Objective. Few data exist on the use of anti-TNF drugs for AS during routine clinical use in the UK. This report describes an improvement in Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) and Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index (BASFI) after 6 months of therapy in 261 patients enrolled in a national prospective observational register.Methods. The British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register (BSRBR) recruited patients starting anti-TNF therapy for AS between 2002 and 2006. Multivariable linear regression models were used to estimate the predictors of absolute improvement in BASDAI and BASFI at 6 months. Covariates included age, gender, disease duration, baseline BASDAI and BASFI, presence of raised inflammatory markers (defined as twice the upper limit of normal) and DMARD therapy.Results. The cohort was young (median age 43 years) and 82% were males. Median baseline BASDAI was 7.6 and BASFI 7.9. At 6 months, the mean improvements in BASDAI and BASFI were 3.6 and 2.6 U, respectively; 52% reached a BASDAI50. Patients with raised inflammatory markers at the start of therapy had a 0.9-U (95% CI 0.2, 1.5) better improvement in BASDAI compared with those without. Lesser responses were seen in those with higher baseline BASFI scores. Women had a 1.1-U (95% CI 0.3, 2.0) greater improvement in BASFI at 6 months, as did those who were receiving concurrent DMARD therapy [0.9 U (95% CI 0.2, 1.7)].Conclusions. The majority of patients receiving anti-TNF therapy for AS during routine care demonstrated an improvement in disease activity. Raised inflammatory markers at the start of therapy predicted a greater improvement in BASDAI, identifying a group of patients who may be more responsive to anti-TNF therapies, although the results were not confined to this group.

Objectives Improving dementia diagnosis rates in England has been a key strategic aim of the UK Government but the variation and low diagnosis rates are poorly understood. The aim of this study was to explore the variation in actual versus expected diagnosis of dementia across England, and how these variations were associated with general practice characteristics. Method A cross-sectional, ecological study design using secondary data sources and median regression modelling was used. Data from the year 2011 for 7711 of the GP practices in England (92.7%). Associations of dementia diagnosis rates (%) per practice, calculated using National Health Service England’s ‘Dementia Prevalence Calculator’ and various practice characteristics were explored using a regression model. Results The median dementia diagnosis rate was 41.6% and the interquartile range was 31.2–53.9%. Multivariable regression analysis demonstrated positive associations between dementia diagnosis rates and deprivation of the population, overall Quality and Outcomes Framework performance, type of primary care contract and size of practice list. Negative associations were found between dementia diagnosis rates and average experience of GPs in the practice and the proportion of the practice caseload over 65 years old. Conclusion Dementia diagnosis rates vary greatly across GP practices in England. This study has found independent associations between dementia diagnosis rates and a number of patient and practice characteristics. Consideration of these factors locally may provide targets for case-finding interventions and so facilitate timely diagnosis.

Opt-out recruitment appears to be a relatively efficient approach to ensuring participation of typical general practices. Researchers should, with appropriate ethical safeguards, consider opt-out recruitment of practices for studies involving anonymized patient data sharing.

No abstract