Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • First Release
    • Current
    • Archives
    • Collections
    • Audiovisual Rheum
    • 50th Volume Reprints
  • Resources
    • Guide for Authors
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Payment
    • Reviewers
    • Advertisers
    • Classified Ads
    • Reprints and Translations
    • Permissions
    • Meetings
    • FAQ
    • Policies
  • Subscribers
    • Subscription Information
    • Purchase Subscription
    • Your Account
    • Terms and Conditions
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Letter from the Editor
    • Duncan A. Gordon Award
    • Privacy/GDPR Policy
    • Accessibility
  • Contact Us
  • JRheum Supplements
  • Services

User menu

  • My Cart
  • Log In

Search

  • Advanced search
The Journal of Rheumatology
  • JRheum Supplements
  • Services
  • My Cart
  • Log In
The Journal of Rheumatology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • First Release
    • Current
    • Archives
    • Collections
    • Audiovisual Rheum
    • 50th Volume Reprints
  • Resources
    • Guide for Authors
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Payment
    • Reviewers
    • Advertisers
    • Classified Ads
    • Reprints and Translations
    • Permissions
    • Meetings
    • FAQ
    • Policies
  • Subscribers
    • Subscription Information
    • Purchase Subscription
    • Your Account
    • Terms and Conditions
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Letter from the Editor
    • Duncan A. Gordon Award
    • Privacy/GDPR Policy
    • Accessibility
  • Contact Us
  • Follow Jrheum on BlueSky
  • Follow jrheum on Twitter
  • Visit jrheum on Facebook
  • Follow jrheum on LinkedIn
  • Follow jrheum on YouTube
  • Follow jrheum on Instagram
  • Follow jrheum on RSS
Research ArticleArticle

Risk Factors for Permanent Visual Loss in Biopsy-proven Giant Cell Arteritis: A Study of 339 Patients

Eric Liozon, François Dalmay, Fabrice Lalloue, Guillaume Gondran, Holy Bezanahary, Anne-Laure Fauchais and Kim-Heang Ly
The Journal of Rheumatology July 2016, 43 (7) 1393-1399; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.151135
Eric Liozon
From the Department of Internal Medicine, Le centre hospitalier et universitaire (CHU) Limoges, Limoges, France.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: liozone@yahoo.fr
François Dalmay
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Fabrice Lalloue
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Guillaume Gondran
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Holy Bezanahary
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Anne-Laure Fauchais
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kim-Heang Ly
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
PreviousNext
Loading

Abstract

Objective. To determine the risk factors for permanent visual loss (PVL) in patients with biopsy-proven giant cell arteritis (GCA) and the usefulness of the factors in clinical practice.

Methods. From 1976 through 2015, the clinical charts and laboratory results of 339 patients with biopsy-proven GCA were recorded prospectively at the time of diagnosis. We used multivariable logistic regression analysis to determine which of 24 pretreatment characteristics were associated with PVL.

Results. Visual ischemic manifestations occurred in 108 patients, including PVL in 53 (16%), bilaterally in 15 patients (28%). The independent predictors associated with an increased risk of PVL were age (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.01–1.12, p = 0.01), a history of transient visual ischemic symptoms (OR 2.62, 95% CI 1.29–5.29, p < 0.01), and jaw claudication (OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.09–4.10, p = 0.03). The presence of fever (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.14–0.64, p < 0.01) and rheumatic symptoms (OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.10–0.57, p = 0.001) were associated with a markedly reduced risk of developing visual loss (3.7% if features were both present). No laboratory variables were independently associated with PVL.

Conclusion. The visual ischemic risk of untreated GCA can be readily estimated upon simple clinical findings, but not laboratory variables. However, we did not identify a subgroup of patients carrying no risk of developing visual loss. Glucocorticoid treatment remains, therefore, urgent for any patient with a high clinical suspicion index.

Key Indexing Terms:
  • GIANT CELL ARTERITIS
  • VISUAL LOSS
  • RISK FACTORS
  • POLYMYALGIA RHEUMATICA

Giant cell arteritis (GCA) is the most frequent systemic vasculitis in the elderly1. Its main complication is permanent visual loss (PVL), which occurs in 10%–20% of the cases2. During the last 2 decades, large retrospective series have pointed out a number of risk factors for visual impairment, notably a history of amaurosis fugax3,4,5, jaw claudication3,4,5,6,7,8, lack of constitutional syndrome4,6,9,10,11,12, presence of blood thrombocytosis4,7,13, and a lower inflammatory response4,9,14,15. However, some of these studies have included, for statistical purposes, patients with either transient or PVL6,8,10, while other studies have pooled permanent visual and cerebrovascular events9,11,12,15. Interestingly, Cid, et al identified the clinical (fever, weight loss) and laboratory [erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) ≥ 85 mm/h, hemoglobin < 11 gm/dl] inflammatory status as highly potent means of discriminating patients with GCA with a very low visual ischemic risk9. However, a cross validation of this model on other large cohorts of patients with GCA has not been performed.

