium so that mechanistic insights and biomarkers are clinically relevant, patient-centric and more generalisable to current and future research efforts.

Acceptability of 'as needed' biologic therapy in psoriasis: insights from a multi-stakeholder mixed methods study

OBJECTIVES

Biologic therapies have led to increasing numbers of patients with psoriasis who have clear or nearly clear skin. Current practice is that biologic therapy is continued indefinitely in these patients, contributing to a substantial long-term drug and healthcare burden. 'As needed' biologic therapy in psoriasis may address this, however our understanding of patient and clinician perceptions of this strategy is limited.

METHODS

We first conducted UK-wide online scoping surveys of patients with psoriasis and dermatology clinicians to explore their views on 'as needed' biologic therapy. Using topic guides informed by these survey findings, we then carried out qualitative focus groups with patients and clinicians. Themes were identified using reflexive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Of 67 patients and 27 clinicians completing the scoping surveys, 67% (43/64) and 78% (21/27), respectively, supported the use of 'as needed' biologic therapy. Respondents highlighted advantages such as a reduction in healthcare burden and greater ownership of care. Challenges included logistics of 'as needed' drug provision and potential risks of disease flare and drug immunogenicity. Focus groups comprised 15 patients with psoriasis (9 female [60%], average disease duration 32 years [range 9-64 years]) and 9 dermatology clinicians (8 female [89%], average dermatology experience 20 years [range 8-33 years]). Both patients and clinicians felt that an 'as needed' treatment approach will deliver a reduction in treatment burden and present an opportunity for patient-led ownership of care. Both groups highlighted the importance of ensuring ongoing access to medication and discussing the potential impact of psoriasis recurrence. Patient preferences were influenced by their lived experiences, particularly previous difficulties with medication delivery logistics and establishing disease control. Clinician perspectives were informed by personal experience of their patients adapting their own dosing schedules. Clinicians highlighted the importance of targeted patient selection for an 'as needed' approach, ongoing disease monitoring, and prompt re-access to medications upon psoriasis recurrence.

CONCLUSION

These data indicate that 'as needed' biologic therapy in psoriasis is acceptable for both patients and clinicians. Formal assessment of clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness is warranted, to enable the real-world potential of this approach to be realised.

The top 10 research priorities in psoriatic arthritis: a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership

OBJECTIVES

To identify and prioritize the top 10 research questions for PsA.

METHODS

The British Psoriatic Arthritis Consortium (BritPACT) formed a Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) comprising of people living with PsA, carers and clinicians, supported by the James Lind Alliance (JLA). This PSP followed the established three-stage JLA process: first, an online survey of people living with PsA, carers and clinicians to identify PsA questions, asking, 'What do you think are the most important unanswered questions in psoriatic arthritis research?' The questions were checked against existing evidence to establish 'true uncertainties' and grouped as 'indicative questions' reflecting the overarching themes. Then a second online survey ranked the 'true uncertainties' by importance. Finally, a workshop including people living with PsA and clinician stakeholders finalized the top 10 research priorities.

RESULTS

The initial survey attracted 317 respondents (69% people living with PsA, 15% carers), with 988 questions. This generated 46 indicative questions. In the second survey, 422 respondents (78% people living with PsA, 4% carers) prioritized these. Eighteen questions were taken forward to the final online workshop. The top unanswered PsA research question was 'What is the best strategy for managing patients with psoriatic arthritis including non-drug and drug treatments?' Other top 10 priorities covered diagnosis, prognosis, outcome assessment, flares, comorbidities and other aspects of treatment (https://www.jla.nihr.ac.uk).

CONCLUSION

The top 10 priorities will guide PsA research and enable PsA researchers and those who fund research to know the most important questions for people living with PsA.

Elevating the Standard of Care for Patients with Psoriasis: 'Calls to Action' from Epicensus, a Multistakeholder Pan-European Initiative

INTRODUCTION

Despite advances in treatment options and the management of patients with psoriasis, considerable unmet needs remain. Our objective was to identify ways to elevate the standard of care for patients with psoriasis by combining the perspectives of three important stakeholders: patients, clinicians and payors, and define 'Calls to Action' designed to achieve the identified changes.

