Cargando…

Clinical Specialty Setting as Determinant of Management of Psoriatic Arthritis: A Cross-Sectional Brazilian Study

The aim of this study was to examine the effect of clinical specialty setting on the management of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) as well as disease activity/burden in Brazil. METHODS: This study is a post hoc analysis of the Brazilian population in a cross-sectional, observational study conducted in 17...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: da Silva Souza, Cacilda, Goldenstein-Schainberg, Cláudia, Alvarenga Anti Loduca Lima, Sonia Maria, Spelling Gormezano, Natali, Ferreira Magalhães, Renata, Ranza, Roberto
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8946602/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35325900
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/RHU.0000000000001812
Descripción
Sumario:The aim of this study was to examine the effect of clinical specialty setting on the management of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) as well as disease activity/burden in Brazil. METHODS: This study is a post hoc analysis of the Brazilian population in a cross-sectional, observational study conducted in 17 countries. Patients were 18 years or older with suspected or confirmed PsA attending routine visits at participating sites. Primary end points were time from symptom onset to PsA diagnosis, from diagnosis to first conventional systemic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) or first biologic DMARD, and from first conventional systemic DMARD to first biologic DMARD. Potential associations were assessed using the Student t test or the Mann-Whitney U nonparametric test. Normality was tested using the Shapiro-Wilk and Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests. For qualitative variables, the χ(2) test was adopted. RESULTS: Patients (n = 130) visited dermatology (n = 75) or rheumatology (n = 55) sites. All primary end points were similar between the 2 settings; however, dermatology patients had significantly greater enthesitis counts (2.1 vs 0.6; p = 0.002), absenteeism at work (Work Productivity and Activity Impairment, 19.7% vs 5.2%; p = 0.03), and pain (Health Assessment Questionnaire–Disability Index pain scale, 1.39 vs 1.01; p = 0.032), as well as worse quality of life related to psoriasis (Dermatology Life Quality Index total score, 8.5 vs 5.0; p = 0.019) and mental health (12-item Short-Form Health Survey, version 2.0 subscale, 42.4 vs 47.4; p = 0.029). CONCLUSIONS: In Brazil, PsA disease burden and disease activity were influenced by clinical specialty. Irrespective of setting, patients experienced a delay in being diagnosed with PsA, reinforcing the need for collaborative management of PsA by rheumatologists and dermatologists for better outcomes in these patients.