P046 A multinomial approach to prediction of methotrexate treatment response and discontinuation due to adverse events in rheumatoid arthritis

Abstract

Abstract Background/Aims As recommended by the NICE guidelines, methotrexate (MTX) is typically prescribed as the first line therapy for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, around 40% of patients do not respond to MTX at 6 months and around 80% experience adverse events (AEs). Our previous systematic review identified that clinical prediction models of MTX outcomes suffered from methodological limitations, including a lack of validation, suboptimal handling of missing data, and no consideration of competing risks, such as patients discontinuing due to adverse events (AEs). These shortcomings resulted in high risk of bias and should be addressed to aid the implementation of outcome prediction in clinical practice. Therefore, this study aimed to (i) develop a multinomial prediction model for estimating an individual’s risks of not achieving low disease activity (LDA) and discontinuing due to AEs at 6 months after starting MTX, using information observable at the starting point of treatment, (ii) update prognosis at 3 months, and (iii) internally validate these models to assess performance. Methods Data came from the national multi-centre (n = 38) Rheumatoid Arthritis Medication Study (RAMS), which recruited patients with a diagnosis of RA or undifferentiated polyarthritis starting MTX for the first time. We conducted a Patient and Public Involvement focus group with past and current MTX users, which informed our outcome choice of LDA (DAS28 ≤3.2). A multinomial logistic regression (MLR) was used to develop a prediction model that estimated the probabilities of three outcomes: 1) not in LDA, 2) achieved LDA, and 3) discontinued due to AEs. The updated model at 3 months was conditional on patients not having achieved LDA. Missing data was handled using multiple imputation and models were internally validated through bootstrapping. Calibration, discrimination, and variance explained was assessed to quantify model performance. Results A total of 1632 patients were included in the analysis. At 6 months, 756 (46%) patients achieved LDA, 730 (45%) were not in LDA, and 146 (9%) discontinued due to AEs. The updated model at 3 months included 1179 (72%) patients as they had not achieved LDA. For the LDA outcome pair, the c-statistic was 0.73 (0.70, 0.75), while it was 0.54 (0.49, 0.59) for the AEs outcome. The calibration slope was 0.99 (0.85, 1.12) and 0.74 (0.23, 1.23), respectively. Predictive performance at 3 months was similar to baseline. Conclusion Our MLR models handled outcomes of disease activity and AEs simultaneously. We were able to predict outcomes of LDA more accurately than AEs and performance was better in terms of calibration, which is crucial for the clinical utility of a prediction model. This modelling approach could provide more clinically useful and realistic predictions of MTX outcomes, as competing risks such as AEs have previously been ignored. Disclosure C.K. Gehringer: None. G.P. Martin: None. K.L. Hyrich: Honoraria; Abbvie. Grants/research support; BMS and Pfizer. S.M.M. Verstappen: None. J.C. Sergeant: None.