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.
Introduction: SARS-CoV-2 infection is spreading around the world, including countries from Southeastern Europe. The purpose of the study was to present the clinical manifestations of COVID-19 patients admitted to the Military Medical Academy, Sofia, Bulgaria. Materials and Methods: A retrospective study was conducted for a period of 3 months from March 2020 to June 2020 on this infection in our hospital. All participants were laboratory confirmed cases of COVID-19. RT-PCR was performed for etiological diagnosis. The hospitalized patients were divided into two groups on admission, that is, nonsevere and severe. Results: One hundred thirty-eight COVID-19 patients were hospitalized and analyzed during the study period. The mean age was 52.9 years. Male was the dominant sex (sex ratio: male/female = 1/0.6). The leading clinical signs were fever, fatigue, cough, and headache. On comparative analysis of both groups (nonsevere and severe) was measured significant elevation of white blood cells (odds ratio [OR] = 1.238; p value = 0.006), C-reactive protein (OR = 1.021; p < 0.001), creatinine (OR = 1.037; p < 0.001), aspartate aminotransferase (OR = 1.014; p = 0.040), lactate dehydrogenase (OR = 1.004; p < 0.001), ferritin (OR = 1.002; p < 0.001), fibrinogen (OR = 2.028; p < 0.001), and d-dimer (OR = 2.162; p = 0.002) in severe group than in nonsevere group. Interleukin 6 was tested in 17.4% of patients and high value was found-38.6 pg/mL (95% confidence interval: 16.5-60.7). Conclusion: The first Bulgarian retrospective study of COVID-19 hospitalized patients was presented. Older age, male sex, comorbidity, and signs of dyspnea and nausea were estimated as higher risk factors for severe form. Abnormality in inflammatory markers was associated with poor progression of the illness.
We report twenty autochthonous sporadic cases of acute infection with HEV. The zoonotic etiology of the virus as well as the foodborne transmission of the infection is discussed. We found that aging and pre-existing underlying diseases are risk factors for a severe course of the HEV infection.
Installing efficient protective immunity by anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccines is the only current means to overcome coronavirus disease 2019 pandemics. The cellular and humoral immune responses induced with an messenger RNA (mRNA) (BNT162b2) or with a vector (ChAdOx1nCoV‐19) vaccine among Bulgarian healthcare workers (n = 123, aged 23–71 years) were studied in the course of 16 weeks after priming. Receptor‐binding domain (RBD)‐blocking Abs and SARS‐CoV‐2 RBD immunoglobulin A (IgA) were evaluated in parallel with interferon gamma (IFNγ)‐producing virus‐specific T cells. Both vaccines induced RBD‐blocking Abs in 100% of the participants after complete immunization while the levels of protection after a single dose largely varied (22%–98%). Advanced age had a negative impact on the level and longevity of virus‐neutralizing activity induced by one dose mRNA, but not by the vector vaccine. RBD‐binding IgA was detected in 100% of tested donors from the mRNA vaccine cohort, and in 67% of tested from the vector vaccine cohort, at least 1 month after completed immunization. One month after completing mRNA immunization, the number of IFNγ‐producing T cells correlated significantly with the levels of RBD‐specific IgA and virus‐neutralizing activity induced after priming. Enumeration of circulating virus‐specific IFNγ+ T cells is not recommended for evaluation of protective immunity as their detection may require longer stimulation beyond the firstmonth postimmunization. In conclusion, BNT162B2 and ChAdOx1nCoV‐19 induced potent and comparable humoral and cellular anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 immune responses, peaking between 10 and 30 days after complete immunization. A single dose of any vaccine did not induce adequate protection in a great part of donors, making the shorter interval between mRNA vaccine doses preferable in the settings of increased risk of infection.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.