Search

Background: Orlistat is recommended as an adjunct to diet and exercise for weight loss in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM)., Aim: To explore associations between patient characteristics and orlistat prescribing, and to determine associations of orlistat with weight loss in T2DM and prediabetes., Design and Setting: Cohort study using anonymised health records from a UK database of general practice., Method: The UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Aurum database was searched to compile a cohort of patients aged ≥18 years, first diagnosed with T2DM or prediabetes in 2016 or 2017. Once the data had been collated, multivariable logistic regression models were used to determine associations with starting orlistat and stopping it early (<12 weeks of prescriptions) and orlistat's associations with weight loss in those who had not been prescribed second-line antidiabetic medications., Results: Out of 100 552 patients with incident T2DM or prediabetes, 655 (0.8%) patients with T2DM and 128 (0.7%) patients with prediabetes were prescribed orlistat. Younger people, females, those in areas of deprivation, current smokers, those coprescribed metformin, and those recorded as having hypertension were statistically significantly more likely to be prescribed orlistat; higher baseline glycated haemoglobin levels were associated with early stopping. In comparison with patients not on orlistat, those who continued using it for ≥12 weeks were more likely to lose ≥5% weight (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.07 to 2.67) but those who stopped orlistat early were less likely to lose ≥5% weight (AOR 0.56, 95% CI = 0.29 to 1.09)., Conclusion: Orlistat was significantly associated with weight loss in patients with T2DM and prediabetes when taken for at least 12 weeks; however, it was infrequently prescribed and often taken for <12 weeks. Orlistat may be a useful adjunct to lifestyle modifications for patients with T2DM and prediabetes, but barriers to continued use means it may not be effective for everyone in managing weight loss., (© The Authors.)

Objective: The Internet has transformed how patients access health information. We examined Google search engine data to understand which aspects of health are most often searched for in combination with inflammatory arthritis (IA)., Methods: Using Google Trends data (2011-2022) we determined the relative popularity of searches for 'patient symptoms' (pain, fatigue, stiffness, mood, work) and 'treat-to-target' (disease-modifying drugs, steroids, swelling, inflammation) health domains made with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and axial spondyloarthritis (AxSpA) in the UK/USA. Google Trends normalises searches by popularity over time and region, generating 0-100 scale relative search volumes (RSV; 100 represents the time-point with most searches). Up to five search term combinations can be compared., Results: In all IA forms, pain was the most popular patient symptom domain. UK/USA searches for pain gave mean RSVs of 58/79, 34/51, and 39/63 with RA, PsA, and AxSpA; mean UK/USA RSVs for other patient symptom domains ranged 2-7/2-8. Methotrexate was the most popular treat-to-target search term with RA/PsA in the UK (mean 28/21) and USA (mean 63/33). For AxSpA, inflammation was most popular (mean UK/USA 9/34). Searches for pain were substantially more popular than searches for methotrexate in RA and PsA, and inflammation in AxSpA. Searches increased over time., Conclusions: Pain is the most popular search term used with IA in Google searches in the UK/USA, supporting surveys/qualitative studies highlighting the importance of improving pain to patients with IA. Routine pain assessments should be embedded within treat-to-target strategies to ensure patient perspectives are considered., (© 2024 The Author(s). Musculoskeletal Care published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Few studies have used real-world data to investigate the association between biologic therapy survival and age at psoriasis onset or HLA-C*06:02 status in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis. The robustness of these studies is limited by small sample size, short follow-up and diverse safety and effectiveness measures., Objectives: To describe biologic survival and explore whether the response to biologics is modified by age at psoriasis onset or HLA-C*06:02 status in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis., Methods: Data from patients in the UK and the Republic of Ireland registered in the British Association of Dermatologists Biologics and Immunomodulators Register (BADBIR) from 2007 to 2022 on a first course of adalimumab, etanercept, secukinumab or ustekinumab with at least 6 months' follow-up and a subset of BADBIR patients with available HLA-C*06:02 information registered to Biomarkers and Stratification To Optimise outcomes in Psoriasis (BSTOP) were analysed. Patients aged ≥ 50 years at treatment initiation were classified into early-onset psoriasis (EOP) (presenting in patients ≤ 40 years of age) and late-onset psoriasis (LOP) (presenting in patients > 40 years of age). BADBIR patients with available information in BSTOP were categorized as HLA-C*06:02- or HLA-C*06:02 + . Biologic survival was defined as treatment discontinuation associated with ineffectiveness or occurrence of adverse events (AEs). Adjusted survival function and hazard ratio (aHR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated using a flexible parametric model to compare discontinuing therapy between age at psoriasis onset and HLA-C*06:02 groups. Each model included exposure (biologics), effect modifier (age at onset or HLA-C*06:02 status), interaction terms and several baseline demographic, clinical and disease severity covariates., Results: Final analytical cohorts included 4250 patients in the age at psoriasis onset group [2929 EOP (69%) vs. 1321 LOP (31%)] and 3094 patients in the HLA-C*06:02 status group [1603 HLA-C*06:02+ (52%) vs. 1491 HLA-C*06:02- (48%)]. There was no significant difference between EOP and LOP in drug survival associated with ineffectiveness or AEs for any biologics. However, compared with patients who were HLA-C*06:02-, patients who were HLA-C*06:02 + were less likely to discontinue ustekinumab for reasons associated with ineffectiveness (aHR 0.56, 95% CI 0.42-0.75)., Conclusions: HLA-C*06:02, but not age at psoriasis onset, is a predictive biomarker for biologic survival in patients with psoriasis. Findings from this large cohort provide further, important information to aid clinicians using biologic therapies to manage patients with psoriasis., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest J.N.B. has received honoraria, travel support and/or research grants (King’s College London) from AbbVie, Amgen, Almirall, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Novartis, Janssen, Lilly, UCB, Sun Pharma, Boehringer Ingelheim and GlaxoSmithKline. R.B.W. has acted as a consultant and/or speaker for and/or received research grants from AbbVie, Amgen, Almirall, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, LEO Pharma, Novartis, Janssen Cilag, Medac, UCB Pharma and Xenoport. C.H.S. reports grants from a Medical Research Council-funded stratified medicine consortium with multiple industry partners, grants from an Innovative Medicines Initiative (Horizon 2020)-funded European consortium with multiple industry partners, and others from AbbVie, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim and SOBI, outside the submitted work; she is also chair of UK guidelines on biologic therapy in psoriasis. C.E.M.G. has received honoraria and/or research grants from AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Anaptysbio, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Evelo Bioscience, Galderma, GSK, Inmagene, Kyowa Kerin, LEO Pharma, Janssen, ONO Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz and UCB Pharma., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of British Association of Dermatologists. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest N.J.R. has received travel support, research grants (Newcastle University) and income to Newcastle University for advisory boards/lectures from AbbVie, Almirall, Celgene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen Cilag, Novartis and UCB Pharma. R.B.W. has acted as a consultant and/or speaker for and/or received research grants from AbbVie, Amgen, Almirall, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, LEO Pharma, Novartis, Janssen Cilag, Medac, UCB Pharma and Xenoport. C.H.S. reports grants from a Medical Research Council-funded stratified medicine consortium with multiple industry partners, grants from an Innovative Medicines Initiative (Horizon 2020)-funded European consortium with multiple industry partners, and others from AbbVie, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim and SOBI, outside the submitted work. She is also chair of the UK guidelines on biologic therapy in psoriasis group. C.E.M.G. has received honoraria and/or research grants from AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Anaptysbio, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Galderma, LEO Pharma, Eli Lilly, GSK-Stiefel, Janssen Cilag, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz and UCB Pharma.

