Skip to main content
Download PDF

Decreasing delays in the diagnosis and treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in Brazil: a nationwide multicenter observational study

Advances in Rheumatology volume 63, Article number: 3 (2023) Cite this article

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.

Background

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory disease associated with significant disability and an impaired quality of life, with a global prevalence of approximately 0.5% [1]. RA represents a major public health challenge [2], and the need for early treatment aiming at better long-term outcomes is currently a well-accepted concept [3,4,5,6,7,8]. International efforts have aimed to increase the proportion of patients with RA attaining early treatment [9,10,11,12]. These initiatives were well developed in Europe and in some other wealthy nations (from other regions), leading to the establishment of “early arthritis clinics” designed to reduce delays regarding RA management [13,14,15,16].

However, this scenario is less clear in the developing countries, where data tend to be scarce, and the health care resources are more limited. Regional data gaps limit the understanding of early RA management status from a global perspective, thus hindering comparisons between regions and countries. Moreover, all efforts and initiatives to reduce RA management delays should be assessed regularly to allow for adjustments whenever required. Brazil is one of the largest countries in Latin America, a region where robust data on the status of early RA management is lacking [17].

Accruing evidence supports the concept of a window of opportunity regarding RA management: an early and limited period in the beginning of the disease when the treatment benefits are the best possible, as opposed to the concept of a smooth continuum where the sooner the treatment is started, the better the outcomes regardless of the disease duration [18,19,20,21]. The width of that window is not precisely defined, but most studies now identify an upper limit of approximately 3–6 months after symptoms onset [4, 18, 19, 22].

The existence of such a window of opportunity implies that monitoring only the changes in mean delays could be misleading when assessing the effectiveness of initiatives to achieve early RA management. The mean delay could decrease simply by gradually eliminating extreme delays, without necessarily guaranteeing that most patients will fall within some targeted window. Thus, the attainment of early RA management should rather be measured directly, through the proportion of patients initiating treatment within predefined time limits.

In this study, we evaluated changes in the mean diagnostic and treatment delay concerning RA, in the last 3 decades in Brazil. However, more importantly, we also investigated changes in the proportions of patients that initiated treatment within predefined windows of opportunity for early RA management in the same period.

Methods

This study was conducted as part of the REAL Study, a multicenter observational cohort designed to assess the current patterns of RA management under real-life conditions [23]. From August 2015 to April 2016, patients attending outpatient clinics of eleven public hospitals in different regions of Brazil were included. All participants were 18+ years old and met the ACR/EULAR (2010) or ARA (1987) classification criteria for RA. Patients underwent a structured clinical interview with physical examination, and their medical records were reviewed. Patients unable to complete the interview due to comorbidities or cognitive impairment were excluded. The data reported herein were obtained from the baseline assessment of participants in the REAL Study, thus being cross-sectional in nature. The sample size was defined a priori, aiming to achieve national representativeness, with each participating center committed to include at least 100 participants.

The participants were stratified according to the year their articular symptoms began. Comparisons were then made between these ordered strata. Trend analyses were primarily conducted on a year-to-year basis. Other assessments and comparisons were conducted considering the following time intervals (for the year of articular symptoms onset): before 1990, 1991–1995, 1996–2000, 2001–2005, 2006–2010, and 2011–2015.

Participants were inquired regarding the delays between the articular symptoms onset, RA diagnosis, and treatment initiation, i.e., the use of the first disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (DMARD). The delays were ascertained using medical records whenever possible. The proportions of patients receiving early RA diagnosis and treatment were assessed across the successive time intervals using 3 different cutoff points to define an early diagnosis or treatment: ≤ 3 months, ≤ 6 months, and ≤ 12 months from symptoms onset. This approach accounted for the current uncertainty as to when the window of opportunity precisely closes [19, 24]. More importantly, this triple cutoff provided insight on the consistency of the results (sensitivity analysis), while also allowing for the identification of non-uniform changes in magnitude across the different windows.

