The clinical introduction of tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors has deeply changed the treatment of inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD). It has demonstrated impressive efficacy as compared to alternative treatments, allowing for the chance to achieve near-remission and long-term improvement in function and quality of life and to alter the natural history of Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). As a consequence of longer follow-up periods the number of side effects which may be attributed to treatment with biologics is growing significantly. Cutaneous reactions are among the most common adverse reactions. These complications include injection site reactions, cutaneous infections, immune-mediated complications such as psoriasis and lupus-like syndrome and rarely skin cancers. We review the recent literature and draw attention to dermatological side effects of anti-TNF therapy of inflammatory bowel disease.

Anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α agents represent an effective treatment for chronic inflammatory diseases. However, some concerns about their potentially undesirable effects on liver function have been reported. On the other hand, evidence of their therapeutic effects on certain liver diseases is accumulating. Many data showed the safety of anti-TNF-α in patients with chronic hepatitis B and C and in liver transplanted patients even if a strict follow-up and prophylaxis are recommended in well-defined subgroups. On the other side, anti-TNF-α-induced liver injury is not a rare event. However, it is often reversible after anti-TNF-α withdrawal. Anti-TNF-α agents have been tested in advanced stages of severe alcoholic hepatitis and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Limited data on the efficacy of anti-TNF-α in patients with autoimmune hepatitis and primary biliary cholangitis are also available. In this review, we explored the hepatic safety concerns in patients receiving anti-TNF-α agents with and without pre-existent hepatic diseases. In addition, the available evidence on their potential benefits in the treatment of specific hepatic diseases is discussed.

Background: Infliximab and adalimumab are widely used for the treatment of Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. Aim: To compare the long-term efficacy and safety of infliximab and adalimumab in a large cohort of Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis patients reflecting real-life clinical practice. Methods: Seven hundred twelve patients were retrospectively reviewed, 410 with Crohn’s disease (268 treated with adalimumab and 142 with infliximab; median follow-up 60 months, range, 36–72) and 302 with ulcerative colitis (118 treated with adalimumab and 184 with infliximab; median follow-up 48 months, range, 36–84). Results: In Crohn’s disease, clinical remission was maintained in 75.0% of adalimumab vs. in 72.5% of infliximab patients (P = 0.699); mucosal healing and steroid-free remission were maintained in 49.5% of adalimumab vs. 63.9% of infliximab patients (P = 0.077) and in 77.7% of adalimumab vs. 77.3% in infliximab group (P = 0.957), respectively. In ulcerative colitis, clinical remission was maintained in 50.0% of adalimumab vs. 65.8% of infliximab patients (P < 0.000); mucosal healing and steroid-free remission were maintained in 80.6% of adalimumab vs. 77.0% of infliximab patients (P = 0.494) and in 90.2% of adalimumab vs. 87.5% of infliximab patients (P = 0.662), respectively. At the multivariate analysis, ileocolonic location and simple endoscopic score for Crohn’s disease >10 were predictors of failure in Crohn’s disease; treatment with adalimumab, BMI ≥30 and Mayo score >10 were predictors of failure in ulcerative colitis. infliximab was more likely to cause adverse events than adalimumab (16.6 vs. 6.2%, P < 0.000). Conclusion: Both adalimumab and infliximab are effective in long-term outpatients management of inflammatory bowel diseases. Adalimumab had a lower rate of adverse events.

Treg modulation has been hypothesized as one of the mechanisms by which antitumor necrosis factorα(TNFα) agents exert their action in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, data in IBD are still conflicting. We evaluated CD4⁺CD25⁺FOXP3⁺(Tregs) by flow cytometry in peripheral blood from 32 adult IBD patient before (T0) and after the induction of anti-TNFαtherapy (T1). Eight healthy controls (HCs) were included. We also evaluated the number of FOXP3⁺cells in the lamina propria (LP) in biopsies taken in a subset of patients and controls. Treg frequencies were significantly increased in peripheral blood from our patients after anti-TNFαtherapy compared to T0. T1 but not T0 levels were higher than HC. The increase was detectable only in clinical responders to the treatment. A negative correlation was found among delta Treg levels and the age of patients or disease duration and with the activity score of Crohn’s disease (CD). No significant differences were found in LP FOXP3⁺cells. Our data suggest the possibility that in IBD patients the treatment with anti-TNFαmay affect Treg percentages and that Treg modifications may correlate with clinical response, but differently in early versus late disease.

Background and Aims: Adalimumab (ADA) biosimilars have been included into the therapeutic armamentarium of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD); however, comparative data on the efficacy and safety of the different ADA biosimilars after replacing the ADA originator for a non-medical reason remains scarce. We aimed to compare in a real-life setting the efficacy and safety of four ADA biosimilars SB5, APB501, GP2017, and MSB11022 in IBD patients after replacing the originator for a non-medical reason. Methods: A multicenter retrospective study was performed on consecutive IBD patients, analyzing clinical, laboratory, and endoscopic data. The primary endpoints of the study were maintenance of clinical remission and safety of the different biosimilars. Results: 153 patients were enrolled, 26 with UC and 127 with CD. Clinical remission was maintained in 124 out of 153 (81%) patients after a median (IQR) follow-up of 12 (6–24) months, without any significant difference between the four ADA biosimilars. ADA biosimilars dosage was optimized in five patients (3.3%). Loss of remission was significantly higher in UC patients (10/26 patients, 38.5%) than in CD patients (19/127 patients, 14.9%, p<0.025). Adverse events occurred in 12 (7.9%) patients; the large majority were mild. Conclusions: No difference in efficacy and safety was found between ADA biosimilars when used to replace the ADA originator for a non-medical reason. However, in UC patients the replacement of ADA originator for this reason should be carefully assessed.

The approval of adalimumab (ADA) biosimilars for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has reduced the cost of treatment. While several ADA biosimilars are currently available, comparative data on the ADA biosimilar GP2017 (Hyrimoz^TM) and its originator (Humira^TM) in IBD are lacking. We compared the efficacy and safety of GP2017 versus originator in IBD outpatients in an Italian real-life setting. This retrospective analysis enrolled consecutive IBD patients with complete clinical, laboratory, and endoscopic data. Clinical activity was assessed with the Mayo score in ulcerative colitis (UC) and the Harvey–Bradshaw Index in Crohn’s disease (CD). The primary endpoints were the induction of remission and the safety of GP2017 versus ADA originator. One hundred and thirty-four patients (30.6% with UC and 69.4% with CD, median age 38 years) were enrolled: 62 (46.3%) patients were treated with GP2017, and 72 (53.7%) with ADA originator; 118 (88.1%) patients were naïve to ADA. Clinical remission was obtained in 105 (78.4%) patients, during a median follow-up of 12 months, 82.3% and 75% in the GP2017 and ADA originator groups, respectively (p = 0.311). Treatment was well tolerated in both groups. This analysis of real-world data suggests that GP2017 and its originator are equivalent in terms of efficacy and safety in patients with IBD.