Search

Hyponatremia is the most frequent electrolyte alteration among hospitalized patients and it has been reported in 20-40% of patients with SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) infection. Multiple causes of hyponatremia have been hypothesized in these patients. The syndrome of inappropriate antidiuresis (SIAD) has been considered one of the main reasons leading to hyponatremia in this condition. SIAD can be secondary to cytokines release, in particular IL-6. Positive pressure ventilation can be another cause of hyponatremia due to SIAD. Other possible etiologies of hyponatremia in COVID-19 patients can be related to secondary hypocortisolism, nausea, vomiting, heart and kidney damage. Similar to many other clinical conditions, there is strong evidence that hyponatremia is associated with a worse prognosis also in patients with COVID-19 infection. In particular, hyponatremia has been identified as an independent risk of ICU transfer, need of non-invasive ventilation and death. Hyponatremia in COVID-19 patients is in principle acute and symptomatic and should be treated as such, according to the published guidelines. Therefore, patients should be initially treated with i.v. hypertonic saline (3% NaCl) infusion and serum [Na + ] should be frequently monitored, in order to remain within a safe rate of correction. There is evidence showing that serum [Na + ] correction is associated with a better outcome in different pathologies, including COVID-19 infection., Competing Interests: Declarations. Ethics approval and consent to participate: Not applicable. Consent for publication: Not applicable. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

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., Competing Interests: Conflict of interests J.W. has presented talks for Abbott, AbbVie, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Merck and Roche. K.J.M. reports personal fees from LEO Pharma and Novartis, outside the submitted work. H.M. reports grants from AbbVie, Almirall, Celgene, Dermal Laboratories, Eli Lilly, Janssen, LEO Pharma, T & R Derma and UCB, outside the submitted work. D.U. reports grants from AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Celgene, Dermal Laboratories, Eli Lilly, Janssen, LEO Pharma, T & R Derma and UCB, outside the submitted work. L.M. reports personal fees from AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Novartis and UCB, outside the submitted work. Additional disclosures from L.M. include Almirall, BMS and Lilly. H.B. reports personal fees from AbbVie, Almirall, Biocad, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, LEO Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, outside the submitted work. F.C. reports consultancy fees from AnaptysBio, grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work. C.D.l.C. reports personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and UCB Pharma; grants from Janssen, Pfizer, Sandoz, Sanofi; grants and personal fees from AbbVie, Novartis, outside the submitted work. P.D.M. reports grants and personal fees from UCB; personal fees from Janssen and Novartis, outside the submitted work. P.G. reports personal fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Sandoz and UCB, outside the submitted work. D.J. reports personal fees and nonfinancial support from AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen-Cilag, Lilly, LEO Pharma, MEDAC and Novartis; and personal fees from Amgen, outside the submitted work. L.P. reports grants and personal fees from AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis and UCB; and personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Fresenius-Kabi, Mylan, Pfizer, Samsung-Bioepis, Sandoz, Sanofi, outside the submitted work. P.S. has done consultancies in the past for Sanofi 111017 and AbbVie 041217 (unpaid); has received departmental independent research grants for TREAT NL registry from pharma companies since December 2019; is involved in performing clinical trials with many pharmaceutical industries that manufacture drugs used for the treatment of diseases such as psoriasis and atopic dermatitis, for which financial compensation is paid to the department/hospital; and is chief investigator of the systemic and phototherapy atopic eczema registry (TREAT NL) for adults and children, as well as one of the main investigators of the SECURE-AD registry. T.T. reports grants and personal fees from AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Biocad, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, LEO Pharma, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Samsung-Bioepis and Sandoz, during the conduct of the study. R.B.W. reports grants from AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, LEO, Lilly, Medac, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB. R.B.W. also reports consultancy fees from AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Arena, Astellas, Avillion, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, DiCE, GSK, Janssen, LEO, Lilly, Medac, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Sun Pharma, UCB and UNION. H.W. is on the Board of the International Federation of Psoriasis Associations who have received grants from AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharma and UCB, outside the submitted work. J.B.G. reports personal fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi and UCB, outside the submitted work. C.E.M.G. reports grants and personal fees from AbbVie, Janssen, Lilly and Novartis and UCB Pharma; and grants from Almirall, Amgen, BMS, LEO and Pfizer, outside the submitted work. J.N.B. reports grants and personal fees from AbbVie, J&J, Lilly and Novartis during the conduct of the study. J.N.B. has attended advisory boards, and/or received consultancy fees, and/or spoken at sponsored symposia, and/or received grant funding from AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Meyers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Samsung, Sun Pharma and UCB. C.H.S. reports grants from AbbVie, Novartis, Pfizer and Sanofi; and through consortia with multiple academic partners (psort.org.uk, BIOMAP-IMI.eu), outside the submitted work. S.K.M. reports departmental income from AbbVie, Almirall, Eli Lilly, Janssen-Cilag, Novartis, Sanofi and UCB, outside the submitted work., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of British Association of Dermatologists.)