Objective: Musculoskeletal symptoms are commonly reported following acute COVID-19. It is unclear whether those with musculoskeletal symptoms subsequently develop inflammatory rheumatic musculoskeletal disease (iRMD). This review seeks to identify evidence for an association between acute COVID-19 and subsequent iRMD diagnosis., Methods: A rapid review of the literature using a systematic search of Medline, EMBASE and two COVID-19 databases was undertaken until August 2022. Case studies, case series, cross-sectional, case-control, and cohort studies reporting patients with an incident iRMD following COVID-19 were included. Title and abstract screening were conducted by one reviewer and full text screening by two reviewers. Data extraction and quality appraisal were by one reviewer, with a second verifying. Study-type specific critical appraisal tools were used., Results: Results were narratively synthesized. A total of 80 studies were included (69 case reports, 10 case series and 1 cross-sectional study). Commonly reported iRMDs were "reactive arthropathies" (n = 47), "inflammatory arthropathies unspecified" (n = 18), rheumatoid arthritis (n = 12) and systemic lupus erythematosus (n = 11). The cross-sectional study reported 37% of those with COVID-19 developed "post COVID arthritis." Time from diagnosis of COVID-19 to iRMD presentation ranged from 0 to 120 days. Several mechanisms were proposed to explain the association between COVID-19 and iRMD development: autoimmune processes, aberrant inflammatory responses, colonization of joint spaces, direct damage from the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 virus and genetic predisposition., Conclusion: The level of evidence of the studies included in this review was low and the quality generally poor. Prospective observational studies are required to confirm associations and likely impact of post COVID-19 iRMDs at a population level., (© 2023 The Authors. Arthritis Care & Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American College of Rheumatology.)

Objective: Musculoskeletal pain is a common risk factor for co-morbid conditions and might increase the risk of poor outcomes. The objective was to determine whether patients with pre-existing musculoskeletal pain have an increased risk for mortality following a new diagnosis of a co-morbid condition., Methods: Patients aged ≥45 years with a new diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome (ACS), stroke, cancer, dementia or pneumonia recorded in a UK electronic primary care database linked to hospital and mortality records were examined. The association of mortality with musculoskeletal pain (inflammatory conditions, OA and regional pain) was determined., Results: The sample size varied from 128 649 (stroke) to 406 289 (cancer) by cohort, with 22-31% having pre-existing musculoskeletal conditions. In the ACS cohort, there was a higher rate of mortality for all musculoskeletal types. There were also higher unadjusted mortality rates in patients with inflammatory arthritis compared with those without musculoskeletal pain in the stroke, cancer and dementia cohorts and for patients with OA in the stroke and cancer cohorts. After adjustment for the number of prescribed medications and age, the increased risk of mortality remained only for patients with inflammatory arthritis in the ACS cohort (adjusted hazard ratio = 1.07; 95% CI 1.03, 1.10)., Conclusion: Older adults with inflammatory arthritis and OA have increased risk of mortality when they develop a new condition, which seems to be related to the prescription of multiple medicines. Pre-existing musculoskeletal pain is an indicator of a complex patient who is at risk of poorer outcomes at the onset of new illnesses., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology.)