In a previous study including 174 (147 biopsy-proven) patients with GCA, we showed that a history of transient visual ischemic symptoms (TVIS) and a higher platelet count were main independent predictors associated with PVL, while the presence of constitutional signs, polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR), and a higher C-reactive protein (CRP) level were associated with a reduced risk4. The aims of our present study were to reinvestigate the risk factors for PVL in a much larger sample of biopsy-proven patients diagnosed and followed at a single institution, and to search for a simple model that could help physicians to distinguish patients at high risk from those at low risk of developing visual damage.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients and data collection

We analyzed the clinical, laboratory, and pathologic features, treatments, and outcomes of 339 consecutive patients with biopsy-proven GCA who were referred to the Internal Medicine Department of a tertiary care teaching hospital from January 1976 through May 2015. Biopsy-negative cases (117 patients) and nonverified cases (6 failures of biopsy procedure) were excluded from our study. The cohort, albeit large (462 patients in all), cannot be regarded as population-based. Our catchment area, the Limousin region, has a population of about 750,000 people, including 30% over the age of 55 years. Assuming that GCA onset before age 55 is exceedingly rare and the incidence of GCA in France may be close to 10/105 persons over age 50 per year, the observed number of cases compared with the expected during the study period may be 50%. The biopsy-proven inception cohort consisted of 147 patients (recruited from 1976 through 2000) from the 2001 study4, 14 patients excluded from that study because they did not have a platelet count before corticosteroid treatment, and 178 patients recruited between 2001 and April 2015. Ninety-three percent of the patients were recruited before steroid treatment; the remaining cases already being treated for < 1 month at the time of admission. The diagnosis of GCA was pathologically established according to currently accepted criteria16. In addition, all the patients but 3 (2 large vessel vasculitides and 1 occult GCA with sudden blindness) fulfilled the criteria from the American College of Rheumatology17. Pretreatment clinical, laboratory, and pathological data were recorded prospectively at the time of first admittance to our department by a senior internist using a specifically designed, comprehensive questionnaire that included a precise history and 176 items4. The questionnaire was completed in 96% of the cases. Data from patients recruited since 1990 were stored in real time in a computerized file and regularly updated by one of the authors (EL). Individual questionnaires from 87 patients recruited before 1990 were initially stored in a personal library and then transferred to the computerized file. This way, nearly all the patients recruited in the department during the 39-year period were included in the inception cohort.

Clinical definitions

The temporal arteries were considered abnormal on examination if there were decreased or absent pulses, or nodules, redness, thickening, or tenderness in at least 1 artery. Constitutional syndrome was defined by a temperature ≥ 38°C for at least 1 week, severe asthenia, and/or weight loss > 5%. Jaw claudication was considered present if the patient reported recurring pain upon chewing, which resolved after chewing stopped, or trismus. PMR and nonerosive, seronegative peripheral arthritis formed parts of the rheumatic spectrum of GCA. PMR was defined by the presence for at least 2 weeks of moderate to severe pain and morning stiffness lasting more than 30 min in at least 2 of neck, shoulders, and pelvic girdles. Upper limb artery involvement was defined on a clinical basis (bruits over axillary/humeral arteries, decreased radial pulses, ischemic arm pain) with confirmation on Doppler-echography studies and/or angiography. The occult form of temporal arteritis consisted of a visual ischemic accident in an otherwise asymptomatic patient4,18. Inflammatory markers, blood counts, and hepatic tests were only recorded in glucocorticoid-naive patients. Since 1991, the initial workup also consisted of a measurement of immunoglobulin G anticardiolipin antibodies. To avoid false-negative results, we excluded samples taken after 2 days of glucocorticoid treatment19.

