Background The multi-morbid burden and use of systemic immunosuppressants in people with psoriasis may confer greater risk of adverse COVID-19 outcomes but data are limited. Objective Characterize the course of COVID-19 in psoriasis and identify factors associated with hospitalization. Methods Clinicians reported psoriasis patients with confirmed/suspected COVID-19 via an international registry, PsoProtect. Multiple logistic regression assessed the association between clinical/demographic characteristics and hospitalization. A separate patient-facing registry characterized risk-mitigating behaviours. Results Of 374 clinician-reported patients from 25 countries, 71% were receiving a biologic, 18% a non-biologic and 10% no systemic treatment for psoriasis. 348 (93%) fully recovered from COVID-19, 77 (21%) were hospitalized and nine (2%) died. Increased hospitalization risk was associated with older age (multivariable-adjusted OR 1.59 per 10 years, 95% CI 1.19-2.13), male sex (OR 2.51, 95% CI 1.23-5.12), non-white 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 non-biologic systemic therapy than biologics (OR 2.84, 95% CI 1.31-6.18). No significant differences were found between biologic classes. Independent patient-reported data (n=1,626 across 48 countries) suggested lower levels of social isolation in individuals receiving non-biologic systemic therapy compared to biologics (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50-0.94). Conclusion In this international moderate-severe psoriasis case series, biologics use was associated with lower risk of COVID-19-related hospitalization than non-biologic systemic therapies, however further investigation is warranted due to potential selection bias and unmeasured confounding. Established risk factors (being older, male, non-white ethnicity, comorbidities) were associated with higher hospitalization rates. Clinical Implications We identify risk factors for COVID-19-related hospitalization in psoriasis patients, including older age, male sex, non-white ethnicity and comorbidities. Use of biologics was associated with lower hospitalization risk than non-biologic systemic therapies.

Purchasing and reimbursement decisions in healthcare systems with fi nite resources are increasingly infl uenced by formal health economic analysis. It is therefore sensible for a company considering the development of a new medical technology to assess its potential cost effectiveness as early as possible in the development cycle. This document describes a process by which an organisation can add rigour to decisions about which technologies to pursue, as well as creating a persuasive argument for outside investment. The process consists of a series of analyses that should be conducted before substantial investments are made. The stages of the algorithm are: strategic considerations, clinical problem defi nition, headroom analysis, return on investment analysis and further economic analysis. This paper concentrates on the clinical problem defi nition and headroom analysis aspects of the process. Two worked examples of calculating headroom for theoretical products in tissue engineering of urogenital tissue are given. The health gain in urethral tissue is unlikely to be suffi cient to justify the cost of a regenerative medicine solution, whereas bladder substitution after tumour resection has the potential to be cost effective providing marginal costs do not exceed £ 16,000. The framework discussed here provides a structure for investment decisions that can illuminate a situation, which may otherwise appear hard to fathom. A headroom analysis is primarily useful as a barrier to misguidedly investing in those devices, which can never be cost effective.

The Headroom Method can help inform instrumental decisions concerning new treatments without having to build a complex model with very wide parameter uncertainty.

Reports of distress were common, and for many it was long-standing. Some reported low self-esteem and self-denigration bordering on self-loathing, and described being hypervigilant and in a constant battle with their skin. Many people did not expect to have intimate relationships, resulting in reduced social support for patients in the future. This research underscores the need for patient support and psychological treatment to be made available as part of routine care.

; for the ERASPEN consortium and the APRICOT and PLUM study team 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.