First Biologic Drug Persistence in Patients With Ankylosing Spondylitis and Nonradiographic Axial Spondyloarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Objectives Axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) includes ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA). Both are managed with biologic therapies; however, there is a lack of evidence for nr-axSpA therapies. The primary objective was to compare persistence to first biologic between AS and nr-axSpA patients in a longitudinal cohort. Secondary objectives were to examine disease activity markers over time and to evaluate predictors for drug discontinuation. Methods Data were obtained from persons enrolled in the SpondyloArthritis Research Consortium of Canada registry between 2003 and 2018. Kaplan-Meier curves were constructed from the time of biologic initiation until discontinuation and compared using the log-rank test. Subanalyses were performed according to calendar year and disease activity. Cox proportional hazards models were used to identify factors associated with discontinuation. Results We identified 385 biologic-naive persons. Overall, the 349 AS participants had longer persistence to their first biologic than the 36 nr-axSpA subjects (p < 0.01). The Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index and Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index decreased by 2.3 points (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.9–2.7) and 3.2 points (95% CI, 2.6–3.7), respectively, in the first year and were stable thereafter. Adjusting for sex, human leukocyte antigen B27, and smoking status, nr-axSpA patients were more likely to discontinue their biologic than AS patients (hazards ratio, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.03–2.62). Conclusions In this real-world study, AS patients had longer persistence to their first biologic compared with nr-axSpA, with disease subtype being the most significant predictor of treatment persistence. Future studies should be targeted at assessing long-term clinical outcome of axSpA in the real-world setting.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".