All the patients but 7 were treated using standardized protocols. Prednisone was given at 0.6 to 1 mg/kg according to clinical severity. Two hundred twenty-three patients (67%) without ischemic manifestations received prednisone 0.6–0.8 mg/kg/day until the patients became symptom-free and the CRP level fell below 5 mg/l. The prednisone dose was then progressively tapered down to 0.35 mg/kg within 4 to 6 weeks. One hundred nine patients (33%) with ischemic manifestations or threat to their vision (transient ischemic symptoms, abnormal fundus, or abnormal ophthalmic artery flow on Doppler studies) initially received prednisone 0.9 to 1 mg/kg, preceded in 82 by pulse methylprednisolone, then similarly tapered down. In addition, dapsone (75–100 mg/day) was given to 21 unselected patients as a first-line glucocorticoid-sparing agent20, while 30 other patients were included in various prospective, ongoing multicenter studies.

Visual ischemic manifestations

Only visual events that occurred before therapy or within the first 2 weeks of its initiation were included in our analysis. Ischemic visual symptoms included transient symptoms and PVL4. Amaurosis fugax lasting from seconds to a few minutes, intermittent blurred vision, or transient diplopia were considered transient ischemic visual symptoms. PVL, which was always confirmed by a staff ophthalmologist, included anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (AION), central retinal artery occlusion (CRAO), and posterior ischemic optic neuropathy (PION), while isolated eye nerve palsies were not regarded as visual ischemic manifestations.

Statistical analyses

Continuous variables were expressed as mean ± SD, while categorical variables were expressed as frequencies and percentages. Checking normality of the distribution of quantitative variables was performed using the Shapiro-Wilk method. Comparisons of continuous variables were performed using the Student t test. Proportions were analyzed using the chi-square or Fisher’s exact test. To identify the best predictors of PVL, multivariate analysis was performed with multiple logistic regression models. Multivariate analysis compared patients with and without permanent visual ischemic manifestations (patients with isolated TVIS were included in the group without visual loss). To reduce residual confounding, crude and age-adjusted and sex-adjusted models for potential predictors of visual loss were built, including variables with a p value < 0.2. The significance threshold selected for the final model was set at 0.05. In an attempt to define a group of patients without any visual damage, we applied to our patients a variant of the model empirically defined by Cid, et al9. We defined fever and weight loss by a temperature of ≥ 38°C for at least 1 week (instead of > 37°C) and at least 5% loss (instead of > 5 kg), respectively. Calculations were performed using the statistical package SAS, release 9.1.3 (SAS Institute).

RESULTS

Main characteristics of the series

The mean patients’ age was 75.6 years (range 51–94 yrs); 65% were women. All the patients but 3 had GCA confirmed by a positive temporal artery biopsy; the remainders were biopsy-proven at other sites (thoracic aorta, femoral artery). Visual ischemic manifestations were recorded in 108 of 334 assessable patients (32%; Figure 1). A history of TVIS was elicited from 77 of the patients including amaurosis fugax from 54 (16%). PVL occurred in 53 patients (16%). Fifteen patients (28%) developed bilateral PVL, synchronously or sequentially. Whereas most ischemic events occurred before treatment, blindness occurred in 5 patients shortly after glucocorticoid treatment was started. All these patients had unilateral blindness prior to treatment and 3 became completely blind because of AION in the fellow eye within the first 9 days of treatment, despite pulse methylprednisolone. None of 286 patients without permanent visual impairment at diagnosis developed subsequent visual loss once treatment was initiated. TVIS, mainly amaurosis fugax, heralded PVL in 22 (41.5%) of the patients with permanent loss. Of 68 permanently affected eyes, 51 showed isolated AION, 8 showed isolated CRAO, 2 showed both involvements, and 7 showed both normal fundus and retinal arteriography, suggesting PION. Rheumatic symptoms were recorded in 113 patients (35%), including PMR in 84, peripheral synovitis in 15, and both features in 15. While fever was recorded in 149 patients (45%), constitutional symptoms (or isolated raised inflammatory markers) were the only features of GCA in 34 patients (10%). Table 1 lists the main characteristics of the series and the results of a univariate analysis comparing patients according to permanent visual status.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Frequency of occurrence of TVIS and its relationship to permanent visual loss in patients with giant cell arteritis. TVIS: transient visual ischemic symptoms.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Comparison of various clinical and laboratory variables in patients with GCA with PVL and without (univariate analysis). Values are n (%) unless otherwise specified.

