Identification of a Rule to Predict Response to Sarilumab in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis Using Machine Learning and Clinical Trial Data

Markus Rehberg, Clemens Giegerich, Amy Praestgaard, Hubert van Hoogstraten, Melitza Iglesias-Rodriguez, Jeffrey R Curtis, Jacques-Eric Gottenberg, Andreas Schwarting, Santos Castañeda, Andrea Rubbert-Roth, Ernest H S Choy, MOBILITY, MONARCH, TARGET, and ASCERTAIN investigators, Markus Rehberg, Clemens Giegerich, Amy Praestgaard, Hubert van Hoogstraten, Melitza Iglesias-Rodriguez, Jeffrey R Curtis, Jacques-Eric Gottenberg, Andreas Schwarting, Santos Castañeda, Andrea Rubbert-Roth, Ernest H S Choy, MOBILITY, MONARCH, TARGET, and ASCERTAIN investigators

Abstract

Introduction: In rheumatoid arthritis, time spent using ineffective medications may lead to irreversible disease progression. Despite availability of targeted treatments, only a minority of patients achieve sustained remission, and little evidence exists to direct the choice of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in individual patients. Machine learning was used to identify a rule to predict the response to sarilumab and discriminate between responses to sarilumab versus adalimumab, with a focus on clinically feasible blood biomarkers.

Methods: The decision tree model GUIDE was trained using a data subset from the sarilumab trial with the most biomarker data, MOBILITY, to identify a rule to predict disease activity after sarilumab 200 mg. The training set comprised 18 categorical and 24 continuous baseline variables; some data were omitted from training and used for validation by the algorithm (cross-validation). The rule was tested using full datasets from four trials (MOBILITY, MONARCH, TARGET, and ASCERTAIN), focusing on the recommended sarilumab dose of 200 mg.

Results: In the training set, the presence of anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies, combined with C-reactive protein > 12.3 mg/l, was identified as the "rule" that predicts American College of Rheumatology 20% response (ACR20) to sarilumab. In testing, the rule reliably predicted response to sarilumab in MOBILITY, MONARCH, and ASCERTAIN for many efficacy parameters (e.g., ACR70 and the 28-joint disease activity score using CRP [DAS28-CRP] remission). The rule applied less to TARGET, which recruited individuals refractory to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors. The potential clinical benefit of the rule was highlighted in a clinical scenario based on MONARCH data, which found that increased ACR70 rates could be achieved by treating either rule-positive patients with sarilumab or rule-negative patients with adalimumab.

Conclusions: Well-established and clinically feasible blood biomarkers can guide individual treatment choice. Real-world validation of the rule identified in this post hoc analysis is merited.

Clinical trial registration: NCT01061736, NCT02332590, NCT01709578, NCT01768572.

Keywords: Adalimumab; Clinical trial; Machine learning; Precision medicine; Rheumatoid arthritis; Sarilumab.

© 2021. The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Schematic of the resulting GUIDE decision tree classification approach model (A) and the reduced final model (B). Anti-CCP anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide, C1M metabolite of type I collagen, CRP C-reactive protein, sgp130 soluble glycoprotein 130
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Response rates in rule-positive and rule-negative sarilumab-treated patients. The patient stratification rule was the combined presence of anti-CCP and CRP > 12.3 mg/l. ACR20 ACR 20%, ACR50 ACR 50%, ACR70 ACR 70%, CDAI Clinical Disease Activity Index, DAS28-CRP 28-joint Disease Activity Score using C-reactive protein, DAS28-ESR DAS28 using erythrocyte sedimentation rate, HAQ-DI Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, LDA low disease activity, MCID minimal clinically important difference, REM remission
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Odds ratios of achieving clinical response at week 24 in placebo- (MOBILITY, TARGET) or active-controlled studies (ASCERTAIN): rule-positive versus rule-negative patients. The patient stratification rule was the combined presence of anti-CCP and CRP > 12.3 mg/l. Data presented for MOBILITY and TARGET are placebo-adjusted. ACR20 ACR 20%, ACR50 ACR 50%, ACR70 ACR 70%, DAS28-CRP 28-joint Disease Activity Score using C-reactive protein, HAQ-DI Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, LDA low disease activity, MCID minimal clinically important difference

