Baseline comorbidities in a population-based cohort of rheumatoid arthritis patients receiving biological therapy: data from the Australian rheumatology association database.

Aims. To describe the baseline characteristics of an Australian population-based cohort of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients commencing biological therapy. Methods. Descriptive analysis from the Australian Rheumatology Association Database (ARAD). Results. Up to October 2006, there were 681 RA patients taking biologics enrolled in ARAD. Baseline data were available for 624 (72% female, mean (SD) age 57.0 (12.5) years). Of these, 59.5% reported at least one comorbid condition, most commonly hypertension (35.7%) and osteoporosis (30.4%); 61 (9.8%) had a history of malignancy (35 nonmelanoma skin, 5 breast, 4 bowel, 5 cervix, 3 melanoma, 3 prostate and 1 each of lip, lung, myeloma, testis, uterus, vagina). Self-reported infections within the previous 6 months were common (71.5%). Conclusions. History of comorbidities, including recent infections, is common among Australian RA patients commencing biologics, and 10% have a history of malignancy. This may impact future evaluations of health outcomes among this population, including attribution of adverse events of biologic therapy.

Stakeholder Satisfaction with the Australian Rheumatology Association Database (ARAD).

BACKGROUND: The Australian Rheumatology Association Database (ARAD) is a voluntary national registry for monitoring the long-term benefits and safety of biological disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) for inflammatory arthritis. Both rheumatologists and patients contribute data to the ARAD. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the satisfaction of patients and rheumatologists with the ARAD. METHODS: Cross-sectional surveys were distributed to a random sample of 100 community-dwelling ARAD patients in 2007 and to rheumatologists attending the 2007 Australian Rheumatology Association (ARA) annual scientific meeting.Survey questions included items about the usefulness of the ARAD, workload for participants, frequency of questionnaires, and experience of contact with ARAD staff. RESULTS: A total of 92.5% of patients perceived the ARAD as very important (scoring 9-10 on a numeric rating scale). Patients reported minimal difficulty in completing questionnaires, and 95.0% indicated that a 6-month interval between questionnaires was reasonable. Of responding rheumatologists, 32.3%, 62.1%, and 53.8% indicated that the ARAD was very important (scoring 8-10) with respect to clinical information, research, and the profession, respectively, while 68% of those participating in the ARAD reported that the workload required to enroll patients was manageable and 30% found it difficult or onerous. CONCLUSION: Key stakeholders in the ARAD view it as an important resource and are satisfied with its operations. Efforts will be directed towards assisting those rheumatologists who find the associated workload difficult and to improving the perceived clinical value of information available from the ARAD.