Objectives: To estimate the prevalence of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and associated factors in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis. Methods: Retrospective, single-center study of a cohort of psoriasis patients in standard follow-up in a dermatology department from July 2008 to January 2024. Patients ≥18 years with moderate-to-severe psoriasis were included and classified into three groups according to the treatment received: group 1, biologics or small molecules with or without conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs); group 2, only csDMARDS; and group 3, non-pharmacological treatments. Demographic and clinical variables were collected. The prevalence of PsA was estimated with its 95% confidence interval (CI). The cumulative incidence of PsA was analyzed across groups, and logistic regression models were built. Results: The study population comprised 308 patients (67.2%, 22.7%, 10% in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively). Differences between the groups were observed in severity of psoriasis, weight, smoking status, and dyslipidemia (p < 0.05). The prevalence of PsA was 11.7% (95% CI, 8.1–15.3), with most patients in group 1. This group had a higher risk of PsA following diagnosis of psoriasis or initiation of treatment. Belonging to groups 2 and 3 had a smaller effect than belonging to group 1 in the development of PsA; nail involvement and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) were associated with development of PsA (p < 0.05). Conclusions: The prevalence estimate was lower than previous estimates, probably owing to the increased use of biologics. Nail involvement and OSA were associated with PsA.

Objectives: To estimate the prevalence of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and associated fac-tors in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis. Methods: Retrospective, single-center study of a cohort of psoriasis patients in stand-ard follow-up in a dermatology department from July 2008 to January 2024. Patients ≥18 years with moderate-to-severe psoriasis were included and classified into 3 groups according to the treatment received: group 1, biologics or small molecules with or without conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs); group 2, only csDMARDS; and group 3, non-pharmacological treatments. Demographic and clinical variables were collected. The prevalence of PsA was estimated with its 95% confidence interval (CI). The cumulative incidence of PsA was analyzed across groups, and logistic regression models were built. Results: The study population comprised 308 patients (67.2%, 22.7%, 10% in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively). Dif-ferences between the groups were observed in severity of psoriasis, weight, smoking status, and dyslipidemia (p< 0.05). The prevalence of PsA was 11.7% (95% CI, 8.1-15.3), with most patients in group 1. This group had a high-er risk of PsA following diagnosis of psoriasis or initiation of treatment. Belonging to groups 2 and 3 had a smaller effect than belonging to group 1 in the development of PsA; nail involvement and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) were associated with development of PsA (p< 0.05). Conclusions: The prevalence estimate was lower than previous estimates, probably owing to the increased use of biologics. Not requiring biologics for disease control had less effect on development of PsA. Nail involvement and OSA were associated with PsA.

Background/Objectives: Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) have revolutionized the treatment of various inflammatory and immune disorders. Concerns about the potential increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) associated with JAKi use led to a European Medicines Agency (EMA) health alert recommending restricting the use of JAKi in high-risk populations. Methods: This study aims to determine the proportion of patients who developed any cardiovascular, ischemic, neoplastic, or thrombotic adverse event in a cohort of patients receiving, or who have received, JAKi treatment between January 2017 and September 2023. In addition, we studied the impact of the alert in the clinical practice of our Rheumatology department. Results: In this retrospective, observational study, 101 patients were analysed, predominantly women (72.3%), with a mean age of 57.6 years. The most common diagnoses were rheumatoid arthritis (60.4%) and psoriatic arthritis (18.8%). The most frequent adverse events were infections (5.9%) and neoplasms (2.9%). Deep vein thrombosis and haemorrhagic stroke each occurred in 1% of patients, with no cases of ischemic stroke or ischemic heart disease. When the health alert was published, 75 patients were on treatment with JAKi, and 33 met the alert criteria. Of these, 12.1% changed treatment due to the alert, 9% had no other therapeutic options, 57.5% were in clinical remission or had low disease activity, and 9% maintained treatment at their own request. Conclusions: These findings suggest that, in this patient cohort, JAKi use did not result in new MACE cases. The alert concerning the use of JAKi has had a limited impact in our clinical practice.

Upadacitinib has demonstrated efficacy in psoriatic arthritis in clinical trials, but its real-world performance in difficult-to-treat PsA remains underexplored. This observational, multicenter, open-label study evaluated the efficacy and safety of upadacitinib in 134 patients with psoriatic arthritis (97 women, mean age 51.8 ± 11.2 years, mean disease duration 9.94 ± 7.72 years) who showed inadequate response to advanced therapies. Most patients (74.6%) had received at least two biological/targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs with different mechanisms of action. Upadacitinib was initiated at 15 mg daily, and within one month, significant improvements were observed: DAS28-ESR decreased from 4.7 to 3.77 (p < 0.001), DAPSA from 25 to 17 (p < 0.001), and CRP from 2.90 to 1.50 mg/L (p = 0.001). These reductions persisted throughout the study. Prednisone dosage decreased significantly (p = 0.049). Adverse events led to upadacitinib discontinuation in 8.2% of patients, but no serious adverse events were reported. Compared to the SELECT-PsA 2 trial, our cohort had a higher proportion of females and greater prior exposure to biologic agents but showed comparable efficacy and safety outcomes. These findings suggest that upadacitinib is a rapid, effective, and relatively safe therapeutic option for difficult-to-treat psoriatic arthritis under real-world conditions, supporting its use despite differing patient characteristics from clinical trial populations.

Since the development of vaccines for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the course of infections has changed significantly. Over the past 4 years of coexisting with the virus, a marked improvement in disease outcomes has been observed, especially in patients with rheumatological diseases; this is largely attributable to widespread immunization. This study aimed to evaluate the perception of COVID-19 vaccine protection and to describe the incidence and severity of COVID-19 in the pre- and post-vaccination periods among different patient typologies and immunosuppressive treatments in rheumatology patients. This study used observational, descriptive–analytical, ambispective, and cross-sectional methods. We administered a questionnaire in the rheumatology department to patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMID), with or without disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, including conventional synthetic drugs, biological drugs, and targeted synthetic drugs, and to patients with musculoskeletal conditions (non-autoimmune patients). All patients received at least 2 doses of the COVID-19 vaccine. A total of 407 patients, with a mean age and standard deviation 59.1 ± 13.6 and 66.1% female, were studied. Most patients (78.1%) reported feeling protected or very protected by the COVID-19 vaccine, with the perception of safety ranging from 66.9% to 87.5% across different patient typologies. The proportion of patients who felt protected or very protected was significantly lower in the non-autoimmune group (63.9%) than in the IMID patients treated with conventional synthetic drugs (87.5%) or biological drugs [excluding CD-20 inhibitors (rituximab)] and targeted synthetic drugs (82.1%) (P < .001 and P = .011, respectively). There were no significant differences in the incidence of COVID-19 infection or in the severity of its clinical presentation (in both the pre- and post-vaccination stages) among the different typologies of patients, or in relation to the immunosuppressive therapy they received. Patients with IMID who received immunosuppressive treatment reported higher levels of perceived protection after COVID-19 vaccination. However, the incidence and severity of COVID-19 were similar between patients with and without IMIDs. This study supports the importance of infection prevention in these patients and emphasizes the need for closely monitored vaccination programs.