Cardiovascular

Comorbidity management in inflammatory rheumatic diseases: a dual-perspective survey of patients and rheumatologists.

TL;DR

Comorbidity management in IRDs is poorly implemented in routine care, and perceptions of responsibility differ between patients and rheumatologists; clearer role definitions, stronger guidance from rheumatology organisations, and practical tools are needed to improve implementation.

Key Findings

Patient-reported implementation of comorbidity management in routine care was low across all five domains studied.

  • The cross-sectional anonymous online survey in Germany included 2,213 patients with IRDs and 140 rheumatologists.
  • Mean patient-reported implementation across domains was 28.8%.
  • Domains assessed were cardiovascular risk, infections, malignancies, depression, and osteoporosis, based on EULAR points to consider.

Rheumatologists reported substantially higher implementation of comorbidity management than patients did, in all domains.

  • Blood pressure monitoring was reported by 83.6% of rheumatologists vs 33.8% of patients.
  • Vaccination checks were reported by 77.9% of rheumatologists vs 33.2% of patients.
  • Group comparisons used chi-square, Fisher's exact, and Mann-Whitney U tests.

Most rheumatologists reported that no structured comorbidity screening was in place in their practice.

  • 69.3% of rheumatologists reported no structured comorbidity screening.
  • This was based on responses from 140 rheumatologists in Germany.

Rheumatologists reported multiple barriers to comorbidity management, most commonly lack of time.

  • Lack of time was reported by 91.4%.
  • Unclear responsibilities were reported by 48.6%.
  • Staff shortages were reported by 40.0%.
  • Lack of reimbursement was reported by 35.0%.

Rheumatologists favoured shared responsibility with GPs for documentation and screening, but assigned treatment more often to GPs alone.

  • Shared responsibility with GPs was favoured for documentation by 61.4%.
  • Shared responsibility with GPs was favoured for screening by 48.6%.
  • Treatment was assigned to GPs alone by 60.7% of rheumatologists.

Patients more frequently assigned primary responsibility for comorbidity management to GPs, particularly for cardiovascular risk and vaccinations.

  • 72.6% of patients assigned primary responsibility for cardiovascular risk management to GPs.
  • 73.8% of patients assigned primary responsibility for vaccinations to GPs.
  • Perceptions of responsibility differed between patients and rheumatologists.

The authors conclude that clearer role definitions, stronger guidance from rheumatology organisations, and practical tools are needed to improve implementation of comorbidity management.

  • Conclusion is based on low implementation, reported barriers, and divergent responsibility perceptions.
  • The study assessed real-world implementation of EULAR points to consider for comorbidity management.

What This Means

This study surveyed 2,213 people with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (such as rheumatoid arthritis) and 140 rheumatologists in Germany about how well related health problems—heart disease risk, infections, cancer, depression, and osteoporosis—are being checked and managed in routine care. Patients reported that, on average, only about 29% of recommended preventive measures were taking place. Rheumatologists reported much higher rates than patients did. For example, 84% of rheumatologists said they monitor blood pressure, while only 34% of patients said this happens. Most rheumatologists (69%) said they had no structured screening process. They pointed to lack of time (91%), unclear responsibilities (49%), staff shortages (40%), and lack of reimbursement (35%) as barriers. Patients tended to see their general practitioner as mainly responsible, especially for heart risk and vaccinations, while rheumatologists favoured sharing documentation and screening with GPs. This research suggests that important preventive care for people with these diseases may fall into gaps between specialists and GPs, partly because roles are unclear. The authors argue that clearer role definitions, stronger guidance from rheumatology organisations, and practical tools could help. As an anonymous online survey, the results reflect what participants reported rather than checked medical records.

Have a question about this study?

Citation

Bartsch V, Habboub B, Knitza J, Ausserwinkler M, Knop S, Schett G, et al.. (2026). Comorbidity management in inflammatory rheumatic diseases: a dual-perspective survey of patients and rheumatologists.. Arthritis research & therapy. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13075-026-03924-5