Trends in the median diagnostic and treatment delays from 1990 to 2015 (on a year-to-year basis) were assessed with the Mann–Kendall trend test. Associations between unordered categorical variables were verified using the Pearson’s chi-squared test; for ordered categorical variables, the Mantel–Haenszel “linear-by-linear” chi-squared test was used instead. Effect sizes for associations based on chi-squared tests were calculated using Cramer’s V. Odds ratios (OR) were also computed when 2 × 2 tables were applicable. Comparisons between multiple groups regarding continuous variables were made by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Welch’s correction (homogeneous variance not assumed) and Games-Howell post-hoc tests. No data imputation was conducted. The significance level was set at 0.05. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 25 and R 3.6.2.

The study was approved by a central ethics review board and by institutional boards in each participating center (https://plataformabrasil.saude.gov.br/, protocol number CAAE 45781015.8.1001.5259) and was conducted in accordance with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments. All patients provided written informed consent prior to inclusion in the study.

Results

The current study included 1116 participants from the REAL cohort, whose detailed characteristics have already been published [23]. Patients were predominantly female (89.4%), white (56.8%), seropositive for the rheumatoid factor (78.6%), and had a high prevalence of erosive joint disease (54.9%); their mean (standard deviation [SD]) age was 57.1 (11.5) years and the mean (SD) disease duration was 174.9 (115) months.

The mean delays with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for RA diagnosis and treatment according to the year of symptoms onset from 1990 to 2015 are shown in Figs. 1 and 2, respectively. Downward trends were found in the delays for RA diagnosis (S = − 183, tau = − 0.677, p < 0.001; Mann–Kendall test) and treatment (S = − 197, tau = − 0.695, p < 0.001; Mann–Kendall test) between 1990 and 2015.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Rheumatoid arthritis diagnostic delay (months) according to the year of symptoms onset in Brazil. Note: The dots and bars represent the point estimates and 95% confidence intervals for the means, respectively

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

Rheumatoid arthritis treatment delay (months) according to the year of symptoms onset in Brazil. Note: The dots and bars represent the point estimates and 95% confidence intervals for the means, respectively

Full size image

The year of symptoms onset (as arranged in time intervals: ≤ 1990, 1991–1995, 1996–2000, 2001–2005, 2006–2010, and 2011–2015) was associated to the percentages (relative frequencies) of individuals attaining early RA diagnosis, considering all defined cutoff points: ≤ 3 months (χ2(1) = 9.76, V = 0.113, p = 0.002), ≤ 6 months (χ2(1) = 24.2, V = 0.162, p < 0.001), and ≤ 12 months (χ2(1) = 57.61, V = 0.237, p < 0.001); p-values computed from the Mantel-Haenzel linear-by-linear chi-squared test. The more recent the period of disease onset, the higher the percentage of individuals being diagnosed within each of these thresholds (Table 1).

Table 1 Frequencies of early RA diagnosis in Brazil according to the year of disease onset
Full size table

Likewise, the year of symptoms onset (in time intervals: ≤ 1990, 1991–1995, 1996–2000, 2001–2005, 2006–2010, and 2011–2015) was associated with the percentages (relative frequencies) of participants receiving their first DMARD within 3 months (χ2(1) = 11.25, V = 0.120, p = 0.001), 6 months (χ2(1) = 34.84, V = 0.200, p < 0.001), and 12 months (χ2(1) = 64.79, V = 0.261, p < 0.001) of symptoms onset; p-values based on the Mantel-Haenzel linear-by-linear chi-squared test. The more recent the period of disease onset, the higher the percentages of patients being treated within each of these predefined windows (Table 2).

Table 2 Frequency of early RA treatment in Brazil according to the year of disease onset
Full size table

Compared to participants whose symptoms began before 1990, patients whose symptoms started between 2011 and 2015 showed higher odds of receiving a diagnosis within 3 months (OR 1.83; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.00–3.35), 6 months (OR 2.52; 95% CI 1.56–4.07), and 12 months (OR 4.66; 95% CI 2.88–7.56) of symptoms onset. Similarly, patients whose symptoms initiated between 2011 and 2015 had higher odds of receiving their first DMARD within 3 months (OR 2.23, 95%CI [1.08–4.50]), 6 months (OR 3.26, 95%CI [1.85–5.74]), and 12 months (OR 5.14, 95%CI [3.14–8.42]) of symptoms onset when compared to those whose symptoms began before 1990.