References

    1. Singh JA, Saag KG, Bridges SL, Jr, et al. 2015 American College of Rheumatology guideline for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care Res. 2016;68(1):1–25. doi: 10.1002/acr.22783.
    1. Smolen JS, Landewe RBM, Bijlsma JWJ, et al. EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2019 update. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216655.
    1. Karsdal MA, Bay-Jensen AC, Henriksen K, et al. Rheumatoid arthritis: a case for personalized health care? Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2014;66(9):1273–1280. doi: 10.1002/acr.22289.
    1. Hugle M, Omoumi P, van Laar JM, Boedecker J, Hugle T. Applied machine learning and artificial intelligence in rheumatology. Rheumatol Adv Pract. 2020;4(1):rkaa005. doi: 10.1093/rap/rkaa005.
    1. Venerito V, Lopalco G, Cacciapaglia F, Fornaro M, Iannone F. A Bayesian mixed treatment comparison of efficacy of biologics and small molecules in early rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Rheumatol. 2019;38(5):1309–1317. doi: 10.1007/s10067-018-04406-z.
    1. Migliore A, Bizzi E, Egan CG, Bernardi M, Petrella L. Efficacy of biological agents administered as monotherapy in rheumatoid arthritis: a Bayesian mixed-treatment comparison analysis. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2015;11:1325–1335.
    1. Dennis G, Jr, Holweg CT, Kummerfeld SK, et al. Synovial phenotypes in rheumatoid arthritis correlate with response to biologic therapeutics. Arthritis Res Ther. 2014;16(2):R90. doi: 10.1186/ar4555.
    1. Johnson KJ, Sanchez HN, Schoenbrunner N. Defining response to TNF-inhibitors in rheumatoid arthritis: the negative impact of anti-TNF cycling and the need for a personalized medicine approach to identify primary non-responders. Clin Rheumatol. 2019;38(11):2967–2976. doi: 10.1007/s10067-019-04684-1.
    1. Plant D, Maciejewski M, Smith S, et al. Profiling of gene expression biomarkers as a classifier of methotrexate nonresponse in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(5):678–684. doi: 10.1002/art.40810.
    1. Mahler M, Martinez-Prat L, Sparks JA, Deane KD. Precision medicine in the care of rheumatoid arthritis: focus on prediction and prevention of future clinically-apparent disease. Autoimmun Rev. 2020;19(5):102506. doi: 10.1016/j.autrev.2020.102506.
    1. Aletaha D. Precision medicine and management of rheumatoid arthritis. J Autoimmun. 2020;110:102405. doi: 10.1016/j.jaut.2020.102405.
    1. Giacomelli R, Afeltra A, Alunno A, et al. Guidelines for biomarkers in autoimmune rheumatic diseases - evidence based analysis. Autoimmun Rev. 2019;18(1):93–106. doi: 10.1016/j.autrev.2018.08.003.
    1. Lequerré T, Rottenberg P, Derambure C, Cosette P, Vittecoq O. Predictors of treatment response in rheumatoid arthritis. Joint Bone Spine. 2019;86(2):151–158. doi: 10.1016/j.jbspin.2018.03.018.
    1. Norgeot B, Glicksberg BS, Trupin L, et al. Assessment of a deep learning model based on electronic health record data to forecast clinical outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(3):e190606. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.0606.
    1. Guan Y, Zhang H, Quang D, et al. Machine learning to predict anti-tumor necrosis factor drug responses of rheumatoid arthritis patients by integrating clinical and genetic markers. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71(12):1987–1996. doi: 10.1002/art.41056.
    1. Yoo J, Lim MK, Ihm C, Choi ES, Kang MS. A study on prediction of rheumatoid arthritis using machine learning. Int J Appl Engineering Res. 2017;12(20):9858–9862.
    1. Zhou SM, Fernandez-Gutierrez F, Kennedy J, et al. Defining disease phenotypes in primary care electronic health records by a machine learning approach: a case study in identifying rheumatoid arthritis. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(5):e0154515. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0154515.
    1. KEVZARA (sarilumab) [Prescribing Information] 2017. Available at: .
