Comorbidities in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are often associated with poor health outcomes and increased mortality. Treatment decisions should take into account these comorbidities due to known or suspected associations with certain drug classes. In clinical practice, it is critical to balance potential treatment benefit against the possible risks for comorbidities as well as the articular manifestations of RA. This review summarises the current literature relating to prevalence and risk factors for the important comorbidities of cardiovascular disease, infections, lymphomas and nonmelanoma skin cancers in patients with RA. The impact on patient outcomes and the interplay between these comorbidities and the therapeutic options currently available, including tumour necrosis factor inhibitors and newer biological therapies, are also explored. As newer RA therapies are developed, and patients gain wider and earlier access to advanced therapies, in part due to the emergence of biosimilars, it is important to consider the prevention or treatment of comorbidities as part of the overall management of RA.

Background: Interstitial lung diseases (ILDs) are among the most serious complications associated with systemic rheumatic diseases, and lead to significant morbidity and mortality; they may also be the first manifestation of connective tissue diseases (CTDs). The aim of this narrative review is to summarise the data concerning the pathogenesis of CTD/ILD and its distinguishing features in different rheumatic diseseas. Areas covered: The pathogenesis, clinical aspects and treatment of ILD associated with rheumatic systemic diseases and CTDs were reviewed by searching the PubMed, Medline, and Cochrane Library databases for papers published between 1995 and February 2017 using combinations of words or terms. Articles not written in English were excluded. Expert commentary: The management of CTD–ILD is challenging because of the lack of robust data regarding the treatments used, the heterogeneity of the diseases themselves, and the scarcity of well-defined outcome measures. Treatment decisions are often made clinically on the basis of functional, radiographic progression, and exacerbating factors such as age and the burden of comorbidities. Given the complexities of diagnosis and the paucity of treatment trials, the management of CTD patients with ILD requires multidisciplinary collaboration between rheumatologists and pulmonologists in CTD-ILD clinics.

It is now widely recognized that patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) have a higher risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) when compared with the general population. A number of factors contribute to this increased risk. Skin and articular inflammation have been shown to be independently associated with CVD in PsA patients. Metabolic syndrome and all its components are significantly more frequent in PsA patients than in healthy populations. Depression, which is not uncommon in psoriatic subjects, seems to increase the CV risk. Finally, corticosteroids and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, which are often used for the treatment of PsA, have a well-known pro-atherosclerotic effect. Therefore, in PsA patients the CV risk should be regularly estimated, using validated scoring instruments and appropriate techniques of vascular assessment when needed. Instrument choice and usefulness in PsA populations are still under debate. Patients at high risk should be treated addressing all the risk factors and tightly monitored. Abrogation or, at least, reduction of skin and articular inflammation, appropriate treatment of the metabolic abnormalities, and modifications of unhealthy life habits are the measures that can substantially improve the CV outcome of the patients with PsA. Cooperation of different specialists may be needed to optimize the management of the individual patient. Artificial intelligence applications, novel biomarkers and new care approaches, including treatment strategies and decision-making processes, may be considered in the PsA setting.

Post-marketing surveillance activities are essential to detect the risk/benefit profile of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) in inflammatory arthritis. The aim of this study was to evaluate adverse events (AEs) in patients treated with bDMARDs in rheumatology during a prospective pharmacovigilance study from 2016 to 2018. Descriptive statistical analyses were performed to evaluate bDMARDs-related variables of patients without AEs/failures vs patients with AEs and failures. The risk profile among biologics was assessed by comparing patients treated with each bDMARD to patients treated with etanercept. A total of 1155 patients were enrolled, mostly affected by rheumatoid arthritis (46.0%). AEs and failures were experienced by 8.7% and 23.3%, respectively. The number of comorbidities significantly influenced the onset of AEs, while anxiety-depressive, gastrointestinal disease, and fibromyalgia influenced onset of failures. The probability of developing an AE was significantly lower in patients treated with secukinumab, while the probability of developing treatment failure was significantly lower in patients treated with golimumab, secukinumab and tocilizumab. A total of 216 AEs were reported (25.5% serious), mostly regarding infections (21.8%), musculoskeletal (17.6%) and skin (16.2%) disorders. Serious AEs included neutropenia (12.7%), lymphocytosis (9.1%) and uveitis (7.3%). The obtained results revealed known AEs but real-world data should be endorsed for undetected safety concerns.