METHODS

Eight themes relevant to elevating the standard of care were identified from an insights-gathering questionnaire completed by all three stakeholder groups. A modified Delphi exercise gained consensus on statements informed by the insights. Statements were then used to inspire 'Calls to Action' - practical steps that could be taken to realise the desired changes and elevate the standard of care.

RESULTS

In total, 18 European experts (10 dermatologists, 3 payors and 5 patient representatives) took part in the Delphi process. Consensus was reached on statements relating to all eight themes: improve healthcare systems to better support multidisciplinary team working and digital services, real-world data generation and optimal use, improve patient access, elevate quality-of-life measures as the most important outcomes, involve patients in patient-centred and personalised approaches to care, improve the relevance and reach of guidelines, education, and multistakeholder engagement. 'Calls to Action' common to all three stakeholder groups recognised the need to capitalise on the shift to digital healthcare, the need for consistent input into registries to generate real-world evidence to support guideline development, and the necessity of educating patients on the benefits of reporting outcomes to generate real-world data. The enormous quality-of-life burden and psychological impact of psoriasis, as well as the clinical needs of patients must be better understood, including by healthcare commissioners, so that funding priorities are assessed appropriately.

CONCLUSION

This unique initiative identified a practical 'Call-to-Action Framework' which, if implemented, could help improve the standard of care for patients with psoriasis.

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.

OA33 The top 10 research priorities in psoriatic arthritis: a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership

Background/Aims

This process aimed to identify and prioritise the top 10 research questions or evidence uncertainties for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in adults. The British Psoriatic Arthritis Consortium (BritPACT) formed a Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) comprising people with PsA, carers and healthcare professionals, in association with the James Lind Alliance (JLA) to identify the key questions and priorities.

Methods

The JLA methodology involved a three-stage process: 1. A steering group composed of stakeholders conducted an initial online survey of people with PsA, families, carers and healthcare professionals to identify PsA questions. Participants were asked, “What do you think are the most important unanswered questions in psoriatic arthritis research?”. Duplicate questions and those which were out of scope were removed. Questions were checked against existing evidence to establish “true uncertainties”, which were then grouped as “indicative questions” reflecting the overarching themes of the original submissions (diagnosis, effects of disease and treatment, flares, psychological, financial and social factors, gender-associated issues, Covid-19 and treatment) to facilitate prioritisation in stage two. 2. In a second online survey, people with PsA, carers and healthcare professionals ranked the “true uncertainties” by importance. 3. During the final workshop, including people with PsA and clinicians, participants worked together to rank the questions to generate a top 10 list of research priorities.

Results

The initial survey recruited 317 respondents, submitting a total of 988 questions. The individual submissions generated 46 indicative questions. 69% of the respondents were people with PsA, and 15% were friends, relatives, or carers of someone affected by PsA. In the second survey, 422 respondents, of whom 82% were people with PsA, their carers, relatives or friends, prioritised these uncertainties; 18 of these questions were shortlisted and taken forward to the final online workshop. In the last stage, people with PsA, carers, and healthcare professionals met and reached a consensus on the final top 10 research priorities (Table 1).

Conclusion

The top 10 priorities identified will guide PsA research, ensuring that PsA researchers and those who fund research know the most urgent needs of people living with PsA, their families and carers, and those treating people with PsA.

Disclosure

L. Hailey: None. S. Kinsella: None. C. Bundy: None. H. Burstow: None. D. Chandler: None. R. Cowper: None. P. Helliwell: None. L. Joannes: None. A. Kelly: None. B. Kennedy: None. H. McAteer: None. S. Mukherjee: None. J. Packham: None. E. Wise: None. H. Young: None. L. Coates: None.

Identifying and managing psoriasis-associated comorbidities: the IMPACT research programme

Background

Psoriasis is a common, lifelong inflammatory skin disease, the severity of which can range from limited disease involving a small body surface area to extensive skin involvement. It is associated with high levels of physical and psychosocial disability and a range of comorbidities, including cardiovascular disease, and it is currently incurable.