Objective: To investigate the impact of pre-existing painful musculoskeletal conditions on healthcare utilization and costs among patients with five common conditions: acute coronary syndrome (ACS), stroke, cancer, dementia and pneumonia., Methods: Using primary and secondary care services data from electronic health records, a negative binomial regression model was used to compare resource use while a two-part model was used to compare costs across the five conditions, between those with and without a pre-existing musculoskeletal pain., Results: The study included 760,792 patients (144,870 with ACS, 121,208 with stroke, 231,702 with cancer, 134,638 with dementia, and 128,374 with pneumonia) in the complete case analysis. Pre-existing musculoskeletal pain had an incident rate ratio of above one for most healthcare resources over the follow-up period and an adjusted additional mean cumulative total healthcare costs per patient of £674.59 (95%CI 570.30 to 778.87) for ACS; £613.34 (95%CI 496.87 to 729.82) for stroke; £459.26 (95%CI 376.60 to 541.91) for cancer; and £766.23 (95%CI 655.06 to 877.39) for dementia over five years after diagnosis; and £200.85 (95%CI 104.16 to 297.55) for pneumonia over one year after diagnosis compared to those without musculoskeletal pain., Conclusion: This study highlights that individuals with painful musculoskeletal conditions have higher healthcare utiliszation and costs than those without painful musculoskeletal conditions. Given the high occurrence of musculoskeletal pain in patients with other conditions, effective management strategies are needed to reduce the burden on healthcare resources.

Background: Rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) are common and generally managed in primary care through supported self-care, physiotherapy, analgesia, and specialist referral where indicated. The COVID-19 pandemic led to abrupt changes in primary care delivery, including moves to remote consulting, pauses on group-based self-care, and restricted referrals., Aim: To describe how patterns of UK primary healthcare consultations and analgesic prescribing relating to RMDs changed during the COVID-19 pandemic., Design and Setting: Observational study using routinely collected national primary care electronic health record data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink between 1 April 2017 and 1 October 2021., Method: RMD and analgesic SNOMED-CT codes were derived through consensus and published work. Prevalent and incident RMD-related consultations were determined, and RMD consultations matched to prevalent and incident analgesia prescriptions. Joinpoint regression was used to describe trends over time., Results: Prevalent and incident RMD consultations steadily increased until March 2020 when a substantial drop occurred as pandemic- related restrictions were introduced; levels had not recovered to pre-pandemic highs by October 2021. While incident and prevalent analgesic prescribing also reduced around March 2020, the proportion of patients with an RMD consultation prescribed any analgesic increased from 27.72% in February 2020 to 38.15% in April 2020, with increases across all analgesic groups. A higher proportion of strong opioid prescriptions was seen in the most deprived areas., Conclusion: Pandemic-associated restrictions led to fewer primary care consultations and relative increases in analgesic prescribing, including strong opioids, for RMDs in the UK. Policymakers must consider the impact of these changes in future healthcare resource planning., (© The Authors.)

