Treatment survival with biological therapy may be influenced by many factors, and it seems to be different among various rheumatic diseases and biological agents. The goal of the study was to compare the drug survival and the causes of discontinuation of anti-tumoral necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapy in ankylosing spondylitis (AS) with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Study participants were a cohort from the Brazilian Registry of Biological Therapies in Rheumatic Diseases (BIOBADABRASIL) between 2008 and 2012. The observation time was up to 4 years following the introduction of the first treatment. Gender, age, disease duration, disease activity, comorbidities, and concomitant therapies were assessed. A total of 1303 patients were included: 372 had AS and 931 had RA in which 38.7 % (n = 504) used infliximab (IFX), 34.9 % (n = 455) used adalimumab (ADA), and 26.4 % (n = 344) used etanercept (ETA). The anti-TNF drug survival of patients with AS was 63.08 months (confidence interval (CI) 60.24, 65.92) and patients with RA was 47.5 months (CI 45.65, 49.36). It was significant higher in AS (log-rank; p ≤ 0.001). Patients with RA discontinued anti-TNF more than patients with AS when adjusted to gender and corticosteroid. The adjHR (95 % CI) was 1.6 (1.14, 2.31). Female patients who were also corticosteroid users, but not of advanced age, have shown lower survival for both diseases (log-rank, p ≤ 0.001). The discontinuation rate of IFX, but not of ADA or ETA, was significantly higher in RA than in SA; HR (95 % CI) was 2.49 (1.46, 4.24). The main causes of discontinuation were ineffectiveness and adverse event in both diseases. AS patients have better drug survival adjusted to gender, age, and corticosteroid. This results appear to be related to the disease mechanism.

To compare the efficacy of the combination therapy Methotrexate (MTX) and Chloroquine (CHLO) with MTX and Placebo (PLA) in the treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis. A total of 82 patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA), diagnosed according to the American College of Rheumatology criteria, received orally either MTX 7.5 mg/week and CHLO 250 mg/day or MTX 7.5 mg/week and PLA 1 tablet/day. Adverse effects (AE) were monitored monthly and disease activity was assessed at 0, 2, 4 and 6 months. Sixty-eight patients completed the study. All outcome measures improved significantly in both treatment groups. Patients receiving MTX/CHLO ended the study with a significantly lower joint count, greater grip strength and better functional ability the patients in the MTX/PLA group, respectively; 4.5 vs 7.5 (P < 0.05), 113.3 vs 89.1 (P < 0.05) and 0.636 vs 0.811 (P < 0.05). Mild AE were more frequently observed in the MTX/CHLO, 17 events in 15 patients, compared to 9 events in 8 patients in the MTX/PLA group (NS). These data indicate that MTX/CHLO is slightly more efficacious and toxic than is MTX/PLA in the treatment of RA.

Objective To evaluate the current perspectives of patients and health professionals regarding the efficacy and safety of low-dose glucocorticoids (GCs) in RA. Methods Two online surveys were disseminated to patients and health professionals, in their native language, through national patient organizations and national rheumatology medical societies, respectively. SurveyMonkey®, MediGuard.org and the Glucocorticoid Low-dose Outcome in RA Study (GLORIA) website were used to offer and deliver these surveys. Results A total of 1221 RA patients with exposure to GCs, and 414 rheumatologists completed the surveys. Patients and rheumatologists reported high levels of agreement regarding the efficacy of low-dose GCs: at least 70% considered that they are very rapid and effective in the control of signs and symptoms of RA. However, half of the patients also reported having suffered serious adverse events with GCs, and 83% described concerns about safety. The majority of rheumatologists estimated that endocrine, ophthalmologic and cutaneous adverse events affect &gt;4% of all patients treated with low-dose GCs for 2 years, based on a heat map. Conclusions RA patients with self-reported exposure to GCs express high levels of satisfaction with low-dose GCs efficacy, as do rheumatologists. However, both expressed excessive concerns regarding the safety of GCs (greatly exceeding the published evidence data), which may compromise the optimal use of this medication. This study indicates that there is an unmet need for appropriately designed prospective trials that shed light on the real risk associated with low-dose GCs, as well as a need for renovated educational programs on the real benefits and harms of low-dose GCs, for both patients and physicians.

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.

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.