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.

Risk of septic arthritis in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and the effect of anti-TNF therapy: results from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the risk of septic arthritis (SA) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) therapy. METHODS: Using data from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register, a prospective observational study, the authors compared the risk of SA between 11 881 anti-TNF-treated and 3673 non-biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (nbDMARD)-treated patients. RESULTS: 199 patients had at least one episode of SA (anti-TNF: 179, nbDMARD: 20). Incidence rates were: anti-TNF 4.2/1000 patient years (pyrs) follow-up (95% CI 3.6 to 4.8), nbDMARD 1.8/1000 pyrs (95% CI 1.1 to 2.7). The adjusted HR for SA in the anti-TNF cohort was 2.3 (95% CI 1.2 to 4.4). The risk did not differ significantly between the three agents: adalimumab, etanercept and infliximab. The risk was highest in the early months of therapy. The patterns of reported organisms differed in the anti-TNF cohort. Prior joint replacement surgery was a risk factor for SA in all patients. The rate of postoperative joint infection (within 90 days of surgery) was 0.7%. This risk was not significantly influenced by anti-TNF therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Anti-TNF therapy use in RA is associated with a doubling in the risk of SA. Physicians and surgeons assessing the RA patient should be aware of this potentially life-threatening complication.

Vagotomy and pyloric dilatation in chronic duodenal ulceration.

A total of 101 patients suffering from duodenal ulcer underwent truncal vagotomy (TV) combined with pyloric dilatation (PD). They were followed up over six years, and the results were found to compare favourably with those in patients who underwent alternative surgical measures. Before any revisionary surgery 79 patients were classified as Visick grades I plus II. The incidence of recurrent ulceration was 4%. Side effects were noticeably less common than in patients in whom a drainage procedure had been performed, and overall results were compared with those reported for groups of patients treated by proximal gastric vagotomy. The combination of TV and PD is commended on account of its simplicity, safety, and effectiveness at a time when medical treatment for duodenal ulcer is becoming more specific and increasingly effective.