Objectives

To (1) confirm which patients with psoriasis are at highest risk of developing additional long-term conditions and identify service use and costs to patient, (2) apply knowledge about risk of comorbid disease to the development of targeted screening services to reduce risk of further disease, (3) learn how patients with psoriasis cope with their condition and about their views of service provision, (4) identify the barriers to provision of best care for patients with psoriasis and (5) develop patient self-management resources and staff training packages to improve the lives of people with psoriasis.

Design

Mixed methods including two systematic reviews, one population cohort study, one primary care screening study, one discrete choice study, four qualitative studies and three mixed-methodology studies.

Setting

Primary care, secondary care and online surveys.

Participants

People with psoriasis and health-care professionals who manage patients with psoriasis.

Results

Prevalence rates for psoriasis vary by geographical location. Incidence in the UK was estimated to be between 1.30% and 2.60%. Knowledge about the cost-effectiveness of therapies is limited because high-quality clinical comparisons of interventions have not been done or involve short-term follow-up. After adjusting for known cardiovascular risk factors, psoriasis (including severe forms) was not found to be an independent risk factor for major cardiovascular events; however, co-occurrence of inflammatory arthritis was a risk factor. Traditional risk factors were high in patients with psoriasis. Large numbers of patients with suboptimal management of known risk factors were found by screening patients in primary care. Risk information was seldom discussed with patients as part of screening consultations, meaning that a traditional screening approach may not be effective in reducing comorbidities associated with psoriasis. Gaps in training of health-care practitioners to manage psoriasis effectively were identified, including knowledge about risk factors for comorbidities and methods of facilitating behavioural change. Theory-based, high-design-quality patient materials broadened patient understanding of psoriasis and self-management. A 1-day training course based on motivational interviewing principles was effective in increasing practitioner knowledge and changing consultation styles. The primary economic analysis indicated a high level of uncertainty. Sensitivity analysis indicated some situations when the interventions may be cost-effective. The interventions need to be assessed for long-term (cost-)effectiveness.

Limitations

The duration of patient follow-up in the study of cardiovascular disease was relatively short; as a result, future studies with longer follow-up are recommended.

Conclusions

Recognition of the nature of the psoriasis and its impact, knowledge of best practice and guideline use are all limited in those most likely to provide care for the majority of patients. Patients and practitioners are likely to benefit from the provision of appropriate support and/or training that broadens understanding of psoriasis as a complex condition and incorporates support for appropriate health behaviour change. Both interventions were feasible and acceptable to patients and practitioners. Cost-effectiveness remains to be explored.

Future work

Patient support materials have been created for patients and NHS providers. A 1-day training programme with training materials for dermatologists, specialist nurses and primary care practitioners has been designed. Spin-off research projects include a national study of responses to psoriasis therapy and a global study of the prevalence and incidence of psoriasis. A new clinical service is being developed locally based on the key findings of the Identification and Management of Psoriasis Associated ComorbidiTy (IMPACT) programme.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 10, No. 3. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Influence of information provided prior to switching from Humira to biosimilar adalimumab on UK patients' satisfaction: a cross-sectional survey by patient organisations

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the perceptions and experiences of people with specific immune-mediated inflammatory diseases during the process of switching from Humira to biosimilar adalimumab.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey.

SETTING

An anonymised, self-administered, web-based survey.

PARTICIPANTS

The participants were drawn from members and non-members of either the National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society, the National Axial Spondyloarthritis Society, Crohn's and Colitis UK, or Psoriasis Association. Birdshot Uveitis Society and Olivia's Vision also signposted to the survey links.