    1. KEVZARA (sarilumab) [Summary of Product Characteristics] 2017. Available at: .
    1. Genovese MC, Fleischmann R, Kivitz AJ, et al. Sarilumab plus methotrexate in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response to methotrexate: results of a phase III study. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2015;67(6):1424–1437. doi: 10.1002/art.39093.
    1. Burmester GR, Lin Y, Patel R, et al. Efficacy and safety of sarilumab monotherapy versus adalimumab monotherapy for the treatment of patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (MONARCH): a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group phase III trial. Ann Rheum Dis. 2017;76(5):840–847. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-210310.
    1. Fleischmann R, van Adelsberg J, Lin Y, et al. Sarilumab and nonbiologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response or intolerance to tumor necrosis factor inhibitors. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2017;69(2):277–290. doi: 10.1002/art.39944.
    1. Emery P, Rondon J, Parrino J, et al. Safety and tolerability of subcutaneous sarilumab and intravenous tocilizumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2019;58(5):849–858. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/key361.
    1. Loh W-Y. Classification and regression trees. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Data Min Knowl Discov. 2011;1(1):14–23. doi: 10.1002/widm.8.
    1. Quinlan JR. Induction of decision trees. Mach Learn. 1986;1:81–106.
    1. Wijbrandts CA, Tak PP. Prediction of response to targeted treatment in rheumatoid arthritis. Mayo Clin Proc 2017;92(7):1129–43.
    1. Harrold LR, Litman HJ, Connolly SE, et al. Effect of anticitrullinated protein antibody status on response to abatacept or antitumor necrosis factor-α therapy in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a US national observational study. J Rheumatol. 2018;45(1):32–39. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.170007.
    1. Pers YM, Fortunet C, Constant E, et al. Predictors of response and remission in a large cohort of rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with tocilizumab in clinical practice. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2014;53(1):76–84. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/ket301.
    1. Harrold L, Wittstock K, Kelly S, et al. The comparative effectiveness of abatacept versus TNF inhibitors in patients who are ACPA positive and have the shared epitope: results from a US national observational study. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(suppl 10):0801.
    1. Boyapati A, Schwartzman S, Msihid J, et al. Association of high serum interleukin-6 levels with severe progression of rheumatoid arthritis and increased treatment response differentiating sarilumab from adalimumab or methotrexate in a post hoc analysis. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2020;72(9):1456–1466. doi: 10.1002/art.41299.
    1. Boss B, Neeck G. Correlation of IL-6 with the classical humoral disease activity parameters ESR and CRP and with serum cortisol, reflecting the activity of the HPA axis in active rheumatoid arthritis. Z Rheumatol 2000;59 Suppl 2:II/62–4.
    1. Cronstein BN. Interleukin-6–a key mediator of systemic and local symptoms in rheumatoid arthritis. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis. 2007;65(Suppl 1):S11–S15.
    1. van Leeuwen MA, Westra J, Limburg PC, van Riel PL, van Rijswijk MH. Clinical significance of interleukin-6 measurement in early rheumatoid arthritis: relation with laboratory and clinical variables and radiological progression in a three year prospective study. Ann Rheum Dis. 1995;54(8):674–677. doi: 10.1136/ard.54.8.674.
    1. Izawa S, Miki K, Liu X, Ogawa N. The diurnal patterns of salivary interleukin-6 and C-reactive protein in healthy young adults. Brain Behav Immun. 2013;27(1):38–41. doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2012.07.001.

Source: PubMed

3
Suscribir