P246 Predicting non-response to biologic therapy amongst patients with axSpA: results from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Biologic therapies have transformed treatment for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). However, although studies report overall benefits, these are average effects. There remains a subset of patients in whom response is not achieved. Here, we aimed to identify characteristics of patients who may need additional therapeutic approaches to optimise outcome. Methods The British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register for Ankylosing Spondylitis (BSRBR-AS) is a prospective cohort of axSpA patients recruited from 83 centres across Great Britain. All patients were biologic-naïve at recruitment, however those in the “biologic” cohort commenced a biologic therapy shortly thereafter, or during follow-up. Clinical data was collected from medical records, and socio-economic/patient reported outcomes via questionnaires. Response was assessed at first follow-up, between 10 weeks and 9 months from therapy commencement, and defined in four ways: ASAS20 and ASAS40 criteria, ≥1.1 reduction in ASDAS, and achieving moderate/inactive ASDAS (<2.1). Factors associated with non-response were assessed by logistic regression and parsimonious models identified using stepwise methods. The ability to predict non-response was assessed by positive predictive value (PPV). Results 335 biologic participants provided information at a median follow-up of 14 weeks (inter-quartile range (IQR) 12-17). Median age was 47 years (IQR 36-56), 69% were male and 61% met AS modified New York criteria. The proportion meeting response varied by criteria: ASAS20 52%, ASAS40 33%, ASDAS reduction 47% and ASDAS <2.1 35%. Socio-economic circumstances predicted non-response, specifically (in all models) work status and (in some models) fewer years of education (Table 1). Poorer mental health and high number of co-morbidities was associated with non-response across multiple (but not all) outcomes, while body mass index, enthesitis and gender were included in models for a single outcome. Disease-specific factors were largely not associated with non-response. All models demonstrated a good level of fit and were effective at predicting non-response (PPV 65%-77%). Conclusion We have identified factors which predict non-response to biologic therapy, some of which may be modifiable and others which identify patients who are unlikely to benefit from biologic therapy alone. In such patients additional/alternative treatment strategies should be considered to maximise the benefits which others gain from biologic therapy. Disclosures L.E. Dean None. E. Pathan Other; E.P. has recieved salary funding from Jansen (2019) and Merck (2018). G.T. Jones None. G.J. Macfarlane None.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".