Causal inference framework for personalised b/tsDMARD selection in rheumatoid arthritis: ANSWER cohort validation
Résumé fourni par la source
Selecting the optimal biologic or targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (b/tsDMARD) for patients with rheumatoid arthritis remains challenging. We developed and externally validated a causal inference framework combining double machine learning-based causal forests with guideline-derived safety constraints. Using multi-centre registry data from eight Japanese rheumatology facilities (4885 treatment courses), the model was trained on six facilities ( n = 2425) and externally validated on two facilities ( n = 2460). The framework estimates individualised treatment effects and applies a guideline-based safety rule that excludes Janus kinase inhibitors for patients with multiple cardiovascular risk factors. Patients receiving AI-concordant treatments had higher response rates than those receiving discordant treatments: 33.6% vs 27.2% in crude analysis (absolute risk difference [ARD] = 6.4%, P = 0.002; number needed to treat [NNT] = 16), with consistent effects after propensity score matching (ARD = 5.5%, P = 0.037) and inverse probability of treatment weighting (ARD = 4.3%, P = 0.044). The model identified treatment-effect heterogeneity (group average treatment effects Q4–Q1: Z = 4.64, P < 0.001) and 12 clinically interpretable effect modifiers confirmed by two analytical methods. Benefit was greatest in second-line patients (ARD = 16.0%, NNT = 6.3, P = 0.0002), supporting personalised b/tsDMARD selection.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Causal inference framework for personalised b/tsDMARD selection in rheumatoid arthritis: ANSWER cohort validation
- Date Crossref
- 13/08/2026
- Éditeur
- Springer Science and Business Media LLC
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.