Objective: Musculoskeletal painful conditions are a risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD), but less is known about whether musculoskeletal pain also worsens prognosis from CVD. The objective was to determine whether patients with musculoskeletal pain have poorer prognosis following acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or stroke., Methods: The study utilised UK electronic primary care records (CPRD Aurum) with linkage to hospital and mortality records. Patients aged ≥45 years admitted to hospital with incident ACS/stroke were categorised by healthcare use for musculoskeletal pain (inflammatory conditions, osteoarthritis [OA], and regional pain) based on primary care consultations in the prior 24 months. Outcomes included mortality, length of stay, readmission and management of index condition (ACS/stroke)., Results: There were 171,670 patients with incident ACS and 138,512 with stroke; 30% consulted for musculoskeletal pain prior to ACS/stroke and these patients had more comorbidity than those without musculoskeletal pain. Rates of mortality and readmission, and length of stay were higher in those with musculoskeletal pain, particularly OA and inflammatory conditions, in ACS. Readmission was also higher for patients with musculoskeletal pain in stroke. However, increased risks associated with musculoskeletal pain did not remain after adjustment for age and polypharmacy. Inflammatory conditions were associated with increased likelihood of prescriptions for dual anti-platelets (ACS only) and anti-coagulants., Conclusions: Patients with musculoskeletal pain have higher rates of poor outcome from ACS which relates to being older but also increased polypharmacy. The high rates of comorbidity including polypharmacy highlight the complexity of patients with musculoskeletal pain who have new onset ACS/stroke., (© 2023 The Authors. Musculoskeletal Care published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Most information on the comparative effectiveness and survival of methotrexate (MTX) and adalimumab (ADA) in the treatment of psoriasis is from randomized control trials and may not translate to the everyday clinical setting., Objectives: To determine the real-world effectiveness and survival of MTX and ADA in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis registered in the British Association of Dermatologists Biologics and Immunomodulators Register (BADBIR)., Methods: Eligible patients were registered in BADBIR, ≥ 16 years of age and receiving a first course of MTX or ADA between September 2007 and December 2021, with ≥ 6 months of follow-up. Effectiveness was defined as achieving an absolute Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) ≤ 2 reported ≥ 13 weeks after the treatment start date until the stop date. The average treatment effect (ATE) was estimated using inverse probability of treatment weighting with propensity score, including baseline covariates. ATE results were presented as risk ratios (RR). A flexible parametric model was used to estimate adjusted standardized average survival, defined as treatment discontinuation associated with ineffectiveness or the occurrence of adverse events (AEs) at 6, 12 and 24 months. Restricted mean survival time (RMST) at 2 years of treatment exposure was calculated., Results: In total, 6575 patients (median age 44 years; 44% female) were analysed; 2659 (40.4%) were prescribed MTX and 3916 (59.5%) ADA. The proportion of patients achieving PASI ≤ 2 was higher in the ADA cohort (77.4%) than in the MTX cohort (37.4%). ADA was more effective than MTX [RR 2.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.98-2.45]. Overall survival associated with ineffectiveness or AEs was lower in the MTX cohort than in the ADA cohort at 6 months [survival estimate 69.7 (95% CI 67.9-71.5) vs. 90.6 (95% CI 89.8-91.4)], 1 year [survival estimate 52.5 (95% CI 50.4-54.8) vs. 80.6 (95% CI 79.5-81.8)] and 2 years [survival estimate 34.8 (95% CI 32.5-37.2) vs. 68.6 (95% CI 67.2-70.0)]. The difference in RMST (years) overall, or when stratified by ineffectiveness and AEs, was 0.53 (95% CI 0.49-0.58), 0.37 (95% CI 0.33-0.42) and 0.29 (95% CI 0.25-0.33), respectively., Conclusions: Patients on ADA were twice as likely to be clear or nearly clear of psoriasis and were less likely to discontinue their medication than patients on MTX. Findings from this real-world cohort provide important information to aid clinicians managing patients with psoriasis., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest R.B.W. has acted as a consultant and/or speaker for and/or received research grants from AbbVie, Amgen, Almirall, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, LEO Pharma, Novartis, Janssen Cilag, Medac, UCB Pharma and Xenoport. C.H.S. reports grants from a Medical Research Council-funded stratified medicine consortium with multiple industry partners, grants from an Innovative Medicines Initiative (Horizon 2020)-funded European consortium with multiple industry partners, and others from AbbVie, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim and SOBI, outside the submitted work; she is also chair of UK guidelines on biological therapy in psoriasis. C.E.M.G. has received honoraria and/or research grants from AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Anaptysbio, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Galderma, LEO Pharma, Eli Lilly, GSK–Stiefel, Janssen Cilag, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz and UCB Pharma. O.A.A., K.J.M., Z.Z.N.Y. and M.L. declare no conflicts of interest., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of British Association of Dermatologists.)

Objective: The aim was to describe the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic upon referral patterns and incident diagnosis of inflammatory rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (iRMDs)., Methods: UK primary care data were used to describe referral patterns for patients with musculoskeletal conditions. Trends in referrals to musculoskeletal services and incident diagnoses of iRMDs (specifically, RA and JIA) were described using Joinpoint Regression and comparisons made between key pandemic time periods., Results: The incidence of RA and JIA reduced by -13.3 and -17.4% per month, respectively, between January 2020 and April 2020, then increased by 1.9 and 3.7% per month, respectively, between April 2020 and October 2021. The incidence of all diagnosed iRMDs was stable until October 2021. Referrals decreased between February 2020 and May 2020 by -16.8% per month from 4.8 to 2.4% in patients presenting with a musculoskeletal condition. After May 2020, referrals increased significantly (16.8% per month) to 4.5% in July 2020. The time from first musculoskeletal consultation to RA diagnosis and from referral to RA diagnosis increased in the early pandemic period [rate ratio (RR) 1.11, 95% CI 1.07, 1.15 and RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.17, 1.30, respectively] and remained consistently higher in the late pandemic period (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.11, 1.16 and RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.23, 1.32, respectively), compared with the pre-COVID-19 pandemic period., Conclusion: Patients with underlying RA and JIA that developed during the pandemic might be yet to present or might be in the referral and/or diagnostic process. Clinicians should remain alert to this possibility, and commissioners should be aware of these findings, enabling the appropriate planning and commissioning of services., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology.)

