MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

P246 Predicting non-response to biologic therapy amongst patients with axSpA: results from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register

2020· article· en· W3018156695 on OpenAlexaff
Linda E. Dean, Ejaz Pathan, Gareth T. Jones, Gary J. Macfarlane

Bibliographic record

VenueLara D. Veeken · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpondyloarthritis Studies and Treatments
Canadian institutionsToronto Western Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineCohortAxial spondyloarthritisRheumatologyAnkylosing spondylitisLogistic regressionQuartilePhysical therapyConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLara D. VeekenSame topicSpondyloarthritis Studies and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207