RESULTS

A total of 899 people living with various immune mediated inflammatory diseases participated in this survey. Thirty-four per cent of respondents reported poor overall satisfaction with their biosimilar adalimumab after the switch, associated with complaints related to the switching process including lack of shared decision making, scarcity of information provided by or signposted to by the department instigating the switch as well as lack of training with the new injection device. Where training with the new device had been provided, there were significantly reduced reports of pain when injecting the new biosimilar (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.55), side effects (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.47) and difficulty in using the new injection device (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.41). Self-reported side effects were reduced by (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.38) when written information was provided by healthcare professionals and by (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.42) with provision of verbal information. Difficulty in using the new injection device was also reduced by provision of satisfactory information such as written documents (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.63) or by verbal communication with healthcare professionals (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.73). Finally, provision of satisfactory written or verbal information was associated with a reduction in any negative perception regarding symptom control with the new biosimilar by (OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.004 to 0.57) and by (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.84), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient reported experiences of the process of switching from originator to biosimilar emphasise the importance of clear communication, training and information in order to optimise perception and maximise achievable outcomes with the new treatment.

Anakinra for palmoplantar pustulosis: results from a randomized, double-blind, multicentre, two-staged, adaptive placebo-controlled trial (APRICOT)

BACKGROUND

Palmoplantar pustulosis (PPP) is a rare, debilitating, chronic inflammatory skin disease that affects the hands and feet. Clinical, immunological and genetic findings suggest a pathogenic role for interleukin (IL)-1.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether anakinra (an IL-1 receptor antagonist) delivers therapeutic benefit in PPP.

METHODS

This was a randomized (1 : 1), double-blind, two-staged, adaptive, UK multicentre, placebo-controlled trial [ISCRTN13127147 (registered 1 August 2016); EudraCT number: 2015-003600-23 (registered 1 April 2016)]. Participants had a diagnosis of PPP (> 6 months) requiring systemic therapy. Treatment was 8 weeks of anakinra or placebo via daily, self-administered subcutaneous injections. Primary outcome was the Palmoplantar Pustulosis Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PPPASI) at 8 weeks.

RESULTS

A total of 374 patients were screened; 64 were enrolled (31 in the anakinra arm and 33 in the placebo arm) with a mean (SD) baseline PPPASI of 17·8 (10·5) and a PPP investigator's global assessment of severe (50%) or moderate (50%). The baseline adjusted mean difference in PPPASI favoured anakinra but did not demonstrate superiority in the intention-to-treat analysis [-1·65, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4·77 to 1·47; P = 0·30]. Similarly, secondary objective measures, including fresh pustule count (2·94, 95% CI -26·44 to 32·33; favouring anakinra), total pustule count (-30·08, 95% CI -83·20 to 23·05; favouring placebo) and patient-reported outcomes, did not show superiority of anakinra. When modelling the impact of adherence, the PPPASI complier average causal effect for an individual who received ≥ 90% of the total treatment (48% in the anakinra group) was -3·80 (95% CI -10·76 to 3·16; P = 0·285). No serious adverse events occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

No evidence for the superiority of anakinra was found. IL-1 blockade is not a useful intervention for the treatment of PPP.

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.

Implementation of the PsoWell™ Model for the Management of People with Complex Psoriasis

The Psoriasis and Well-being (PsoWell)™ training programme, incorporating motivational interviewing, improves clinicians’ knowledge and skills to manage complex psoriasis, including behaviour change. The aims of this study were to deliver the PsoWell™ training programme to dermatology specialists, and to evaluate the acceptability and feasibility of implementing the PsoWell™ model across dermatology services. Framework analysis of 19 qualitative semi-structured interviews was performed, following delivery of nine, 1-day PsoWell™ training days involving 119 participants. Two themes were identified: “Perceptions and Priorities” and “Awareness”, sub-divided into: “Awareness Not Competence” and “Increasing Awareness”. The PsoWell™ model was found to be acceptable and feasible to implement across dermatology settings. Participants were more skilled and motivated to address psychological issues, including behaviour change, but wanted further training to ensure competency. The trainees claimed that scepticism among some colleagues regarding whole-patient management might prevent uptake. Data showing the impact on health outcomes are needed and might overcome scepticism. Remote consultation could adopt the PsoWell™ approach.

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.

