EULAR points to consider and consensus definitions for difficult-to-manage and treatment-refractory psoriatic arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to develop evidence-based points to consider (PtC) and consensus definitions of difficult-to-manage (D2M) and treatment-refractory (TR) psoriatic arthritis (PsA). METHODS: A multidisciplinary international European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) task force (TF) of 27 members, including rheumatologists, dermatologists, health practitioners, and patient partners, was established, and the EULAR standardised operating procedures, including a systematic literature review and a consensus process, were followed. RESULTS: The TF formulated 4 overarching principles addressing the proportion of patients with PsA with an unsatisfactory treatment response despite the best standard of care, and for which the causes are likely multifactorial. Six PtC highlight criterion relevant for subsequent definitions including failure to achieve or maintain response to ≥2 biological/targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs with ≥2 different mechanisms of action; management of signs and symptoms perceived as problematic by the rheumatologist and/or the patient, and evidence of persistent disease activity in the presence of extramusculoskeletal manifestations and/or comorbidities and/or objective evidence of inflammatory activity. Finally, the following 2 definitions were developed: (1) D2M PsA, an umbrella term including drivers such as inflammation, comorbidities, psychosocial or other factors, incorporating (2) TR PsA, defined by persistent disease activity and objective evidence of active inflammation. CONCLUSIONS: EULAR proposes 2 consensus definitions to identify a D2M PsA population, including a TR subgroup. These definitions should now be tested in research studies to understand disease pathogenesis and improve care for people living with PsA.
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 | 0.119 | 0.157 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".