Background: Real-world data evaluating effectiveness and persistence of systemic therapies for patients with psoriasis are limited. Objectives To determine the effectiveness and persistence of acitretin, ciclosporin, fumaric acid esters (FAEs) and methotrexate in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis., Methods: Data from the British Association of Dermatologists Biologics and Immunomodulators Register (BADBIR), a prospective, multicentre pharmacovigilance register of patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis receiving biologic and/or conventional systemic therapies, were analysed. Eligible patients were ≥ 16 years of age receiving a first course of acitretin, ciclosporin, FAEs or methotrexate between 2007 and 2021 with ≥ 6 months' follow-up. Effectiveness was defined as achieving absolute Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (aPASI) ≤ 2 reported ≥ 4 weeks after treatment start date until date of cessation. To identify baseline clinical variables associated with treatment effectiveness, we used multivariable logistic regression models estimating the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of achieving aPASI ≤ 2. To describe drug persistence associated with ineffectiveness, occurrence of adverse events or other reasons for discontinuation, survival estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained using a flexible parametric model. Results were obtained using multiple imputed data., Results: In total, 5430 patients were included in the analysis. Overall, 1023 (19%) patients were receiving acitretin, 1401 (26%) patients were on ciclosporin, 347 (6%) patients were on FAEs, and 2659 (49%) patients were receiving methotrexate at registration. The proportion of patients who achieved aPASI ≤ 2 was lower for those treated with acitretin [n = 118 (21%)] compared with those receiving ciclosporin [n = 233 (34%)], FAEs [n = 43 (29%)] and methotrexate [n = 372 (32%)]. Factors associated with ineffectiveness included prior experience to previous nonbiologic systemic therapies (acitretin) (aOR 0.64, 95% CI 0.42-0.96), male sex (methotrexate) (aOR 0.58, 95% CI 0.46-0.74), comorbidities (aOR 0.70, 95% CI 0.51-0.97) and alcohol consumption (≤ 14 units per week) (ciclosporin) (aOR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50-0.98). Persistence associated with all reasons for discontinuation showed better survival for methotrexate compared with acitretin, ciclosporin and FAEs cohorts at 12 months [survival estimate 46.1 (95% CI 44.0-48.3), 31.9 (95% CI 29.4-34.7), 30.0 (95% CI 27.5-32.4) and 35.0 (95% CI 29.9-40.9), respectively]., Conclusions: The real-world effectiveness and persistence of acitretin, ciclosporin, FAEs and methotrexate were generally low. Previous nonbiologic systemic therapies, male sex, comorbidities and alcohol consumption were risk factors associated with treatment ineffectiveness., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest P.J.H. has received educational grants, consultancy fees and research funding from Janssen, AbbVie, Eli Lilly and LEO Pharma. P.M.L. has received honoraria and/or grants as an investigator, speaker, and/or acted as an advisory board member for AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Celgene, Janssen Cilag, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Sanofi, LEO, UCB Pharma and Novartis. N.J.R. has received travel support, research grants (Newcastle University) and income to Newcastle University for advisory boards/lectures from AbbVie, Almirall, Celgene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen Cilag, Novartis and UCB Pharma. A.B. has received travel bursaries and performed ad hoc consultancy and lecturing roles with AbbVie, Almirall, Galderma, Eli Lilly, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Novartis, UCB Pharma, Pfizer, BMS, MSD and Sanofi. R.B.W. has acted as a consultant and/or speaker for and/or received research grants from AbbVie, Amgen, Almirall, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, LEO Pharma, Novartis, Janssen Cilag, Medac, UCB Pharma and Xenoport. C.H.S. reports grants from a Medical Research Council-funded stratified medicine consortium with multiple industry partners, grants from an Innovative Medicines Initiative (Horizon 2020)-funded European consortium with multiple industry partners, and other grants from AbbVie, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim and Sobi, outside the submitted work; she is also chair of UK guidelines on biologic therapy in psoriasis. C.E.M.G. has received honoraria and/or research grants from AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, AnaptysBo, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Galderma, LEO Pharma, Eli Lilly, GSK-Stiefel, Janssen Cilag, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Sandoz and UCB Pharma., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of British Association of Dermatologists.)

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.)

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.)

Importance: Treatments for psoriasis may be less effective in everyday practice than in clinical trials. Emulating a target trial using data from the British Association of Dermatologists Biologics and Immunomodulators Register (BADBIR) can provide treatment effect estimates that are robust and can inform both clinicians and regulatory bodies., Objectives: To assess the comparative effectiveness of ustekinumab and secukinumab in patients with psoriasis, and to test whether the relative effectiveness estimate of the CLEAR trial, a randomized clinical trial that compared secukinumab with ustekinumab for psoriasis, can be replicated., Design, Setting, and Participants: This comparative effectiveness research study used a target trial emulation approach and was performed between November 2007 and August 2019. Data were obtained from BADBIR, a multicenter longitudinal pharmacovigilance register of patients with moderate to severe psoriasis in the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland. Participants had chronic plaque psoriasis, were 18 years or older, and had at least 1 record of a Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) of 12 or higher before their initiation to secukinumab or ustekinumab. Propensity score (PS) 1:1 matched analysis and inverse probability treatment weighted analysis were performed., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were the risk ratio (RR) and the risk difference (RD) for achieving PASI of 2 or lower after 12 months of therapy for secukinumab compared with ustekinumab. Methods to account for missing outcome data were complete case analysis, nonresponder imputation, last observation carried forward, inverse probability of censoring weighting, and multiple imputation. Regulatory and estimate agreement metrics were used to benchmark the effect estimates in this study against those in the CLEAR trial., Results: A total of 1231 patients were included in the analysis, with 917 receiving ustekinumab and 314 receiving secukinumab. Secukinumab was superior to ustekinumab in all analyses, except under the nonresponder imputation method, in the proportion of participants achieving a PASI of 2 or lower (PS-weighted complete case analysis: RR, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.06-1.55]; RD, 11.9% [1.6-22.1]). All analyses, except for nonresponder imputation, reached regulatory agreement in both PS-matching and PS-weighted analyses., Conclusions and Relevance: This comparative effectiveness study found that secukinumab resulted in more patients achieving a PASI of 2 or lower after 12 months of therapy compared with ustekinumab in patients with psoriasis. Target trial emulation in this study resulted in regulatory and estimate agreement with the CLEAR randomized clinical trial; further such studies may help fill the evidence gap when comparing other systemic therapies for psoriasis.

