Assessment of Response to Treatment, Remission, and Minimal Disease Activity in Axial Psoriatic Arthritis Treated with Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the response to treatment, remission, and minimal disease activity (MDA) in a group of patients with predominant axial psoriatic arthritis (axPsA). Predictors of response were also evaluated. METHODS: Patients fulfilling the ClASsification of Psoriatic ARthritis (CASPAR) criteria and treated with anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agents adalimumab, etanercept, and golimumab were enrolled and prospectively followed every 4 months for 1 year in a clinical practice setting. Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) 50 was assessed as a set of response criteria to treatment; Composite Psoriatic Disease Activity Index (CPDAI) < 4, Disease Activity Index for Psoriatic Arthritis (DAPSA) score ≤ 3.3, and partial remission (PR) were also evaluated as remission criteria. Patients were considered in MDA when they met at least 5/7 of the criteria previously defined. Patients achieving BASDAI 50, PR, and MDA were compared to identify outcome predictor factors. Concordance between the outcome measures was also performed. RESULTS: Of the 58 patients treated with anti-TNF, at baseline no patients were in PR or MDA. No patients had a CPDAI < 4 or a DAPSA score ≤ 3.3. After 12 months, BASDAI 50 was achieved in 15/48 patients (31.2%). CPDAI < 4, DAPSA score ≤ 3.3, PR, and MDA were achieved, respectively, in 17/48 (35.4%), 11/48 (22.9%), 11/48 (22.9%), and 24/48 (50%) patients. No difference was found among the 3 anti-TNF. Predictors for MDA were male sex, young age, low disease duration, low Health Assessment Questionnaire score, and absence of enthesitis. CONCLUSION: This longitudinal observational study, based on a clinical practice setting, showed that remission and MDA are achievable targets in axPsA treated with anti-TNF. Predictors of remission and MDA were also identified.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".