Diagnostic and treatment delays decreased along the successive time intervals for the year of symptoms onset (Table 3). Groups stratified according to these intervals differed as to the mean delay (in months) to RA diagnosis [F(5, 411.3) = 37.6; p < 0.001] and treatment [F(5, 372.8) = 41.9; p < 0.001]. Post-hoc analyses revealed that participants whose symptoms began between 2011 and 2015 had significantly lower diagnostic and treatment delays when compared to all other groups (Table 4).

Table 3 Delays in RA management in Brazil according to the year of disease onset
Full size table
Table 4 Changes in delays for RA management in Brazil across periods
Full size table

Discussion

Rheumatoid arthritis is a major global health problem, associated with a high burden of disease from both individual and societal perspectives [2]. Early RA treatment provides the best opportunities to achieve disease remission and long-term damage prevention [6, 7, 25]. The existence of a window of opportunity for better treatment outcomes with an upper limit situated between 3 to 6 months after disease onset is now widely accepted [4, 18, 21]. Widespread efforts to reduce delays in RA diagnosis and treatment are needed, but the accomplishments of such initiatives in developing countries remain unclear due to scarcity of data.

We observed a significant decrease in diagnostic and treatment delays in the last decades in Brazil (Figs. 1, 2), such as reported in other nations [26,27,28]. Before 1990, the median delay to RA diagnosis in Brazil was 24 months and to receive the first DMARD was 60 months. These delays have decreased ever since and converged to a median of 8 months for diagnosis and 11 months for treatment in the period 2011–2015 (Table 3). Despite all the improvements, these numbers were still higher than those reported in developed countries, where treatment delay has mostly been situated around 4–8 months from disease onset [28,29,30]. This finding reinforces the need for regional data in order to understand the status of early RA management from a global perspective; generalizations are not warranted.

The proportion of patients receiving early RA diagnosis and treatment increased along the studied period considering all defined windows (Tables 1, 2). In 2011–2015, more than 70% of the patients with RA were diagnosed and treated within 12 months of symptoms onset. Nevertheless, in the same period, only 36.3% received treatment within 6 months and 17.2% within 3 months of symptoms onset (Table 2). This shorter (3-month) window has been associated with the best outcomes [4, 31, 32]. Therefore, despite all the improvements, even recently a very early beginning of RA treatment (where the most promising results are expected) was still difficult to achieve in Brazil.

We noted increasing effect sizes (V values) for the association between the year of symptoms onset (arranged in time intervals) and the proportions of patients receiving early RA management across the 3, 6, and 12-month thresholds. This indicated that the magnitude of changes in diagnostic and treatment delays was not the same in these 3 windows. Instead, changes were greater around the 12-month threshold. This phenomenon can also be perceived with the increasing odds ratios for early treatment across the 3, 6, and 12-month windows when comparing patients whose symptoms initiated in the 2011–2015 period and those with symptoms onset before 1990. In other words, large delays (of more than 12 months) were more easily reduced, whereas achieving delays of less than 3–6 months (which are the ideal goals of early management) proved to be more difficult.

The mean diagnostic and treatment delay decreased progressively across the studied periods. Patients whose symptoms initiated in 2011–2015 (reference group) had significantly shorter delays in both diagnosis and treatment when compared to all other groups; the further removed into the past the period of symptoms onset, the greater the differences in comparison to the reference group (Table 4). These findings suggest a sustained decrease in mean delays throughout the assessed period, rather than a transient phenomenon at some particular occasion.

However, as noticed before, the sustained decrease in mean diagnostic and treatment delays in the last decades did not imply a uniform change across the different window thresholds. Rather, the decreases were influenced more by the progressive elimination of very large delays (greater effect sizes around the 12-month windows) than by the increments in frequency of short delays (smaller effect sizes around the 3-month widows). This finding indicates that measuring the proportions of patients being treated within the targeted windows could be more useful for policy adjustments than simply measuring changes in mean delays.

