Cargando…

Can a Giant Cell Arteritis (GCA) Risk Stratification Score Be Helpful in Clinical Practice?

Introduction: Giant cell arteritis (GCA) is the most common type of large vessel vasculitis. The diagnosis of GCA is often challenging and there is a difficult balance of over- and underinvestigation. There have been several proposed scoring systems to help clinicians risk stratify patients who may...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jasim, Muhamad, Magan, Priyan, Patel, Ferin, Adizie, Tochukwu, Senn, Dhanuja
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Cureus 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9824067/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36628005
http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.32310
_version_ 1784866317782745088
author Jasim, Muhamad
Magan, Priyan
Patel, Ferin
Adizie, Tochukwu
Senn, Dhanuja
author_facet Jasim, Muhamad
Magan, Priyan
Patel, Ferin
Adizie, Tochukwu
Senn, Dhanuja
author_sort Jasim, Muhamad
collection PubMed
description Introduction: Giant cell arteritis (GCA) is the most common type of large vessel vasculitis. The diagnosis of GCA is often challenging and there is a difficult balance of over- and underinvestigation. There have been several proposed scoring systems to help clinicians risk stratify patients who may present with suspected GCA. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed using electronic medical records of patients referred for a temporal artery biopsy (TAB) and temporal artery ultrasound scan (USS) for suspected GCA. All TABs performed at the Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust between June 2014 and June 2018 and all USS procedures performed between January 2015 and January 2019 were analysed. Patients who undergo a USS for suspected GCA at our centre routinely have scanned bilateral temporal and axillary arteries. Patients were excluded if they already had a previous diagnosis of GCA (and the clinical question was suspected flare), or if there was insufficient information available. Results: The total number of patients who underwent a confirmatory diagnostic test (either TAB or USS) for suspected GCA was 187. Thirteen of these patients met the exclusion criteria, the remaining 174 patients were included for analysis. A total of 126 of 174 patients underwent a TAB and 63 of 174 had a USS performed; 15 of 174 who had both these were included in the USS cohort because for all these patients, the ultrasound was the first diagnostic test performed. Our results appear to closely mirror the original multi-centre results with regard to the prediction of biopsy-positive GCA, with the centiles closely following those in the inception cohort. Also, 0% of the ‘low’ risk probability biopsy cohort were misclassified; none had a positive biopsy. However, 8% of the low-risk-probability ultrasound cohort were misclassified, as two had a positive ultrasound. Conclusion: Our study highlights that a probability score for GCA derived from a large multi-centre cohort of patients who were biopsy positive predicts ultrasound positivity with similar accuracy. Our work reveals that scoring systems are not infallible but can be helpful in guiding clinical decision making.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9824067
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Cureus
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-98240672023-01-09 Can a Giant Cell Arteritis (GCA) Risk Stratification Score Be Helpful in Clinical Practice? Jasim, Muhamad Magan, Priyan Patel, Ferin Adizie, Tochukwu Senn, Dhanuja Cureus Rheumatology Introduction: Giant cell arteritis (GCA) is the most common type of large vessel vasculitis. The diagnosis of GCA is often challenging and there is a difficult balance of over- and underinvestigation. There have been several proposed scoring systems to help clinicians risk stratify patients who may present with suspected GCA. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed using electronic medical records of patients referred for a temporal artery biopsy (TAB) and temporal artery ultrasound scan (USS) for suspected GCA. All TABs performed at the Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust between June 2014 and June 2018 and all USS procedures performed between January 2015 and January 2019 were analysed. Patients who undergo a USS for suspected GCA at our centre routinely have scanned bilateral temporal and axillary arteries. Patients were excluded if they already had a previous diagnosis of GCA (and the clinical question was suspected flare), or if there was insufficient information available. Results: The total number of patients who underwent a confirmatory diagnostic test (either TAB or USS) for suspected GCA was 187. Thirteen of these patients met the exclusion criteria, the remaining 174 patients were included for analysis. A total of 126 of 174 patients underwent a TAB and 63 of 174 had a USS performed; 15 of 174 who had both these were included in the USS cohort because for all these patients, the ultrasound was the first diagnostic test performed. Our results appear to closely mirror the original multi-centre results with regard to the prediction of biopsy-positive GCA, with the centiles closely following those in the inception cohort. Also, 0% of the ‘low’ risk probability biopsy cohort were misclassified; none had a positive biopsy. However, 8% of the low-risk-probability ultrasound cohort were misclassified, as two had a positive ultrasound. Conclusion: Our study highlights that a probability score for GCA derived from a large multi-centre cohort of patients who were biopsy positive predicts ultrasound positivity with similar accuracy. Our work reveals that scoring systems are not infallible but can be helpful in guiding clinical decision making. Cureus 2022-12-08 /pmc/articles/PMC9824067/ /pubmed/36628005 http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.32310 Text en Copyright © 2022, Jasim et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Rheumatology
Jasim, Muhamad
Magan, Priyan
Patel, Ferin
Adizie, Tochukwu
Senn, Dhanuja
Can a Giant Cell Arteritis (GCA) Risk Stratification Score Be Helpful in Clinical Practice?
title Can a Giant Cell Arteritis (GCA) Risk Stratification Score Be Helpful in Clinical Practice?
title_full Can a Giant Cell Arteritis (GCA) Risk Stratification Score Be Helpful in Clinical Practice?
title_fullStr Can a Giant Cell Arteritis (GCA) Risk Stratification Score Be Helpful in Clinical Practice?
title_full_unstemmed Can a Giant Cell Arteritis (GCA) Risk Stratification Score Be Helpful in Clinical Practice?
title_short Can a Giant Cell Arteritis (GCA) Risk Stratification Score Be Helpful in Clinical Practice?
title_sort can a giant cell arteritis (gca) risk stratification score be helpful in clinical practice?
topic Rheumatology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9824067/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36628005
http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.32310
work_keys_str_mv AT jasimmuhamad canagiantcellarteritisgcariskstratificationscorebehelpfulinclinicalpractice
AT maganpriyan canagiantcellarteritisgcariskstratificationscorebehelpfulinclinicalpractice
AT patelferin canagiantcellarteritisgcariskstratificationscorebehelpfulinclinicalpractice
AT adizietochukwu canagiantcellarteritisgcariskstratificationscorebehelpfulinclinicalpractice
AT senndhanuja canagiantcellarteritisgcariskstratificationscorebehelpfulinclinicalpractice