POS0461 RESPONSE TO BIOLOGIC THERAPY IN RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS: RETHINKING OUR CLASSIFICATION
Authors: E. Vallejo-Yagüe, S. Kandhasamy, E. Keystone, A. Finckh, R. Micheroli, A. M. Burden
Journal: Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (2021)

Background: In rheumatoid arthritis (RA), primary failure with biologic treatment may be understood as lack of initial clinical response, while secondary failure would be loss of effectiveness after an initial response. Despite these clinical concepts, there is no unifying operational definition of primary and secondary non-response to RA treatment in observational studies using real-world data. On top of data-driven challenges, when conceptualizing secondary non-responders, it is unclear if the mechanism behind loss of effectiveness after a brief initial response is similar to loss of effectiveness after previous benefit sustained over time. Objectives: This viewpoint aims to motivate discussion on how to define primary and secondary non-response in observational studies. Ultimately, we aim to trigger expert committees to develop standard terminology for these concepts. Methods: We discuss different methodologies for defining primary and secondary non-response in observational studies. To do so, we shortly overview challenges characteristic of performing observational studies in real-world data, and subsequently, we conceptualize whether treatment response should be a dichotomous classification (Primary response/non-response; Secondary response/non-response), or whether one should consider three response categories (Primary response/non-response; Primary sustained/non-sustained response; Secondary response/non-response). Results: RA or biologic registries are a common data source for studying treatment response in real-world data. While registries include disease-specific variables to assess disease progression, missing data, loss of follow-up, and visits restricted to the year or mid-year visit may present a challenge. We believe there is a general agreement to assess primary response within the first 6 month of treatment. However, conceptualizing secondary non-response, one could wonder if a patient with brief initial response and immediate loss of it should belong to the same response category as a patient who relapses after a period of prior benefit that was sustained over time. Until this concern is clarified, we recommend considering a period of sustained response as a pre-requisite for secondary failure. This would result in the following three categories: a) Primary non-response: Lack of response within the first 6 months of treatment; b) Primary sustained response: Maintenance of a positive effectiveness outcome for at least the first 12 months since treatment start; c) Secondary non-response: Loss of effectiveness after achieved primary sustained response. Figure 1 illustrates this classification through a decision tree. Since the underlying mechanisms for treatment failure may differ among the above-mentioned categories, we recommend to use the three-category classification. However, since this may pose additional methodological challenges in real-world data, optionally, a dichotomous 12-month time-point may be used to assess secondary non-response (unfavourable outcome after 12-months) in comparison to primary non-response or non-sustained response (unfavourable outcome within the first 12-months). Similarly, to study primary response, the solely 6-month timepoint may be used. Conclusion: A unified operational definition of treatment response will minimize heterogeneity among observational studies and help improve the ability to draw cross-study comparisons, which we believe would be of particular interest when identifying predictors of treatment failure. Thus, we hope to open the room for discussion and encourage expert committees to work towards a common approach to assess treatment primary and secondary non-response in RA in observational studies. Disclosure of Interests: Enriqueta Vallejo-Yagüe: None declared, Sreemanjari Kandhasamy: None declared, Edward Keystone Speakers bureau: Amgen, AbbVie, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., Janssen Inc., Merck, Novartis, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi Genzyme, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Celltrion, Myriad Autoimmune, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc, Gilead, Janssen Inc, Lilly Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, Sandoz, Sanofi-Genzyme, Samsung Bioepsis, Grant/research support from: Amgen, Merck, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, PuraPharm, Axel Finckh Speakers bureau: Pfizer, Eli-Lilly, Paid instructor for: Pfizer, Eli-Lilly, Consultant of: AbbVie, AB2Bio, BMS, Gilead, Pfizer, Viatris, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, BMS, Novartis, Raphael Micheroli Consultant of: Gilead, Eli-Lilly, Pfizer and Abbvie, Andrea Michelle Burden: None declared