Abstract Background Management delays imply worse outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and, therefore, should be minimized. We evaluated changes in diagnostic and treatment delays regarding RA in the last decades in Brazil. Methods Adults fulfilling the ACR/EULAR (2010) criteria for RA were assessed. Delays in diagnosis and treatment, and the frequencies of early management initiation within thresholds (windows of opportunity) of 3, 6, and 12 months from symptoms onset were evaluated. The Mann–Kendall trend test, chi-squared tests with Cramer’s V effect sizes and analysis of variance were conducted. Results We included 1116 patients: 89.4% female, 56.8% white, mean (SD) age 57.1 (11.5) years. A downward trend was found in diagnostic (tau = - 0.677, p < 0.001) and treatment (tau = - 0.695, p < 0.001) delays from 1990 to 2015. The frequency of early management increased throughout the period, with ascending effect sizes across the 3-, 6-, and 12-month windows (V = 0.120, 0.200 and 0.261, respectively). Despite all improvements, even in recent years (2011–2015) the diagnostic and treatment delays still remained unacceptably high [median (IQR): 8 (4–12) and 11 (5–17) months, respectively], with only 17.2% of the patients treated within the shortest, 3-month window. Conclusion The delays in diagnosis and treatment of RA decreased during the last decades in Brazil. Improvements (effect sizes) were greater at eliminating extreme delays (≥ 12 months) than in attaining really short management windows (≤ 3 months). Very early treatment was still an unrealistic goal for most patients with RA.

Abstract Background Early rheumatoid arthritis (RA) offers an opportunity for better treatment outcomes. In real-life settings, grasping this opportunity might depend on access to specialized care. We evaluated the effects of early versus late assessment by the rheumatologist on the diagnosis, treatment initiation and long-term outcomes of RA under real-life conditions. Methods Adults meeting the ACR/EULAR (2010) or ARA (1987) criteria for RA were included. Structured interviews were conducted. The specialized assessment was deemed “early” when the rheumatologist was the first or second physician consulted after symptoms onset, and “late” when performed afterwards. Delays in RA diagnosis and treatment were inquired. Disease activity (DAS28-CRP) and physical function (HAQ-DI) were evaluated. Student's t, Mann-Whitney U, chi-squared and correlation tests, and multiple linear regression were performed. For sensitivity analysis, a propensity score-matched subsample of early- vs. late-assessed participants was derived based on logistic regression. The study received ethical approval; all participants signed informed consent. Results We included 1057 participants (89.4% female, 56.5% white); mean (SD) age: 56.9 (11.5) years; disease duration: 173.1 (114.5) months. Median (IQR) delays from symptoms onset to both RA diagnosis and initial treatment coincided: 12 (6–36) months, with no significant delay between diagnosis and treatment. Most participants (64.6%) first sought a general practitioner. Notwithstanding, 80.7% had the diagnosis established only by the rheumatologist. Only a minority (28.7%) attained early RA treatment (≤ 6 months of symptoms). Diagnostic and treatment delays were strongly correlated (rho 0.816; p < 0.001). The chances of missing early treatment more than doubled when the assessment by the rheumatologist was belated (OR 2.77; 95% CI: 1.93, 3.97). After long disease duration, late-assessed participants still presented lower chances of remission/low disease activity (OR 0.74; 95% CI: 0.55, 0.99), while the early-assessed ones showed better DAS28-CRP and HAQ-DI scores (difference in means [95% CI]: −0.25 [−0.46, −0.04] and − 0.196 [−0.306, −0.087] respectively). The results in the propensity-score matched subsample confirmed those observed in the original (whole) sample. Conclusions Early diagnosis and treatment initiation in patients with RA was critically dependent on early access to the rheumatologist; late specialized assessment was associated with worse long-term clinical outcomes.

Abstract Background: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a common autoimmune systemic inflammatory disease. In addition to joint involvement, RA patients frequently have other comorbidities, such as cardiovascular diseases. Drugs used for RA treatment may increase or decrease the risk of a cardiovascular event. This study aims to analyze cardiovascular risk comorbidities in patients with RA and the correlation with the use of anti-rheumatic drugs. Methods: Cross-sectional study conducted based on the real-life rheumatoid arthritis study database - REAL, a prospective observational cohort study. Associations between the use of anti-rheumatic drugs and the presence of comorbidities were represented by their prevalence ratio and evaluated using the Chi-square or Fisher’s Exact tests. Results: We assessed 1116 patients, 89.4% women, mean age of 55.15 years and predominance of seropositive disease. 63.3% had some cardiovascular comorbidity, predominantly hypertension (49.9%). The use of glucocorticoids was observed in 47.4% of patients and there was a significant tendency of lower use of these drugs in the presence of dyslipidemia (PR: 0.790; p = 0.007). We observed that the presence of cardiovascular comorbidities was associated with higher use of bDMARDs (PR:1.147; p = 0.003). Conclusions: The presence of cardiovascular risk comorbidities was confirmed to be higher in RA patients. Different treatment strategies using less glucocorticoids in the presence of dyslipidemia and more common use of bDMARDs in patients with cardiovascular comorbidities suggest that rheumatologists are aware of the potential influence of the DMARDs in the risk of cardiovascular event. Reinforcing these results, we highlight the need for a better baseline assessment to guide the choice of anti-rheumatic drugs in RA patients who have comorbidities.