Association of Clinical and Demographic Factors With the Severity of Palmoplantar Pustulosis

Importance

Although palmoplantar pustulosis (PPP) can significantly impact quality of life, the factors underlying disease severity have not been studied.

Objective

To examine the factors associated with PPP severity.

Design, Setting, and Participants

An observational, cross-sectional study of 2 cohorts was conducted. A UK data set including 203 patients was obtained through the Anakinra in Pustular Psoriasis, Response in a Controlled Trial (2016-2019) and its sister research study Pustular Psoriasis, Elucidating Underlying Mechanisms (2016-2020). A Northern European cohort including 193 patients was independently ascertained by the European Rare and Severe Psoriasis Expert Network (2014-2017). Patients had been recruited in secondary or tertiary dermatology referral centers. All patients were of European descent. The PPP diagnosis was established by dermatologists, based on clinical examination and/or published consensus criteria. The present study was conducted from October 1, 2014, to March 15, 2020.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Demographic characteristics, comorbidities, smoking status, Palmoplantar Pustulosis Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PPPASI), measuring severity from 0 (no sign of disease) to 72 (very severe disease), or Physician Global Assessment (PGA), measuring severity as 0 (clear), 1 (almost clear), 2 (mild), 3 (moderate), and 4 (severe).

Results

Among the 203 UK patients (43 men [21%], 160 women [79%]; median age at onset, 48 [interquartile range (IQR), 38-59] years), the PPPASI was inversely correlated with age of onset (r = -0.18, P = .01). Similarly, in the 159 Northern European patients who were eligible for inclusion in this analysis (25 men [16%], 134 women [84%]; median age at onset, 45 [IQR, 34-53.3] years), the median age at onset was lower in individuals with a moderate to severe PGA score (41 years [IQR, 30.5-52 years]) compared with those with a clear to mild PGA score (46.5 years [IQR, 35-55 years]) (P = .04). In the UK sample, the median PPPASI score was higher in women (9.6 [IQR, 3.0-16.2]) vs men (4.0 [IQR, 1.0-11.7]) (P = .01). Likewise, moderate to severe PPP was more prevalent among Northern European women (57 of 134 [43%]) compared with men (5 of 25 [20%]) (P = .03). In the UK cohort, the median PPPASI score was increased in current smokers (10.7 [IQR, 4.2-17.5]) compared with former smokers (7 [IQR, 2.0-14.4]) and nonsmokers (2.2 [IQR, 1-6]) (P = .003). Comparable differences were observed in the Northern European data set, as the prevalence of moderate to severe PPP was higher in former and current smokers (51 of 130 [39%]) compared with nonsmokers (6 of 24 [25%]) (P = .14).

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this study suggest that PPP severity is associated with early-onset disease, female sex, and smoking status. Thus, smoking cessation intervention might be beneficial.

Research priorities and identification of a health-service delivery model for psoriasis from the UK Psoriasis Priority Setting Partnership

BACKGROUND

Psoriasis impacts the health and psychosocial functioning of patients, conferring a significant economic burden on healthcare systems. There remain unmet needs in psoriasis care, which if addressed by research, could improve clinical outcomes.

AIM

To research priorities and identify a health service delivery model from the UK Psoriasis Priority Setting Partnership (PsPSP).

METHODS

Between July 2017 and November 2018, we invited people with lived experience of psoriasis and healthcare professionals to (i) identify unmet needs, and (ii) prioritize the order in which these should be addressed by research. We collaborated with the Psoriasis Association and used methodology established by the James Lind Alliance, which pioneers the joint setting of research priorities by patients and clinicians worldwide.

RESULTS

In our initial harvesting survey (Survey 1), 2133 questions were submitted by 805 individuals. Submissions that had not been answered by research (true uncertainties) were supplemented with evidence gaps from systematic reviews/guidelines published in the previous 5 years and refined to produce 55 indicative questions. Voting in Survey 2, by 1154 individuals, enabled a shortlist of questions, which were prioritized during the final workshop to produce a top 20 list of research questions. Submissions on health service delivery (5.8% of the total submissions), which were analysed separately, described a blueprint for psoriasis care.

