Giant Cell Arteritis: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis of Test Accuracy and Benefits and Harms of Common Treatments
This systematic review compares treatment options for patients with giant cell arteritis (GCA) and evaluates the test accuracy of studies used in diagnosing and monitoring GCA. These studies were used to inform evidence‐based recommendations for the American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/Vasculitis...
Saved in:
Published in | ACR Open Rheumatology Vol. 3; no. 7; pp. 429 - 441 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
United States
Wiley
01.07.2021
John Wiley & Sons, Inc John Wiley and Sons Inc |
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
ISSN | 2578-5745 2578-5745 |
DOI | 10.1002/acr2.11226 |
Cover
Summary: | This systematic review compares treatment options for patients with giant cell arteritis (GCA) and evaluates the test accuracy of studies used in diagnosing and monitoring GCA. These studies were used to inform evidence‐based recommendations for the American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/Vasculitis Foundation (VF) vasculitis management guidelines. A systematic review and search of articles in English in Ovid Medline, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was conducted. Articles were screened for suitability, and studies presenting the highest level of evidence were given preference. Three hundred ninety‐nine full‐text articles addressing GCA questions were reviewed to inform 27 Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome questions. No benefit was found with intravenous glucocorticoids (GCs) compared with high‐dose oral GCs in patients with cranial ischemic symptoms (27.4% vs 12.3%; odds ratio [OR] 2.39 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75‐7.62], [very low certainty of evidence]). Weekly tocilizumab with a 26‐week GC taper was superior to a 52‐week GC taper in patients achieving remission (risk ratio 4.00 [95% CI 1.97‐8.12], [low certainty of evidence]). Non‐GC immunosuppressive therapies with GCs compared with GCs alone showed no statistically significant in relapse at 1 year (OR 0.87 [95% CI 0.73‐1.04], [moderate certainty of evidence]) or serious adverse events (OR 0.81 [95% CI 0.54‐1.20]; [moderate certainty of evidence]). Temporal artery biopsy has a sensitivity of 61% (95% CI 38%‐79%) and a specificity of 98% (95% CI 95%‐99%) in patients with a clinical diagnosis of suspected GCA. This comprehensive systematic review synthesizes and evaluates the benefits and harms of different treatment options and the accuracy of commonly used tests for the diagnosis and monitoring of GCA. |
---|---|
Bibliography: | Drs. Dua and Husainat contributed equally to this work. Kevin Byram, MD, Jason M. Springer, MD, MS: Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee Alexandra Villa‐Forte, MD, MPH, Carol Langford, MD: Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio This systematic review was conducted to support the development of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 2020 guidelines for the diagnosis and management of vasculitis. The entire guideline development process was funded by the ACR. Through the Outcomes and Implementation Research Unit at University of Kansas Medical Center, some researchers received salary or grant support; others volunteered their time. Mohamad A. Kalot, MD: The State University of New York at Buffalo 10 Nedaa M. Husainat, MD: St. Mary’s Hospital, St. Louis, Missouri 11 Anisha B. Dua, MD, MPH: Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois Karen E. James, MD, MSCE: University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City Marat Turgunbaev, MD, MPH: American College of Rheumatology, Atlanta, Georgia 1 2 Sharon A. Chung, MD, MAS: University of California, San Francisco Medical Center. 3 4 5 6 No potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported. 7 Mehrdad Maz, MD, Reem A. Mustafa, MD, MPH, PhD: University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City 8 9 Andy Abril, MD: Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida Yih Chang Lin, MD: University of South Florida, Tampa ObjectType-Article-1 ObjectType-Evidence Based Healthcare-3 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 14 ObjectType-Review-3 content type line 23 |
ISSN: | 2578-5745 2578-5745 |
DOI: | 10.1002/acr2.11226 |