Background/Objectives: Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a chronic inflammatory condition that primarily affects the musculoskeletal system and skin. While biologic and targeted synthetic DMARDs have improved treatment, many patients still fail to achieve remission. Combining conventional synthetic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) with biologic (b) DMARDs or targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs shows no added benefit over monotherapy with IL-17, IL-23 inhibitors, or JAK inhibitors, unlike TNFi, which benefit from csDMARD co-administration. Guselkumab (GUS) and risankizumab (RKZ) target IL-23 with high specificity. RCTs (DISCOVER 1 and 2, COSMOS) have confirmed GUS efficacy regardless of methotrexate (MTX) use, though liver toxicity was higher with MTX. Real-world data on GUS remain limited, with gaps in understanding its long-term effectiveness and drug survival. The aim of this study is to assess the following three points within a multicenter Italian real-life cohort of PsA patients treated with guselkumab (GUS) and followed for 12 months: (1) effectiveness and safety of GUS; (2) drug retention rate (DRR) and reasons for discontinuation; (3) impact of comorbidities on achieving minimal disease activity (MDA). Methods: This study utilized data from the GISEA registry, which includes centers in different parts of Italy (north, center, south, and islands), and included patients aged 18 and older diagnosed with PsA according to the CASPAR criteria. Results: Data on 170 PsA patients treated with GUS were collected. In the first 6 months, a prompt mean percentage improvement in all clinimetric indexes was observed compared to the baseline. At 6-month follow-up, ACR 20 was reached by 60% of patients, ACR 50 by 30%, ACR 70 by 15%, MDA by 28%, and DAPSA < 14 by 50% of patients in the overall group. Significant differences were found in the rate of ACR 50 in the bDMARD-naive group (50%) compared to one bDMARDs non-responder (NR) (8%) (p = 0.021). At 12-month follow-up, a notable gap was observed in the rate of patients reaching MDA between bDMARD-naive (60%) and one bDMARDs NR (22%) (p = 0.035) and between bDMARD-naive (60%) and ≥2 bDMARDs NRs (22%) (p = 0.024). By using multivariate binary logistic analysis, the predictors of reaching MDA at 12-month follow-up were naive bDMARDs (OR: 7.9, 95% CI: 1.3–44.8, p = 0.019) and a higher value of pGA at baseline (OR: 1.1, 95% CI: 1–1.5; p = 0.046). The presence of comorbidities, including fibromyalgia and obesity, did not seem to affect the reaching of MDA. At 12-month follow-up, the GUS retention rate was 76%, with a mean survival time of 10.5 months ± 0.2 (95% CI: 10–10.9). No significant differences in GUS survival time were found among bDMARD-naive, one bDMARDs NR, and ≥2 bDMARDs NR patients (in the latter, regardless of the previous mechanism of action: TNFi or other mechanism), as well as between patients treated with GUS in monotherapy and those treated in combination with csDMARDs. A low rate (17%) of discontinuation was found due to both primary NR and secondary NR. The high safety of GUS was recorded. In fact, discontinuation due to adverse events (all definable as minor) was observed in just 4% of patients. By using COX regression multivariate analysis, the factors associated with higher GUS discontinuation risk were a more severe baseline PASI (HR: 1.05, 95% CI: 1–1.1, p = 0.038) and higher baseline ESR (HR:1.06, 95% CI: 1–1.03, p = 0.05). Conclusions: Good performance of GUS was observed in both biologic-naive patients and those with failure of previous bDMARDs (regardless of the mechanism of action of the previous drug: TNFi or non-TNFi), presenting good persistence in therapy even when used as a third mechanism of action. Its high safety profile allows the use of GUS even in particularly complex patients.