Predictors of PVL

In a crude global model, jaw claudication and fever were predictive variables of PVL using logistic regression (Table 2). In the final model, only age, amaurosis fugax, and jaw claudication were independent risk factors for PVL, whereas rheumatic symptoms and fever were associated with a markedly reduced risk (Table 3). A borderline significant negative association between visual loss and male sex was also found (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.25–1.10, p = 0.09). The mean blood platelet level (determined before treatment in 308 patients) was higher in patients with PVL compared with patients without (489 ± 140 × 109/l vs 444 ± 161 × 109/l, p = 0.02), but was not independently associated with the visual risk (OR 1, p = 0.743). Of the 179 patients with thrombocytosis (platelet count > 400 × 109/l), 31 (17.3%) developed PVL compared with 13 (10%) of those without thrombocytosis (p = 0.15). Of patients with a platelet count below 400 × 109/l, 5.4% developed PVL, as did those with a platelet count above 700 × 109/l (5.2%).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Predictive variables of permanent visual loss using logistic regression: crude global model and model adjusted for age and sex*.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

Predictive variables of permanent visual loss using logistic regression (final model*) adjusted for age.

We also investigated whether the model proposed in 1998 by Cid, et al to estimate the visual/cerebrovascular risk9 applied to our patients. Those investigators defined clinical inflammatory status and biologic inflammatory status in patients with GCA empirically (clinical: fever and weight loss; biologic: ESR ≥ 85 mm/h and hemoglobin < 11.0 g/dl). The risk was greatly reduced among patients with either a clinical (OR 0.177, 95% CI 0.052–0.605) or a biologic (OR 0.226, 95% CI 0.076–0.675) inflammatory reaction. No patients with both a clinical and a biologic response developed ischemic events9. According to this model, 307 of our patients were fully assessable. The presence of at least 1 variable was associated with a significantly reduced rate of visual loss, while the combination of both variables yield a more than 4-fold reduction (Table 4).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 4.

Results of the application of the model developed by Cid, et al9 to determine the risk of visual loss in patients with giant cell arteritis. Values are n (%) unless otherwise specified.

DISCUSSION

In our large sample of patients with biopsy-proven GCA, 32% had visual ischemic symptoms and 16% had PVL, which was bilateral in 28% of the cases. The rate of irreversible sight damage is similar to those published previously3,4,9,10,12,13,21, as is the rate of bilateral blindness, about 30%3,4,6,10,13,22. In a recent report on a population-based cohort of 204 patients, there was a lower incidence of ischemic optic neuropathy in the 1980–2004 cohort versus 1950–1979 (15% vs 6%, p = 0.03)8. On the contrary, despite a progressive increase in the number of new cases diagnosed, we did not observe such a decline in the rate of irreversible visual loss over a 40-year study period. Likewise, in a defined population in northwestern Spain, no significant change in the proportion of patients with visual manifestations was recorded during an 18-year study period10. Visual loss remains, therefore, a frequent complication of GCA in western European populations.

As already seen in our first study4 and in other studies22,23, these complications occurred before treatment in most patients. Signs and symptoms suggesting cranial arteritis heralded blindness for weeks (7 in average) in a majority of patients. In fact, amaurosis occurring in the early course, or even as an initial manifestation, of GCA was only seen in one-fifth of the cases. Further, the start of steroid treatment before any permanent loss of vision had occurred was associated with an impressive decrease in the rate of subsequent severe visual events: no severe visual events in the 286 patients in our present study, and 1 in the 204 biopsy-verified patients in the study by Aiello, el al21. In this respect, our finding that a longer delay in diagnosis is not associated with a higher rate of visual loss may be intriguing. The recruitment of a significant proportion of patients with masked GCA in our inception cohort might partly explain the discrepancy. In this subset of GCA, diagnosis is often delayed but the visual risk is very low24. Overall, accumulated data suggest that more rapid recognition of GCA by primary care physicians might reduce the rate of irreversible blindness.

In a previous study, we found that advanced age (≥ 80 yrs) was associated with a poorer visual outcome in GCA25. In our present study, contrary to our first study4, age was independently associated with visual loss. Moreover, 24 (23%) of the patients 80 years of age and more had PVL including 6 with bilateral blindness. Other investigators found a borderline6,13 or significant26 association between the mean age and visual loss, the highest risk being seen in patients aged 80 to 90 years13. Therefore, because age appears to be a predictor of poorer visual prognosis, we do not recommend the use of lower initial doses of steroids in very elderly patients with GCA, despite the risk of side effects4. We found that male sex was marginally associated with a reduced risk of visual loss. This result confirms previous observations27,28 but does not negate the possibility that being male is linked to GCA-induced blindness in non-white populations11,29.