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.)

Background: Real-world biologic drug survival is an important proxy measure for effectiveness. Predictors of drug survival may help patients with psoriasis choose between biologic therapies., Objectives: (i) To assess the relative drug survival of adalimumab, ustekinumab and secukinumab in patients with psoriasis. (ii) To investigate predictors of biologic drug survival., Methods: A prospective cohort study was performed in the British Association of Dermatologists Biologics and Immunomodulators Register (BADBIR) between November 2007 and August 2019. We performed survival analysis and fitted a flexible parametric survival model for biologic discontinuation due to ineffectiveness., Results: In total 9652 patients were included: 5543 starting on adalimumab (57·4%), 991 on secukinumab (10·3%) and 3118 on ustekinumab (32·3%). The overall drug survivals of adalimumab, secukinumab and ustekinumab in year 1 were 0·78 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0·77-0·79], 0·88 (95% CI 0·86-0·91) and 0·88 (95% CI 0·87-0·89), respectively. The adjusted hazard ratios (adjHRs) for discontinuation of adalimumab and secukinumab compared with ustekinumab were 2·11 (95% CI 1·76-2·54) and 0·67 (95% CI 0·40-1·11), respectively. The presence of psoriatic arthritis predicted for survival in the adalimumab and secukinumab cohorts (adjHR 0·67, 95% CI 0·51-0·88 and 0·70, 95% CI 0·40-1·24, respectively), but for discontinuation in the ustekinumab cohort (adjHR 1·42, 95% CI 1·12-1·81). Previous exposure to biologic therapies predicted for discontinuation in the ustekinumab and secukinumab cohorts (adjHR 1·54, 95% CI 1·26-1·89 and 1·49, 95% CI 0·91-2·45, respectively) and for survival in the adalimumab cohort (adjHR 0·71, 95% CI 0·55-0·92)., Conclusions: Secukinumab and ustekinumab have similar sustained drug survival, while adalimumab has a lower drug survival in patients with psoriasis. Psoriatic arthritis and previous biologic experience were predictors with differential effects between the biologic therapies. What is already known about this topic? There is conflicting evidence over the real-world drug survival of secukinumab in patients with psoriasis. Data from registries to date suggest that secukinumab has a lower drug survival than that reported from clinical trials. What does this study add? This study found that secukinumab and ustekinumab had similar sustained drug survival in the real world, while the drug survival of adalimumab was lower, suggesting that the real-world drug survival of secukinumab is higher than previously reported. We found that psoriatic arthritis and previous biologic experience had differential effects on drug discontinuation in the three biologic cohorts. These predictors may help patients and clinicians choose the most appropriate biologic therapy., (© 2020 The Authors. British Journal of Dermatology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Association of Dermatologists.)

Importance: Biologic therapies are widely prescribed immunomodulatory agents. There are concerns that compared with treatment with conventional systemic therapy, long-term biologic treatment for common immune-mediated inflammatory diseases, namely inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and psoriasis, may be associated with increased risk of melanoma., Objective: To examine whether biologic treatment of IBD, RA, or psoriasis is associated with an increased risk of melanoma compared with conventional systemic therapy., Data Sources: Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched for articles published from January 1, 1995, to February 7, 2019, for eligible studies., Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials, cohort studies, and nested case-control studies quantifying the risk of melanoma in biologic-treated patients with IBD, RA, and psoriasis compared with patients treated with conventional systemic therapy were included., Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers independently extracted key study characteristics and outcomes. Study-specific risk estimates were pooled, and random- and fixed-effects model meta-analyses were conducted. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. The Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) reporting guidelines were followed., Main Outcomes and Measures: The pooled relative risk (pRR) of melanoma in biologic-treated patients with IBD, RA, and psoriasis compared with biologic-naive patients treated with conventional systemic therapy., Results: Seven cohort studies comprising 34 029 biologic-treated patients and 135 370 biologic-naive patients treated with conventional systemic therapy were eligible for inclusion. Biologic treatment was positively associated with melanoma in patients with IBD (pRR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.60-2.40), RA (pRR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.83-1.74), or psoriasis (hazard ratio, 1.57; 95% CI, 0.61-4.09) compared with those who received conventional systemic therapy, but the differences were not statistically significant. Adjustment for other risk factors was absent from most studies., Conclusions and Relevance: The findings suggest that clinically important increases in melanoma risk in patients treated with biologic therapy for common inflammatory diseases cannot be ruled out based on current evidence. However, further studies with large patient numbers that adjust for key risk factors are needed to resolve the issue of long-term safety of biologic therapy.

