No abstract

Giant cell arteritis is a medical emergency because of the high risk of irreversible blindness and cerebrovascular accidents. While elevated inflammatory markers, temporal artery biopsy and modern imaging modalities are useful diagnostic aids, thorough history taking and clinical acumen still remain key elements in establishing a timely diagnosis. Glucocorticoids are the cornerstone of treatment but are associated with high relapse rates and side effects. Targeted biologic agents may open up new treatment approaches in the future.

No abstract

Our population-based cohort study did not demonstrate any increased mortality risk for patients diagnosed with biopsy-proven GCA. The risk of death from infection early in the disease may be increased.

Giant cell arteritis is the most common primary vasculitis of the elderly. The acute complications of untreated giant cell arteritis, such as vision loss or occasionally stroke, can be devastating. The diagnosis is, however, not altogether straightforward due to variable sensitivities of the temporal artery biopsy as a reference diagnostic test. In this review, we discuss the increasing role of imaging in the diagnosis of giant cell arteritis. Glucocorticoid treatment is the backbone of therapy, but it is associated with significant adverse effects. A less toxic alternative is required. Conventional and novel immunosuppressive agents have only demonstrated modest effects in a subgroup of steroid refractory Giant cell arteritis due to the different arms of the immune system at play. However, recently a study of interleukin-6 blockade demonstrated benefits of giant cell arteritis. The current status of these immunosuppressive agents and novel therapies are also discussed in this review.

Giant cell arteritis is the commonest primary vasculitis of the elderly. However, the prevalence does vary widely between populations with highest incidence amongst Northern Europeans and lowest amongst East Asians. Preliminary studies suggest that clinical manifestations may differ between different populations. Newer diagnostic approaches including ultrasound, MR angiography and PET imaging are under review. While there have been recent advances in the diagnosis of GCA particularly with regard to imaging, there is an urgent need for improvements in methods of diagnosis, treatment and requirement for screening. Glucocorticoid treatment remain the backbone of therapy. However, glucocorticoid therapy is associated with significant adverse effects. Conventional and novel immunosuppressive agents have only demonstrated modest effects in a subgroup of steroid refractory GCA due to the different arms of the immune system at play. However, recently a study of IL-6 blockade demonstrated benefit in GCA. Newer approaches such as fast-track pathways can also result in improvements in consequences of GCA including blindness.

Aims: To determine real-life biologic/targeted synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drug (b/tsDMARD) retention rates in rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and ankylosing spondylitis (AS), explore reasons for switching and to compare results to previously published data.Methods: Time-to-event analysis for mean treatment duration (estimated as the Restricted Mean Survival Time), b/tsDMARD failure, and b/tsDMARDs switching was performed for 230 patients (n = 147 RA, 46 PsA, 37 AS) who commenced their first b/tsDMARD between 2008 and 2018. Patients were managed in a dedicated “biologics” clinic in a tertiary hospital; the choice of b/tsDMARD was clinician driven based on medical factors and patient preferences. The effect of covariates on switching risk was analysed by a conditional risk-set Cox proportional-hazards model. Treatment retention data was compared to a historical analysis (2002–2008).Results: The proportions remaining on treatment (retention) were similar, throughout follow-up, for the first, second and third b/tsDMARDs across all patients (p = 0.46). When compared to RA patients, the risk of b/tsDMARD failure was halved in PsA patients [Hazard Ratio (HR) = 0.50], but no different in AS patients (HR = 1.0). The respective restricted mean (95%CI) treatment durations, estimated at 5 years of follow-up, were 3.1 (2.9, 3.4), 4.1 (3.7, 4.6), and 3.3 (2.8, 3.9) years, for RA, PsA, and AS, respectively. Age, gender, disease duration, smoking status and the use of concomitant csDMARDS were not associated with the risk of bDMARD failure. The most common reasons for switching in the first and subsequent years were secondary (n = 62) and primary (n = 35) failure. Comparison with historical data indicated no substantive differences in switching of the first biologic for RA and PsA.Conclusion: Similar retention rates of the second and third compared to the first b/tsDMARD in RA, PsA, and AS support a strategy of differential b/tsDMARDs use informed by patient presentation. Despite greater availability of b/tsDMARDs with differing mechanisms of action, retention rates of the first b/tsDMARD remain similar to previous years.

Aim. To describe the retention rates for biological therapies in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and ankylosing spondylitis (AS) in a clinical setting. Methods. All patients managed in a dedicated biological therapy clinic in a teaching hospital in Australia were assessed for continuation on biological treatments and reasons for switching to an alternative biological agent or cessation of treatment. Results. There was a lower retention rate for RA patients on biological therapies compared to PsA and AS patients and the retention rate for RA patients was lower than that reported in RCTs. Conclusions. The retention rate on biological therapies for RA patients was lower in the clinic setting than what is reported in RCTs. The reasons for the lower retention rate in the clinical setting are discussed but no clear determinants for nonresponse to biological agents were identifiable. These agents have very limited steroid sparing effects.