The main limitation of this study was that it relied to a great extent on the information provided directly by participants regarding the delays between symptoms onset and the diagnosis and treatment of RA. When feasible, diagnostic and treatment delays were ascertained using medical records, but for most participants these data were not retrievable from previous records. Confidence intervals (CI) for the mean delays were computed on a year-to-year basis (Figs. 1, 2), revealing greater imprecision (larger CI), as expected, around the older point estimates in comparison to the more recent ones. Despite this limitation, our findings of decreasing delays in RA management are consistent with those reported in other countries [26,27,28].

Conclusions

Delays in the diagnosis and treatment of RA decreased progressively, and more patients could receive early treatment in the last decades in Brazil. Nevertheless, even in recent years (2011–2015), the median delay to treatment remained unacceptably high (11 months). Improvements were greater in the elimination of very large delays (≥ 12 months) than in the attainment of really short (and desirable) management windows (≤ 3 months). Very early treatment of RA remained difficult to achieve. Additional efforts are clearly needed in pursuit of that goal in Brazil, which might also be the case in other developing nations where robust data tend to be scarce. Country-level data as we provided herein are essential for a proper understanding of the status of early RA treatment from a global perspective.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Not applicable for materials.

Abbreviations

ACR:

American College of Rheumatology

ANOVA:

Analysis of variance

ARA:

American Rheumatism Association

CI:

Confidence interval

DMARD:

Disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs

EULAR:

European League Against Rheumatism

IQR:

Interquartile range

OR:

Odds ratio

RA:

Rheumatoid arthritis

SD:

Standard deviation

References

  1. Almutairi KB, Nossent JC, Preen DB, et al. The prevalence of rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review of population-based studies. J Rheumatol. 2021;48:669–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Safiri S, Kolahi AA, Hoy D, et al. Global, regional and national burden of rheumatoid arthritis 1990–2017: a systematic analysis of the Global Burden of Disease study 2017. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019;78:1463–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Lard LR, Visser H, Speyer I, et al. Early versus delayed treatment in patients with recent-onset rheumatoid arthritis: comparison of two cohorts who received different treatment strategies. Am J Med. 2001;111:446–51.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Nell VP, Machold KP, Eberl G, et al. Benefit of very early referral and very early therapy with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2004;43:906–14.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. van der Heide A, Jacobs JW, Bijlsma JW, et al. The effectiveness of early treatment with “second-line” antirheumatic drugs: a randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 1996;124:699–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. van der Linden MP, le Cessie S, Raza K, et al. Long-term impact of delay in assessment of patients with early arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2010;62:3537–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bykerk V, Emery P. Delay in receiving rheumatology care leads to long-term harm. Arthritis Rheum. 2010;62:3519–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Urata Y, Nakamura Y, Furukawa K. Comparison of initial versus delayed introduction of a treat-to-target strategy in patients with recent-onset rheumatoid arthritis: results of the T-4 3-year study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2014;73:470–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Quinn MA, Emery P. Are early arthritis clinics necessary? Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2005;19:1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Villeneuve E, Nam JL, Bell MJ, et al. A systematic literature review of strategies promoting early referral and reducing delays in the diagnosis and management of inflammatory arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2013;72:13–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. van Nies JA, Brouwer E, van Gaalen FA, et al. Improved early identification of arthritis: evaluating the efficacy of Early Arthritis Recognition Clinics. Ann Rheum Dis. 2013;72:1295–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Nisar MK. Early arthritis clinic is cost-effective, improves outcomes and reduces biologic use. Clin Rheumatol. 2019;38:1555–60.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. van Aken J, van Bilsen JH, Allaart CF, et al. The Leiden early arthritis clinic. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2003;21:S100–5.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Nikiphorou E, Galloway J, van Riel P, et al. The spectrum of early rheumatoid arthritis practice across the globe: results from a multinational cross sectional survey. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2017;35:477–83.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Cush JJ. Early arthritis clinic: a USA perspective. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2003;21:S75–8.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Ison M, Duggan E, Mehdi A, et al. Treatment delays for patients with new-onset rheumatoid arthritis presenting to an Australian early arthritis clinic. Intern Med J. 2018;48:1498–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. da Mota LM, Brenol CV, Palominos P, et al. Rheumatoid arthritis in Latin America: the importance of an early diagnosis. Clin Rheumatol. 2015;34(Suppl 1):S29-44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. van Nies JA, Tsonaka R, Gaujoux-Viala C, et al. Evaluating relationships between symptoms duration and persistence of rheumatoid arthritis: does a window of opportunity exist? Results on the Leiden early arthritis clinic and ESPOIR cohorts. Ann Rheum Dis. 2015;74:806–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Raza K, Filer A. The therapeutic window of opportunity in rheumatoid arthritis: does it ever close? Ann Rheum Dis. 2015;74:793–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Cush JJ. Early rheumatoid arthritis—is there a window of opportunity? J Rheumatol Suppl. 2007;80:1–7.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. van Nies JA, Krabben A, Schoones JW, et al. What is the evidence for the presence of a therapeutic window of opportunity in rheumatoid arthritis? A systematic literature review. Ann Rheum Dis. 2014;73:861–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Burgers LE, Raza K, van der Helm-van Mil AH. Window of opportunity in rheumatoid arthritis—definitions and supporting evidence: from old to new perspectives. RMD Open. 2019;5:e000870.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. da Rocha C-P, Vargas-Santos AB, de Albuquerque CP, et al. The REAL study: a nationwide prospective study of rheumatoid arthritis in Brazil. Adv Rheumatol. 2018;58:9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Raza K, Saber TP, Kvien TK, et al. Timing the therapeutic window of opportunity in early rheumatoid arthritis: proposal for definitions of disease duration in clinical trials. Ann Rheum Dis. 2012;71:1921–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kyburz D, Gabay C, Michel BA, et al. The long-term impact of early treatment of rheumatoid arthritis on radiographic progression: a population-based cohort study. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2011;50:1106–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Sorensen J, Hetland ML, All departments of rheumatology in D. Diagnostic delay in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis: results from the Danish nationwide DANBIO registry. Ann Rheum Dis. 2015; 74:e12.