Our study confirms that TVIS and jaw claudication are strong predictors of PVL caused by GCA. This is in agreement with many other studies3,4,5,6,8,9,10,11,21. Among various forms of TVIS, amaurosis fugax is the most frequently reported and the most ominous, preceding PVL from a few hours to several weeks in 30%–50% of the patients with permanent blindness4,9,10,11,21. Notoriously, of our 22 patients in whom transient visual symptoms heralded permanent loss, 20 (91%) reported mainly or solely amaurosis fugax. Jaw claudication is a major symptom to elicit from elderly patients with persisting headache because it is both associated with a high-positive likelihood of proven temporal arteritis in patients referred for temporal artery biopsy30 and a factor in higher risk of PVL in some studies8,11,21. We agree with González-Gay, et al that when GCA is suspected and the patient reports either transient visual loss or jaw claudication, high-dose corticosteroids should be started urgently without waiting for the results of a temporal artery biopsy3.

In our first study, no patients with PVL had concurrent upper limb involvement4. In our present study, upper limb involvement was not an independent negative predictor for visual loss, despite a low rate of blindness (5.6%) in this subset of patients. For Schmidt, et al, upper limb involvement was the only variable associated with a reduced risk of impaired vision31. Likewise, a comparative study of 120 large-vessel GCA and 212 cranial GCA found a smaller proportion (4% vs 11%, p = 0.035) of vision loss in the former group32. In fact, large vessel GCA often occurs without involvement of the cranial arteries and has been associated, in 1 large-scale study, with higher concentrations of interleukin 2 gene transcripts in arterial tissue and overrepresentation of the HLA-DRB1*0404 allele compared with classic cranial arteritis33. This particular pattern might account for a reduced visual risk in large vessel GCA. PMR has been shown to be a protective factor4,11. Our study confirms this, although 9 patients had both rheumatic involvement and visual loss, simultaneously or sequentially. Of note, all of these patients but 1 also expressed concurrently typical cranial symptoms including jaw claudication and abnormal temporal arteries on examination. Patients who show prominent polymyalgia symptoms after a self-limited course of dismissed mild cranial symptoms may be at very low risk of developing ischemic events34; on the contrary, the visual risk may increase notably in patients with PMR who later develop cranial symptoms11,34,35. In our cohort, neither the presence of at least 1 among classic cardiovascular risk factor such as hypertension, diabetes, and dyslipidemia nor a history of complicated atherosclerosis was associated with an increased risk of visual damage in patients with GCA. There is no consensus on whether the presence of traditional atherosclerosis risk factors and/or a history of ischemic heart disease or stroke at the time of diagnosis of GCA influence the risk of severe visual ischemic events11,12,36, deserving further investigation.

In our current study, fever was independently associated with a markedly reduced risk of permanent visual disturbances, whereas laboratory markers were not. The protective involvement of fever was first mentioned by Cid, et al9 and often confirmed later3,7,11. This is not surprising because fever, along with fatigue and weight loss, is a hallmark of systemic (or masked) temporal arteritis. Such forms of GCA do not carry a visual risk, unless cranial symptoms occur later24. In our present study, of 10 patients with fever and visual loss, only 2 denied jaw claudication and additionally had normal temporal artery on examination. Most studies found a negative association between the intensity of blood acute-phase reaction, i.e., the mean levels of ESR and CRP, and the visual ischemic risk3,4,9,10,13,14. For Lopez-Diaz, et al, an ESR between 70 and 100 mm/h was the best predictor of visual ischemic complications37. Moreover, anemia appeared to be protective in several studies9,10,15. Although in our current study no blood marker was independently associated with the risk of visual loss, the presence of a clinical and biologic inflammatory response, as proposed by Cid, et al9, delineated a subgroup at very low risk of developing such complications. The mechanisms by which a strong inflammatory response plays a protective role against severe ischemic manifestations of GCA are still unknown, but could rely on different anatomical, clinical, and cytokine patterns according to its intensity8. Finally, in disagreement with our previous study but consistent with several other studies9,10,11, thrombocytosis was not an independent risk factor for visual loss, although the mean platelet count and the frequency of thrombocytosis were higher in our patients with permanent sight impairment compared with other patients. The observed discrepancy between studies can be best explained by a much larger sample size and a larger proportion of systemic forms of the disease in the latter study. In this subset of GCA, the platelet count can rise spuriously, owing to a greater severity of the inflammatory response24.