Background: The cardiovascular safety profile of biologic therapies used for psoriasis is unclear., Objectives: To compare the risk of major cardiovascular events (CVEs; acute coronary syndrome, unstable angina, myocardial infarction and stroke) in patients with chronic plaque psoriasis treated with adalimumab, etanercept or ustekinumab in a large prospective cohort., Methods: Prospective cohort study examining the comparative risk of major CVEs was conducted using the British Association of Dermatologists Biologics and Immunomodulators Register. The main analysis compared adults with chronic plaque psoriasis receiving ustekinumab with tumour necrosis-α inhibitors (TNFi: etanercept and adalimumab), whilst the secondary analyses compared ustekinumab, etanercept or methotrexate against adalimumab. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using overlap weights by propensity score to balance baseline covariates among comparison groups., Results: We included 5468 biologic-naïve patients subsequently exposed (951 ustekinumab; 1313 etanercept; and 3204 adalimumab) in the main analysis. The secondary analyses also included 2189 patients receiving methotrexate. The median (p25-p75) follow-up times for patients using ustekinumab, TNFi, adalimumab, etanercept and methotrexate were as follows: 2.01 (1.16-3.21), 1.93 (1.05-3.34), 1.94 (1.09-3.32), 1.92 (0.93-3.45) and 1.43 (0.84-2.53) years, respectively. Ustekinumab, TNFi, adalimumab, etanercept and methotrexate groups had 7, 29, 23, 6 and 9 patients experiencing major CVEs, respectively. No differences in the risk of major CVEs were observed between biologic therapies [adjusted HR for ustekinumab vs. TNFi: 0.96 (95% CI 0.41-2.22); ustekinumab vs. adalimumab: 0.81 (0.30-2.17); etanercept vs. adalimumab: 0.81 (0.28-2.30)] and methotrexate against adalimumab [1.05 (0.34-3.28)]., Conclusions: In this large prospective cohort study, we found no significant differences in the risk of major CVEs between three different biologic therapies and methotrexate. Additional studies, with longer term follow-up, are needed to investigate the potential effects of biologic therapies on incidence of major CVEs., (© 2019 The Authors. Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.)

Background: The persistence and effectiveness of systemic therapies for moderate-to-severe psoriasis in current clinical practice are poorly characterized., Objectives: To systematically review observational studies investigating the persistence and effectiveness of acitretin, ciclosporin, fumaric acid esters (FAE) and methotrexate, involving at least 100 adult patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, exposed to therapy for ≥ 3 months., Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library and PubMed were searched from 1 January 2007 to 1 November 2017 for observational studies reporting on persistence (therapy duration or the proportion of patients discontinuing therapy during follow-up) or effectiveness [improvements in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) or Physician's Global Assessment (PGA)]. This review was registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42018099771., Results: Of 411 identified studies, eight involving 4624 patients with psoriasis were included. Variations in the definitions and analyses of persistence and effectiveness outcomes prevented a meta-analysis from being conducted. One prospective multicentre study reported drug survival probabilities of 23% (ciclosporin), 42% (acitretin) and 50% (methotrexate) at 1 year. Effectiveness outcomes were not reported for either acitretin or ciclosporin. The persistence and effectiveness of FAE and methotrexate were better characterized, but mean discontinuation times ranged from 28 to 50 months for FAE and 7·7 to 22·3 months for methotrexate. At 12 months of follow-up, three studies reported that 76% (FAE), 53% (methotrexate) and 59% (methotrexate) of patients achieved ≥ 75% reduction in PASI, and one reported that 76% of FAE-exposed patients achieved a markedly improved or clear PGA., Conclusions: The comparative persistence and effectiveness of acitretin, ciclosporin, FAE and methotrexate in real-world clinical practice in the past decade cannot be well described due to the inconsistency of the methods used., (© 2019 The Authors. British Journal of Dermatology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Association of Dermatologists.)