  27. Irvine S, Munro R, Porter D. Early referral, diagnosis, and treatment of rheumatoid arthritis: evidence for changing medical practice. Ann Rheum Dis. 1999;58:510–3.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Kimsey L, Weissman JS, Patel A, et al. Delay in initiation of DMARD or anti-inflammatory therapy in patients newly diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis: An analysis of United States Military Health System TRICARE beneficiaries. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2019;48:821–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Jamal S, Alibhai SM, Badley EM, et al. Time to treatment for new patients with rheumatoid arthritis in a major metropolitan city. J Rheumatol. 2011;38:1282–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kiely P, Williams R, Walsh D, et al. Contemporary patterns of care and disease activity outcome in early rheumatoid arthritis: the ERAN cohort. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2009;48:57–60.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Emery P, Kvien TK, Combe B, et al. Combination etanercept and methotrexate provides better disease control in very early (<=4 months) versus early rheumatoid arthritis (>4 months and <2 years): post hoc analyses from the COMET study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2012;71:989–92.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Gremese E, Salaffi F, Bosello SL, et al. Very early rheumatoid arthritis as a predictor of remission: a multicentre real life prospective study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2013;72:858–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the Brazilian Society of Rheumatology and the Rheumatology Service of the University Hospital of Brasilia (HUB/UnB) for supporting this project.

Funding

The study was supported by the Brazilian Society of Rheumatology. The funder had no participation in the study design, data collection, analysis or interpretation, nor in the writing of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Rheumatology Service, Universidade de Brasília (UnB), Campus Universitário Darcy Ribeiro, Brasília, DF, 70910-900, Brazil

    Cleandro Pires de Albuquerque, Licia Maria Henrique da Mota & Leopoldo Santos-Neto

  2. School of Medicine, Centro Universitário de Brasília (CEUB), Brasília, DF, Brazil

    Ana Paula Monteiro Gomides Reis

  3. Department of Rheumatology, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (UERJ), Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil

    Ana Beatriz Vargas Santos & Geraldo R. Castelar Pinheiro

  4. Medical Sciences, Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, SP, Brazil

    Manoel Barros Bértolo

  5. School of Medicine, Universidade de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo (USP), Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil

    Paulo Louzada Júnior

  6. Instituto de Assistência Médica ao Servidor Público Estadual, Hospital do Servidor Público Estadual de São Paulo (IAMSPE), São Paulo, SP, Brazil

