A consensus report on appropriate treatment optimization and transitioning in the management of moderate‐to‐severe plaque psoriasis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is limited information on systemic and biological treatment optimization and transitioning in routine clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To provide practical guidance on treatment optimization and transitioning for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. METHODS: Dermatologists from 33 countries contributed to the Transitioning Therapies programme. Fourteen questions were identified. Answers were drafted based on systematic literature reviews (7/14 questions) and expert opinion (7/14 questions). Using a modified Delphi procedure, dermatologists from 30 countries voted on their level of agreement with each draft answer (scale: 1-9, strong disagreement to strong agreement). Consensus was defined as ≥75% of participants scoring within the 7-9 range. RESULTS: Consensus was achieved on the answers to all questions. Recommendations for the use of cyclosporine and methotrexate were agreed. Transitioning from a conventional systemic therapy to a biological agent may be done directly or with an overlap (if transitioning is required because of lack of efficacy) or potentially with a treatment-free interval (if transitioning is required for safety reasons). Combination therapy may be beneficial. Continuous therapy for patients on biologicals is strongly recommended. However, during successful maintenance with biological monotherapy, a dosage reduction may be considered to limit drug exposure, although this may carry the risk of decreased efficacy. Switching biologicals for reasons of efficacy should be done without a washout period, but switching for reasons of safety may require a treatment-free interval. CONCLUSION: This consensus provides practical guidance on treatment optimization and transitioning for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, based on literature reviews and the expert opinion of dermatologists from across the globe.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.218 | 0.232 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".