Main study limitations include a substantial amount of missing data for several laboratory variables, lack of assessment of HLA-DR4 polymorphisms, and lack of precise data on continuous platelet inhibition treatment. Moreover, our inception cohort is not population-based, so that our results may not be fully applicable to other GCA populations. Nevertheless, our study on a large sample of biopsy-proven GCA investigated and treated homogeneously confirms that clinical features such as transient visual loss, jaw claudication, PMR, and fever strongly influence the visual ischemic risk. On the contrary, although the presence of an acute-phase reaction in an elderly patient with persistent headache strongly suggests temporal arteritis, its intensity might be a poorly reliable means of evaluating the risk of impending ischemic blindness. Currently, glucocorticoid treatment remains urgent for any patient with strongly suspected GCA because no subgroup of patients with zero risk of visual loss could be identified. Prospective, multicenter studies are needed to definitively confirm our findings and further delineate the main clinical patterns of GCA.

  • Accepted for publication March 7, 2016.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Salvarani C,
    2. Cantini F,
    3. Boiardi L,
    4. Hunder GG
    . Polymyalgia rheumatica and giant-cell arteritis. N Engl J Med 2002;347:261–71.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Gordon LK,
    2. Levin LA
    . Visual loss in giant cell arteritis. JAMA 1998;280:385–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. González-Gay MA,
    2. Blanco R,
    3. Rodríguez-Valverde V,
    4. Martínez-Taboada VM,
    5. Delgado-Rodriguez M,
    6. Figueroa M,
    7. et al.
    Permanent visual loss and cerebrovascular accidents in giant cell arteritis: predictors and response to treatment. Arthritis Rheum 1998;41:1497–504.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Liozon E,
    2. Herrmann F,
    3. Ly K,
    4. Robert PY,
    5. Loustaud V,
    6. Soria P,
    7. et al.
    Risk factors for visual loss in giant cell (temporal) arteritis: a prospective study of 174 patients. Am J Med 2001;111:211–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Figus M,
    2. Talarico R,
    3. Posarelli C,
    4. d’Ascanio A,
    5. Elefante E,
    6. Bombardieri S
    . Ocular involvement in giant cell arteritis. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2013;31 Suppl 75:S96.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Hayreh SS,
    2. Podhajsky PA,
    3. Zimmerman B
    . Ocular manifestations of giant cell arteritis. Am J Ophthalmol 1998;125:509–20.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Berger CT,
    2. Wolbers M,
    3. Meyer P,
    4. Daikeler T,
    5. Hess C
    . High incidence of severe ischaemic complications in patients with giant cell arteritis irrespective of platelet count and size, and platelet inhibition. Rheumatology 2009;48:258–61.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Singh AG,
    2. Kermani TA,
    3. Crowson CS,
    4. Weyand CM,
    5. Matteson EL,
    6. Warrington KJ
    . Visual manifestations in giant cell arteritis: trend over 5 decades in a population-based cohort. J Rheumatol 2015;42:309–15.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. Cid MC,
    2. Font C,
    3. Oristrell J,
    4. de la Sierra A,
    5. Coll-Vinent B,
    6. Lopez-Soto A,
    7. et al.
    Association between strong inflammatory response and low risk of developing visual loss and other cranial ischemic complications in giant cell (temporal) arteritis. Arthritis Rheum 1998;41:26–32.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. González-Gay MA,
    2. García-Porrúa C,
    3. Llorca J,
    4. Hajeer AH,
    5. Brañas F,
    6. Dababneh A,
    7. et al.
    Visual manifestations of giant cell arteritis. Trends and clinical spectrum in 161 patients. Medicine 2000;79:283–92.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Nesher G,
    2. Berkun Y,
    3. Mates M,
    4. Baras M,
    5. Nesher R,
    6. Rubinow A,
    7. et al.
    Risk factors for cranial ischemic complications in giant cell arteritis. Medicine 2004;83:114–22.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Salvarani C,
    2. Della Bella C,
    3. Cimino L,
    4. Macchioni P,
    5. Formisano D,
    6. Bajocchi G,
    7. et al.
    Risk factors for severe cranial ischaemic events in an Italian population-based cohort of patients with giant cell arteritis. Rheumatology 2009;48:250–3.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. Salvarani C,
    2. Cimino L,
    3. Macchioni P,
    4. Consonni D,
    5. Cantini F,
    6. Bajocchi G,
    7. et al.
    Risk factors for visual loss in an Italian population-based cohort of patients with giant cell arteritis. Arthritis Rheum 2005;53:293–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Liozon E,
    2. Jauberteau MO,
    3. Loustaud V,
    4. Vidal E
    . Association between the inflammatory response and the risk of developing irreversible cranial ischemic complications: comment on the article by Cid et al and the letter by Nesher and Sonnenblick. Arthritis Rheum 1999;42:2256–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Gonzalez-Gay MA,
    2. Barros S,
    3. Lopez-Diaz MJ,
    4. Garcia-Porrua C,
    5. Sanchez-Andrade A,
    6. Llorca J
    . Giant cell arteritis: disease patterns of clinical presentation in a series of 240 patients. Medicine 2005;84:269–76.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Lie JT
    . Illustrated histopathologic classification criteria for selected vasculitis syndromes. American College of Rheumatology Subcommittee on Classification of Vasculitis. Arthritis Rheum 1990;33:1074–87.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Hunder GG,
    2. Bloch DA,
    3. Michel BA,
    4. Stevens MB,
    5. Arend WP,
    6. Calabrese LH,
    7. et al.
    The American College of Rheumatology 1990 criteria for the classification of giant cell arteritis. Arthritis Rheum 1990;33:1122–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. Liozon E,
    2. Loustaud V,
    3. Fauchais AL,
    4. Soria P,
    5. Ly K,
    6. Ouattara B,
    7. et al.