    Rina Dalva Neubarth Giorgi

  7. Department of Internal Medicine, Universidade Federal do Paraná (UFPR), Curitiba, PR, Brazil

    Sebastião Cezar Radominski

  8. Department of Rheumatology, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil

    Maria Fernanda B. Resende Guimarães

  9. Department of Rheumatology, Hospital das Clínicas, USP, São Paulo, SP, Brazil

    Karina Rossi Bonfiglioli

  10. Department of Rheumatology, School of Medicine, Universidade Federal do Pará, Belém, PA, Brazil

    Maria de Fátima L. da Cunha Sauma

  11. Department of Rheumatology, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC), Florianópolis, SC, Brazil

    Ivânio Alves Pereira

  12. Department of Internal Medicine, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil

    Claiton Viegas Brenol

Authors
  1. Cleandro Pires de Albuquerque
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ana Paula Monteiro Gomides Reis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ana Beatriz Vargas Santos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Manoel Barros Bértolo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Paulo Louzada Júnior
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Rina Dalva Neubarth Giorgi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Sebastião Cezar Radominski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Maria Fernanda B. Resende Guimarães
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Karina Rossi Bonfiglioli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Maria de Fátima L. da Cunha Sauma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Ivânio Alves Pereira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Claiton Viegas Brenol
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Licia Maria Henrique da Mota
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Leopoldo Santos-Neto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Geraldo R. Castelar Pinheiro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors made substantial contributions to the acquisition of data, have been involved in drafting the manuscript or revising it critically for important intellectual content, gave final approval of the version to be published and have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content; and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. In addition, GRCP, ABVS, and LMHM made substantial contributions to study conception and design, and CPA made substantial contributions to data analysis and interpretation. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cleandro Pires de Albuquerque.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was approved by a central ethics review board (https://plataformabrasil.saude.gov.br/, protocol number CAAE 45781015.8.1001.5259) and by institutional boards in each participating center. All participants granted informed consent to participate in the study. All procedures were in accordance with ethical standards of the National Commission of Ethics in Research (CONEP) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments.

Consent for publication

All participants granted informed consent for publication.

Competing interests

CPA reports personal fees and/or non-financial support from Pfizer, AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Novartis and UCB, outside the submitted work. APMG reports personal support and consulting fees from Pfizer. ABVS reports support for international medical events from AbbVie and Janssen. MBB reports having participated in clinical and/or experimental studies related to this work and sponsored by Roche and having delivered speeches at events related to this work and sponsored by AbbVie and Pfizer. PLJ reports support for international congresses from Bristol-Myers Squibb, UCB; and consulting fees from Pfizer; RDNG reports consulting fees, speaking fees and support for international congresses from Roche, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, UCB, Eli-Lilly, AbbVie, Abbott and EMS. SCR reports consulting and speaking fees from AbbVie, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche and UCB. MFBRG reports speaking fees and support for congresses from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB. KRB reports speaking fees and support for international congresses from Roche, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AbbVie and Janssen. MFLCS reports no financial disclosures. IAP reports consulting fees, speaking fees and support for internationals congresses from Roche, Pfizer, UCB Pharma, Eli-Lilly, AbbVie and Janssen. CVB reports having participated in clinical and/or experimental studies related to this work and sponsored by AbbVie, BMS, Janssen, Pfizer and Roche; having received personal or institutional support from AbbVie, BMS, Janssen, Pfizer and Roche; having delivered speeches at events related to this work and sponsored by AbbVie, Janssen, Pfizer and Roche. LMHM reports personal or institutional support from AbbVie, Janssen, Pfizer and Roche; and having delivered speeches at events related to this work and sponsored by AbbVie, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche and UCB. LSN reports no financial disclosures. GRCP reports consulting fees from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Glaxosmithkline, Janssen, Pfizer, Sanofi Genzyme and Roche.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

de Albuquerque, C.P., Reis, A.P.M.G., Santos, A.B.V. et al. Decreasing delays in the diagnosis and treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in Brazil: a nationwide multicenter observational study. Adv Rheumatol 63, 3 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s42358-022-00265-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s42358-022-00265-0

Keywords

Advances in Rheumatology

ISSN: 2523-3106