The need to rapidly spread information about the risk of COVID-19 in patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis on biologics may have hampered the methodological rigor in published literature. We analyzed the quality of papers dealing with the risk and outcomes of COVID-19 in patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis receiving biologic therapies. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to estimate the quality of the published studies. Moreover, to better contextualize results, specific internal and external validity items were further considered, that is, case definition, modality of COVID-19 assessment, evidence for self-selection of participants, percentage of dropout/nonparticipants, and sample size calculation. A total of 25 of 141 papers were selected. The median Newcastle-Ottawa Scale score was 47% for psoriasis and 44% for psoriatic arthritis, indicating an overall high risk of bias. A total of 37% of psoriasis and 44% of psoriatic arthritis studies included patients with suspected COVID-19 without a positive swab. No studies provided a formal sample size calculation. A significant risk of bias in all the published papers was found. Major issues to be considered in future studies are reduction of ascertainment bias, better consideration of nonresponse or participation bias, and provision of formal statistical power calculation., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., (© 2020 The Authors. British Journal of Dermatology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Association of Dermatologists.)

Introduction: Whether biologic therapies enhance the risk of coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) or affect the disease outcome in patients with chronic plaque psoriasis remains to be ascertained., Objective: We sought to investigate the incidence of hospitalization and death for COVID-19 in a large sample of patients with plaque psoriasis receiving biologic therapies compared with the general population., Methods: This is a retrospective multicenter cohort study including patients with chronic plaque psoriasis (n = 6501) being treated with biologic therapy and regularly followed up at the divisions of dermatology of several main hospitals in the Northern Italian cities of Verona, Padua, Vicenza, Modena, Bologna, Piacenza, Turin, and Milan. Incidence rates of hospitalization and death per 10,000 person-months with exact mid-p 95% CIs and standardized incidence ratios were estimated in the patients with psoriasis and compared with those in the general population in the same geographic areas., Results: The incidence rate of hospitalization for COVID-19 was 11.7 (95% CI, 7.2-18.1) per 10,000 person-months in patients with psoriasis and 14.4 (95% CI, 14.3-14.5) in the general population; the incidence rate of death from COVID-19 was 1.3 (95% CI, 0.2-4.3) and 4.7 (95% CI, 4.6-4.7) in patients with psoriasis and the general population, respectively. The standardized incidence ratio of hospitalization and death in patients with psoriasis compared with those in the general population was 0.94 (95% CI, 0.57-1.45; P = .82) and 0.42 (95% CI, 0.07-1.38; P = .19), respectively., Conclusions: Our data did not show any adverse impact of biologics on COVID-19 outcome in patients with psoriasis. We would not advise biologic discontinuation in patients on treatment since more than 6 months and not infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 to prevent hospitalization and death from COVID-19., (Copyright © 2020 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

On 11 March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) has declared the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) a global pandemic, caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2 virus). A consistent number of case reports and clinical series have been already published describing a complex spectrum of skin manifestations associated with the SARS-CoV-2 infection. We carried out a review of the English-language literature up to 20 May 2020, reporting original cases or case series of the cutaneous manifestations of SARS-CoV-2 virus infection. The following databases were consulted: PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar and ResearchGate. The search of papers was conducted by using the key term 'COVID-19' or 'SARS-CoV-2' or 'coronavirus' combined with each of the following: 'skin', 'cutaneous', 'dermatologic' or 'dermatology', 'manifestation', 'lesions', or 'rash'. The patterns of dermatological manifestations associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection could be classified into four categories: exanthema (varicella-like, papulo-vesicular and morbilliform rash), vascular (chilblain-like, purpuric/petechial and livedoid lesions), urticarial and acro-papular eruption. Lastly, other skin manifestations to be considered are the cutaneous adverse reactions to the drugs prescribed for the treatment of COVID-19. Whether SARS-CoV-2 infection can directly cause a worsening of chronic inflammatory diseases such as psoriasis or atopic dermatitis remains to be determined. Dermatology's outlook in the COVID-19 pandemic is multidimensional., (© 2020 European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.)