    Concurrent temporal (giant cell) arteritis and malignancy: report of 20 patients with review of the literature. J Rheumatol 2006;33:1606–14.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. 19.↵
    1. Duhaut P,
    2. Berruyer M,
    3. Pinede L,
    4. Demolombe-Rague S,
    5. Loire R,
    6. Seydoux D,
    7. et al.
    Anticardiolipin antibodies and giant cell arteritis: a prospective, multicenter case-control study. Groupe de Recherche sur l’Artérite à Cellules Géantes. Arthritis Rheum 1998;41:701–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Liozon F,
    2. Vidal E,
    3. Barrier JH
    . Dapsone in giant cell arteritis treatment. Eur J Intern Med 1993;4:207–14.
    OpenUrl
  21. 21.↵
    1. Aiello PD,
    2. Trautmann JC,
    3. McPhee TJ,
    4. Kunselman AR,
    5. Hunder GG
    . Visual prognosis in giant cell arteritis. Ophthalmology 1993;100:550–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Font C,
    2. Cid MC,
    3. Coll-Vinent B,
    4. López-Soto A,
    5. Grau JM
    . Clinical features in patients with permanent visual loss due to biopsy-proven giant cell arteritis. Br J Rheumatol 1997;36:251–4.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  23. 23.↵
    1. Hollenhorst RW,
    2. Brown JR,
    3. Wagener HP,
    4. Shick RM
    . Neurologic aspects of temporal arteritis. Neurology 1960;10:490–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. Liozon E,
    2. Boutros-Toni F,
    3. Ly K,
    4. Loustaud-Ratti V,
    5. Soria P,
    6. Vidal E
    . Silent, or masked, giant cell arteritis is associated with a strong inflammatory response and a benign short term course. J Rheumatol 2003;30:1272–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. 25.↵
    1. Liozon E,
    2. Loustaud-Ratti V,
    3. Ly K,
    4. Soria P,
    5. Vidal E,
    6. Boutros-Toni F,
    7. et al.
    Visual prognosis in extremely old patients with temporal (giant cell) arteritis. J Am Geriatr Soc 2003;51:722–3.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. Loddenkemper T,
    2. Sharma P,
    3. Katzan I,
    4. Plant GT
    . Risk factors for early visual deterioration in temporal arteritis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2007;78:1255–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. 27.↵
    1. Gonzalez-Gay MA,
    2. Garcia-Porrua C,
    3. Amor-Dorado JC,
    4. Llorca J
    . Influence of age, sex and place of residence on clinical expression of giant cell arteritis in northwest Spain. J Rheumatol 2003;30:1548–51.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. 28.↵
    1. Liozon E,
    2. Fauchais AL,
    3. Loustaud V,
    4. Vidal E
    . No significant sex differences in temporal arteritis. J Rheumatol 2004;31:397–8.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  29. 29.↵
    1. Nir-Paz R,
    2. Gross A,
    3. Chajek-Shaul T
    . Sex differences in giant cell arteritis. J Rheumatol 2002;29:1219–23.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. 30.↵
    1. Smetana GW,
    2. Shmerling RH
    . Does this patient have temporal arteritis? JAMA 2002;287:92–101.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Schmidt WA,
    2. Krause A,
    3. Schicke B,
    4. Kuchenbecker J,
    5. Gromnica-Ihle E
    . Do temporal artery duplex ultrasound findings correlate with ophthalmic complications in giant cell arteritis? Rheumatology 2009;48:383–5.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. 32.↵
    1. Muratore F,
    2. Kermani TA,
    3. Crowson CS,
    4. Green AB,
    5. Salvarani C,
    6. Matteson EL,
    7. et al.
    Large-vessel giant cell arteritis: a cohort study. Rheumatology 2015;54:463–70.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  33. 33.↵
    1. Brack A,
    2. Martinez-Taboada V,
    3. Stanson A,
    4. Goronzy JJ,
    5. Weyand CM
    . Disease pattern in cranial and large-vessel giant cell arteritis. Arthritis Rheum 1999;42:311–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    1. Hernández-Rodríguez J,
    2. Font C,
    3. García-Martínez A,
    4. Espígol-Frigolé G,
    5. Sanmartí R,
    6. Cañete JD,
    7. et al.
    Development of ischemic complications in patients with giant cell arteritis presenting with apparently isolated polymyalgia rheumatica: study of a series of 100 patients. Medicine 2007;86:233–41.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    1. Narváez J,
    2. Estrada P,
    3. López-Vives L,
    4. Ricse M,
    5. Zacarías A,
    6. Heredia S,
    7. et al.
    Prevalence of ischemic complications in patients with giant cell arteritis presenting with apparently isolated polymyalgia rheumatic. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2015;45:328–33.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    1. Gonzalez-Gay MA,
    2. Piñeiro A,
    3. Gomez-Gigirey A,
    4. Garcia-Porrua C,
    5. Pego-Reigosa R,
    6. Dierssen-Sotos T,
    7. et al.
    Influence of traditional risk factors of atherosclerosis in the development of severe ischemic complications in giant cell arteritis. Medicine 2004;83:342–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    1. Lopez-Diaz MJ,
    2. Llorca J,
    3. Gonzalez-Juanatey C,
    4. Peña-Sagredo JL,
    5. Martin J,
    6. Gonzalez-Gay MA
    . The erythrocyte sedimentation rate is associated with the development of visual complications in biopsy-proven giant cell arteritis. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2008;38:116–23.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Rheumatology
Vol. 43, Issue 7
1 Jul 2016
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by Author
  • Editorial Board (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about The Journal of Rheumatology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Risk Factors for Permanent Visual Loss in Biopsy-proven Giant Cell Arteritis: A Study of 339 Patients
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from The Journal of Rheumatology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the The Journal of Rheumatology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Risk Factors for Permanent Visual Loss in Biopsy-proven Giant Cell Arteritis: A Study of 339 Patients
Eric Liozon, François Dalmay, Fabrice Lalloue, Guillaume Gondran, Holy Bezanahary, Anne-Laure Fauchais, Kim-Heang Ly
The Journal of Rheumatology Jul 2016, 43 (7) 1393-1399; DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.151135