Background: Biologic therapies can be highly effective for the treatment of severe psoriasis, but response for individual patients can vary according to drug. Predictive biomarkers to guide treatment selection could improve patient outcomes and treatment cost-effectiveness., Objective: We sought to test whether HLA-C*06:02, the primary genetic susceptibility allele for psoriasis, predisposes patients to respond differently to the 2 most commonly prescribed biologics for psoriasis: adalimumab (anti-TNF-α) and ustekinumab (anti-IL-12/23)., Methods: This study uses a national psoriasis registry that includes longitudinal treatment and response observations and detailed clinical data. HLA alleles were imputed from genome-wide genotype data for 1326 patients for whom 90% reduction in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score (PASI90) response status was observed after 3, 6, or 12 months of treatment. We developed regression models of PASI90 response, examining the interaction between HLA-C*06:02 and drug type (adalimumab or ustekinumab) while accounting for potentially confounding clinical variables., Results: HLA-C*06:02-negative patients were significantly more likely to respond to adalimumab than ustekinumab at all time points (most strongly at 6 months: odds ratio [OR], 2.95; P = 5.85 × 10 -7 ), and the difference was greater in HLA-C*06:02-negative patients with psoriatic arthritis (OR, 5.98; P = 6.89 × 10 -5 ). Biologic-naive patients who were HLA-C*06:02 positive and psoriatic arthritis negative demonstrated significantly poorer response to adalimumab at 12 months (OR, 0.31; P = 3.42 × 10 -4 ). Results from HLA-wide analyses were consistent with HLA-C*06:02 itself being the primary effect allele. We found no evidence for genetic interaction between HLA-C*06:02 and ERAP1., Conclusion: This large observational study suggests that reference to HLA-C*06:02 status could offer substantial clinical benefit when selecting treatments for severe psoriasis., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Biologic therapies have revolutionized the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis. However, for reasons largely unknown, many patients do not respond or lose response to these drugs., Objectives: To evaluate demographic, social and clinical factors that could be used to predict effectiveness and stratify response to biologic therapies in psoriasis., Methods: Using a multicentre, observational, prospective pharmacovigilance study (BADBIR), we identified biologic-naive patients starting biologics with outcome data at 6 (n = 3079) and 12 (n = 3110) months. Associations between 31 putative predictors and outcomes were investigated in univariate and multivariable regression analyses. Potential stratifiers of treatment response were investigated with statistical interactions., Results: Eight factors associated with reduced odds of achieving ≥ 90% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 90) at 6 months were identified (described as odds ratio and 95% confidence interval): demographic (female sex, 0·78, 0·66-0·93); social (unemployment, 0·67, 0·45-0·99); unemployment due to ill health (0·62, 0·48-0·82); ex- and current smoking (0·81, 0·66-0·99 and 0·79, 0·63-0·99, respectively); clinical factors (high weight, 0·99, 0·99-0·99); psoriasis of the palms and/or soles (0·75, 0·61-0·91); and presence of small plaques only compared with small and large plaques (0·78, 0·62-0·96). White ethnicity (1·48, 1·12-1·97) and higher baseline PASI (1·04, 1·03-1·04) were associated with increased odds of achieving PASI 90. The findings were largely consistent at 12 months. There was little evidence for predictors of differential treatment response., Conclusions: Psoriasis phenotype and potentially modifiable factors are associated with poor outcomes with biologics, underscoring the need for lifestyle management. Effect sizes suggest that these factors alone cannot inform treatment selection., (© 2018 The Authors. British Journal of Dermatology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Association of Dermatologists.)

Background: Patients with psoriasis are often concerned about the risk of serious infection associated with systemic psoriasis treatments., Objectives: To develop and externally validate a prediction model for serious infection in patients with psoriasis within 1 year of starting systemic therapies., Methods: The risk prediction model was developed using the British Association of Dermatologists Biologic Interventions Register (BADBIR), and the German Psoriasis Registry PsoBest was used as the validation dataset. Model discrimination and calibration were assessed internally and externally using the C-statistic, the calibration slope and the calibration in the large., Results: Overall 175 (1·7%) out of 10 033 participants from BADBIR and 41 (1·7%) out of 2423 participants from PsoBest developed a serious infection within 1 year of therapy initiation. Selected predictors in a multiple logistic regression model included nine baseline covariates, and starting infliximab was the strongest predictor. Evaluation of model performance showed a bootstrap optimism-corrected C-statistic of 0·64 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0·60-0·69], calibration in the large of 0·02 (95% CI -0·14 to 0·17) and a calibration slope of 0·88 (95% CI 0·70-1·07), while external validation performance was poor, with C-statistic 0·52 (95% CI 0·42-0·62), calibration in the large 0·06 (95% CI -0·25 to 0·37) and calibration slope 0·36 (95% CI -0·24 to 0·97)., Conclusions: We present the first results of the development of a multivariable prediction model. This model may help patients and dermatologists in the U.K. and the Republic of Ireland to identify modifiable risk factors and inform therapy choice in a shared decision-making process., (© 2018 The Authors. British Journal of Dermatology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Association of Dermatologists.)

Background: Cancer risk following long-term exposure to systemic immunomodulatory therapies in patients with psoriasis is possible., Objectives: To assess a dose-response relationship between cumulative length of exposure to biological therapy and risk of cancer., Methods: Four national studies (a healthcare database from Israel, and prospective cohorts form Italy, Spain and the U.K. and Republic of Ireland) collaborating through Psonet (European Registry of Psoriasis) participated in these nested case-control studies, including nearly 60 000 person-years of observation. 'Cases' were patients who developed an incident cancer. Patients with previous cancers and benign or in situ tumours were excluded. Four cancer-free controls were matched to each case on year of birth, sex, geographic area and registration year. Follow-up for controls was censored at the date of cancer diagnosis for the matched case. Conditional logistic regression was performed by each registry. Results were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis., Results: A total of 728 cases and 2671 controls were identified. After matching, differences between cases and controls were present for the Charlson Comorbidity Index in all three registries, and in the prevalence of previous exposure to psoralen-ultraviolet A and smoking (the British Association of Dermatologists Biologic Interventions Register only). The risk of first cancers was not significantly associated with cumulative exposure to biologics (adjusted odds ratio per year of exposure 1·02, 95% confidence interval 0·92-1·13). Results were similar if squamous and basal cell carcinomas were included in the outcome., Conclusions: Cumulative length of exposure to biological therapies in patients with psoriasis in real-world clinical practice does not appear to be linked to a higher risk of cancer after several years of use., (© 2018 British Association of Dermatologists.)