Takayasu arteritis and large-vessel giant cell arteritis in Italian population. Comprehensive analysis from a single institutional cohort of 184 cases
Luigi Boiardi,Elena Galli,Pierluigi Macchioni,Francesco Muratore,Giulia Klinowski,Gene G Hunder,Massimiliano Casali,Giulia Besutti,Lucia Spaggiari,Annibale Versari,Stefania Croci,Pamela Mancuso,Paolo Giorgi Rossi,Chiara Marvisi,Carlo Salvarani
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semarthrit.2023.152173
Abstract:Objective: To compare clinical and imaging characteristics in patients with Takayasu arteritis (TAK) and large vessel-giant cell arteritis (LV-GCA) in an Italian population. Methods: We conducted a retrospective monocenter study comparing characteristics and outcomes of a cohort of 59 patients with TAK and a cohort of 127 patients with LV-GCA diagnosed between 1996 and 2016. Most of them (92%) were followed up for at least 24 months at Reggio Emilia Hospital (Italy). We also reviewed the literature discussing the results of the published manuscripts comparing LV-GCA to TAK RESULTS: LV-GCA patients had a higher prevalence of males (p = 0.003), and more frequently presented with cranial symptoms (p = 0.001), fever ≥38 °C (p = 0.007), polymyalgia rheumatica (p = 0.001), and hypertension (p = 0.001), and they had higher ESR levels at diagnosis (p = 0.0001). Differently, TAK patients had longer delay to diagnosis from the beginning of symptoms (p = 0.048), they presented more frequently with loss of pulses of large arteries (p = 0.0001), vascular bruits (p = 0.001), limb claudication (p = 0.003), myocardial infarction/angina (p = 0.03), and hypertension induced by renal artery stenosis (p = 0.001). Regarding treatment, TAK patients received a higher total and at 1 year cumulative prednisone doses (p = 0.0001 and p = 0.001, respectively), they had a longer duration of prednisone therapy (p = 0.008), and received during follow-up more frequently traditional immunosuppressants (p = 0.0001) and biological agents (p = 0.0001). Flares were more frequently observed in TAK patient (p = 0.001), while no differences were observed for long-term remission. New vascular procedures during the follow-up were more frequently performed in TAK patients (p = 0.0001). Regarding imaging at diagnosis, TAK patients had more frequently vascular stenosis/occlusion (p = 0.0001) and a higher number of vessels with structural damage per person (p = 0.0001), while LV-GCA patients had a higher number of inflamed vessels per person (p = 0.0001). Comparing the involved vascular districts at diagnosis for the presence of vessel inflammation and/or arterial damage, patients with LV-GCA had a more frequent involvement of thoracic and abdominal aorta (p = 0.024 and p = 0.007, respectively), and axillary, iliac and femoral arteries (p = 0.018, p = 0.002, and p = 0.0001. respectively), while in TAK patients, brachiocephalic, celiac, mesenteric and renal arteries were more frequently involved (p = 0.011, p = 0.019, p = 0.019, and p = 0.005, respectively). At imaging arterial damage at diagnosis was more frequently observed in TAK patients, specifically at common carotid, brachiocephalic, and subclavian arteries (p = 0.0001, p = 0.006, p = 0.0001, respectively) and descending aorta (p = 0.022). Regarding imaging during the follow-up, TAK patients developed more frequently new vascular stenosis/occlusion (p = 0.0001) and new vascular thickening (p = 0.002), no differences were observed for the development of new dilatation/aneurysm between the two vasculitides. Conclusion: Patients with TAK and LV-GCA show a number of similarities and also differences. Indeed, it is unclear whether they are part of the same disease spectrum or they are different conditions. As more information regarding the pathogenesis and etiology becomes known, answers to these questions are like to be forthcoming.