PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 11096695

Giant Cell Arteritis.

Abstract

Diagnosis and management of giant cell (temporal) arteritis (GCA) should be performed by physicians who can accurately monitor the ophthalmologic, neurologic, and systemic sequelae of the disease as well as the numerous side effects of systemic corticosteroids, which are typically necessary for treatment. When the diagnosis of giant cell arteritis is seriously entertained, early treatment with adequate doses of oral or intravenous corticosteroids should not be delayed until laboratory confirmation has been obtained. Unilateral or bilateral temporal artery biopsy should be performed on all patients with suspected GCA. A positive biopsy result mandates that higher doses of corticosteroids be used during the first 2 months, which comprise the critical period for risk of new ocular ischemia. A definitive, biopsy-proven diagnosis requires at least 6 months, and typically 12 months, of corticosteroid therapy. Common pitfalls include increasing the dose and prolonging the use of corticosteroids in response to increases in the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) unrelated to GCA or visual blurring that may be related to benign tear film abnormalities, corticosteroid-induced lens changes, and other ophthalmic conditions. The muscle stiffness of polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) must be distinguished from the osteoarthritis and other painful conditions common in the elderly. After corticosteroid therapy has begun, continuing ophthalmologic evaluation is necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of treatment and whether ocular complications, such as glaucoma or cataract, develop. Careful attention must be given to early detection and prevention of systemic side effects of corticosteroid treatment. Patients may be given gastrointestinal protective agents, such as histamine (H(2))-blocking agents; vitamin D and calcium; oral hypoglycemic agents; and, if necessary, insulin and antihypertensive drugs. If bone density measurements warrant, hormones/supplementation to prevent or reverse osteoporosis may be prescribed. After the initial diagnosis and first 4 weeks of treatment, elevation of the ESR or C-reactive protein alone should generally not be used as signs of disease activity nor as a reason to increase the daily dose of steroids. If symptoms or signs of disease activity occur, the dose should be raised regardless of test results. Even with vigorous physician-patient education, however, a patient is occasionally unable to provide adequate historical information about response to therapy, and the physician is forced to rely on laboratory values as a measure of disease activity. After initial high-dose corticosteroid therapy, patients without a classic history and with negative biopsy results will generally receive a rapid taper to low doses of corticosteroids. The role of repeated temporal artery biopsy in the clinical management of GCA is unclear. Despite persistence of PMR and, in some cases, histologic evidence of inflammation in temporal arteries, patients do not frequently have recurrence of symptomatic GCA after 6 months or more of corticosteroid therapy. Under these circumstances, late vision loss is rare.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

RE Turbin, MJ Kupersmith. 1999. Giant Cell Arteritis.. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11940-999-0032-6

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