Heterogeneity of treatment responses in rheumatoid arthritis using group based trajectory models: secondary analysis of clinical trial data.

IF 2.1 Q3 RHEUMATOLOGY BMC Rheumatology Pub Date : 2023-09-25 DOI:10.1186/s41927-023-00348-5
Fowzia Ibrahim, Ian C Scott, David L Scott, Salma Ahmed Ayis
{"title":"Heterogeneity of treatment responses in rheumatoid arthritis using group based trajectory models: secondary analysis of clinical trial data.","authors":"Fowzia Ibrahim, Ian C Scott, David L Scott, Salma Ahmed Ayis","doi":"10.1186/s41927-023-00348-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Traditionally rheumatoid arthritis (RA) trials classify patients as responders and non-responders; they ignore the potential range of treatment responses. Group Based Trajectory Models (GBTMs) provide a more refined approach. They identify patient subgroups with similar outcome trajectories. We used GBTMs to classify patients into subgroups of varying responses and explore factors associated with different responses to intensive treatment in a secondary analysis of intensive treatment in the TITRATE clinical trial.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The TITRATE trial enrolled 335 patients with RA: 168 patients were randomised to receive intensive management, which comprised monthly assessments including measures of the disease activity score for 28 joints (DAS28), treatment escalation when patients were not responding sufficiently and psychosocial support; 163 of these patients completed the trial. We applied GBTMs to monthly DAS28 scores over one year to these patients who had received intensive management. The control group had standard care and were assessed every 6 months; they had too few DAS28 scores for applying GBTMs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>GBTMs identified three distinct trajectories in the patients receiving intensive management: good (n = 40), moderate (n = 76) and poor (n = 47) responders. Baseline body mass index (BMI), disability, fatigue and depression levels were significantly different between trajectory groups. Few (10%) good responders were obese, compared to 38% of moderate, and 43% of poor responders (P = 0.002). Few (8%) good responders had depression, compared to 14% moderate responders, and 38% poor responders (P < 0.001). The key difference in treatments was using high-cost biologics, used in only 5% of good responders but 30% of moderate and 51% of poor responders (P < 0.001). Most good responders had endpoint remissions and low disability, pain, and fatigue scores; few poor responders achieved any favourable outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>GBTMs identified three trajectories of disease activity progression in patients receiving intensive management for moderately active RA. Baseline variables like obesity and depression predicted different treatment responses. Few good responders needed biologic drugs; they responded to conventional DMARDs alone. GBTMs have the potential to facilitate precision medicine enabling patient-oriented treatment strategies based on key characteristics.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>TITRATE Trial ISRCTN 70160382.</p>","PeriodicalId":9150,"journal":{"name":"BMC Rheumatology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10518927/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Rheumatology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41927-023-00348-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RHEUMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Traditionally rheumatoid arthritis (RA) trials classify patients as responders and non-responders; they ignore the potential range of treatment responses. Group Based Trajectory Models (GBTMs) provide a more refined approach. They identify patient subgroups with similar outcome trajectories. We used GBTMs to classify patients into subgroups of varying responses and explore factors associated with different responses to intensive treatment in a secondary analysis of intensive treatment in the TITRATE clinical trial.

Methods: The TITRATE trial enrolled 335 patients with RA: 168 patients were randomised to receive intensive management, which comprised monthly assessments including measures of the disease activity score for 28 joints (DAS28), treatment escalation when patients were not responding sufficiently and psychosocial support; 163 of these patients completed the trial. We applied GBTMs to monthly DAS28 scores over one year to these patients who had received intensive management. The control group had standard care and were assessed every 6 months; they had too few DAS28 scores for applying GBTMs.

Results: GBTMs identified three distinct trajectories in the patients receiving intensive management: good (n = 40), moderate (n = 76) and poor (n = 47) responders. Baseline body mass index (BMI), disability, fatigue and depression levels were significantly different between trajectory groups. Few (10%) good responders were obese, compared to 38% of moderate, and 43% of poor responders (P = 0.002). Few (8%) good responders had depression, compared to 14% moderate responders, and 38% poor responders (P < 0.001). The key difference in treatments was using high-cost biologics, used in only 5% of good responders but 30% of moderate and 51% of poor responders (P < 0.001). Most good responders had endpoint remissions and low disability, pain, and fatigue scores; few poor responders achieved any favourable outcomes.

Conclusion: GBTMs identified three trajectories of disease activity progression in patients receiving intensive management for moderately active RA. Baseline variables like obesity and depression predicted different treatment responses. Few good responders needed biologic drugs; they responded to conventional DMARDs alone. GBTMs have the potential to facilitate precision medicine enabling patient-oriented treatment strategies based on key characteristics.

Registration: TITRATE Trial ISRCTN 70160382.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
使用基于组的轨迹模型对类风湿性关节炎治疗反应的异质性:临床试验数据的二次分析。
背景:传统的类风湿性关节炎(RA)试验将患者分为有反应者和无反应者;他们忽略了治疗反应的潜在范围。基于组的轨迹模型(GBTM)提供了一种更精细的方法。他们确定了具有相似结果轨迹的患者亚组。我们使用GBTM将患者分为不同反应的亚组,并在TITRATE临床试验中对强化治疗的二次分析中探讨与强化治疗不同反应相关的因素。方法:TITRATE试验纳入335名RA患者:168名患者随机接受强化治疗,包括每月评估,包括28个关节的疾病活动评分(DAS28)、患者反应不足时的治疗升级和心理社会支持;其中163名患者完成了试验。我们将GBTM应用于这些接受强化治疗的患者一年内的每月DAS28评分。对照组接受标准护理,每6个月进行一次评估;结果:GBTM在接受强化治疗的患者中发现了三个不同的轨迹:良好(n = 40),中度(n = 76)和差(n = 47)响应者。基线体重指数(BMI)、残疾、疲劳和抑郁水平在轨迹组之间存在显著差异。很少(10%)反应良好的人肥胖,而中等反应者和不良反应者分别为38%和43%(P = 0.002)。很少有(8%)好的应答者患有抑郁症,相比之下,14%的中度应答者和38%的不良应答者(P 结论:GBTMs确定了接受中度活动性RA强化治疗的患者疾病活动进展的三个轨迹。肥胖和抑郁等基线变量预测了不同的治疗反应。很少有好的反应者需要生物药物;它们单独对常规DMARD作出反应。GBTM有可能促进精准医疗,从而实现基于关键特征的以患者为导向的治疗策略。注册:TITRATE试验ISRCTN 70160382。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Rheumatology
BMC Rheumatology Medicine-Rheumatology
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
73
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊最新文献
Classification of salivary gland biopsies in Sjögren's syndrome by a convolutional neural network using an auto-machine learning platform. Prevalence of co-existing autoimmune and autoinflammatory diseases in vitiligo: a survey-based study from Egypt. Norwegian society of rheumatology recommendations on diagnosis and treatment of patients with Polymyalgia Rheumatica: a narrative review. Headaches in SLE patients: a cross-sectional analysis of clinical, immunological, and Radiological Correlations. What are the functional and clinical characteristics shared by fibromyalgia and low back pain? A scoping review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1