4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

What Constitutes a Positive MRI for Clinical Trial Recruitment of Psoriatic Arthritis Patients With Axial Involvement?

Journal

JOURNAL OF RHEUMATOLOGY
Volume 49, Issue 6, Pages 72-74

Publisher

J RHEUMATOL PUBL CO
DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.211340

Keywords

GRAPPA; inflammation; MRI; psoriasis; psoriatic arthritis; spine

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

There is a renewed interest in defining the axial inflammation component of Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA), as recent studies suggest that this entity may respond differently to treatment compared to patients with axial spondyloarthritis. A workshop was conducted to review the literature on diagnosing PsA and to determine the most appropriate criteria. It was widely agreed that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) plays an important role in defining axial inflammation in PsA, and it would be ideal to establish optimal MRI quantitative cut-offs for lesions in the sacroiliac joints and/or spine that reflect imaging typical of axial inflammation in PsA.
There has been a resurgence of interest in defining the axial inflammation component of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) since recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) raised the possibility that this entity may respond differentially to therapeutics compared to patients with axial spondyloarthritis. A workshop was conducted during the 2021 Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis annual meeting to review the literature on diagnosing PsA and to determine which criteria might be most appropriate. There was quite strong agreement that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) had an important role to play in helping to define axial inflammation in PsA and that a data-driven methodology for generating optimal MRI quantitative cut-offs for lesions in the sacroiliac joints and/or spine that reflect imaging typical of axial inflammation in PsA would be most desirable.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available