CONCLUSIONS

The PsPSP will inform the translational research agenda, ensuring that future research is relevant for the needs of people with psoriasis and those who manage the disease. Submissions on health service delivery describe a model of holistic, patient-focused care providing high-quality, effective management for patients with psoriasis.

A small population, randomised, placebo-controlled trial to determine the efficacy of anakinra in the treatment of pustular psoriasis: study protocol for the APRICOT trial

Background

Palmoplantar pustulosis is a rare but painful and debilitating disease. It consistently ranks the highest of all psoriasis phenotypic variants in terms of symptoms and functional impairment. Management of plaque-type psoriasis has been revolutionised in the last 10 years with the advent of biologic therapies, but treatment options for pustular psoriasis remain profoundly limited. On the basis of mechanistic findings which suggest a key pathogenic role for interleukin (IL)-1 in pustular psoriasis, we hypothesise that anakinra (IL-1 blockade) will be an efficacious treatment for pustular psoriasis.

Methods/design

We will conduct a two-stage, adaptive, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial to test the hypothesis that anakinra, self-administered daily by subcutaneous injection over 8 weeks, will deliver therapeutic benefit in palmoplantar pustular psoriasis, a localised form of pustular psoriasis typically involving the palms and/or soles. Safety outcomes will be collected for 20 weeks. A total of 64 participants will be randomised to anakinra or placebo in a 1:1 ratio. At the end of stage 1, a decision to progress to stage 2 will be made. This decision will take place after 24 participants have been randomised and followed for 8 weeks and will be based on the ordering of the observed mean outcome values in both treatment arms. At the end of stage 1, the reliability of outcome measurements and method to collect the data will also be assessed, and the primary outcome will be confirmed for stage 2.

Discussion

We have undertaken an adaptive approach in which we will gain proof-of-concept data prior to completing a powered efficacy trial because pustular psoriasis is a rare disease, no validated outcome measures to detect change exist, and limited safety data for anakinra exist in this population. To our knowledge, this will be the first randomised controlled trial that will provide valuable evidence for the efficacy and safety of IL-1 blockade for treatment in pustular psoriasis.

Trial registration

ISRCTN13127147. Registered on 1st August 2016.

EudraCT, 2015-003600-23. Registered on 1st April 2016.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-2841-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Comparing preferences for outcomes of psoriasis treatments among patients and dermatologists in the U.K.: results from a discrete-choice experiment

BACKGROUND

Plaque psoriasis can have a significant negative effect on patients' quality of life, and treatments can result in serious toxicities. Although there have been several studies of patients' and physicians' relative preferences for the benefits and risks of psoriasis treatments, it is unclear how and whether patients' and physicians' preferences for the outcomes of psoriasis treatments differ.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify patient and dermatologist preferences for improvements in psoriasis symptoms and for increases in the risk of treatment-related serious adverse events.

METHODS

Members of the U.K. Psoriasis Association and U.K. dermatologists with experience prescribing biologics completed a web-enabled discrete-choice experiment survey in which they evaluated efficacy and safety features of biological treatments for psoriasis. Choices between hypothetical treatment options were used to estimate preference weights indicating respondents' relative trade-off preferences among treatment outcomes. These outcomes included improvements in the severity and coverage of psoriatic plaques and treatment-related risks of tuberculosis, serious infections and lymphoma. Preference estimates were used to derive the maximum level of side-effect risks that respondents would accept for improvements in psoriasis symptoms.

RESULTS

Respondents' tolerance for side-effect risks varied with side-effect severity and location of plaques, and risk tolerance for serious side-effects was greater for patients than for dermatologists.

CONCLUSIONS

Estimates of patients' risk tolerance for serious side-effects indicate that patients valued psoriasis symptom control highly and suggest that psoriasis symptoms have a significant effect on patients' quality of life. In light of research showing increased treatment satisfaction and improved treatment adherence among patients who receive therapies that are consistent with their preferences, our findings suggest that greater communication between dermatologists and patients about risk tolerance could help improve patient care.