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

 Request Permissions

Share
Risk Factors for Permanent Visual Loss in Biopsy-proven Giant Cell Arteritis: A Study of 339 Patients
Eric Liozon, François Dalmay, Fabrice Lalloue, Guillaume Gondran, Holy Bezanahary, Anne-Laure Fauchais, Kim-Heang Ly
The Journal of Rheumatology Jul 2016, 43 (7) 1393-1399; DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.151135
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo  logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  •  logo
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Keywords

GIANT CELL ARTERITIS
VISUAL LOSS
RISK FACTORS
POLYMYALGIA RHEUMATICA

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Long-Term Effectiveness and Safety of Denosumab for Osteoporosis in Patients With Rheumatic Diseases
  • Clinically Inactive Disease and Remission in Patients With Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis Receiving Tofacitinib: Post Hoc Analysis of a Phase III Trial
  • Modifiable Lifestyle Factors, Genetic Susceptibility, and Incident Radiographic Axial Spondyloarthritis
Show more Article

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • giant cell arteritis
  • VISUAL LOSS
  • RISK FACTORS
  • polymyalgia rheumatica

Content

  • First Release
  • Current
  • Archives
  • Collections
  • Audiovisual Rheum
  • COVID-19 and Rheumatology

Resources

  • Guide for Authors
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Author Payment
  • Reviewers
  • Advertisers
  • Classified Ads
  • Reprints and Translations
  • Permissions
  • Meetings
  • FAQ
  • Policies

Subscribers

  • Subscription Information
  • Purchase Subscription
  • Your Account
  • Terms and Conditions

More

  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • My Alerts
  • My Folders
  • Privacy/GDPR Policy
  • RSS Feeds
The Journal of Rheumatology
The content of this site is intended for health care professionals.
Copyright © 2025 by The Journal of Rheumatology Publishing Co. Ltd.
Print ISSN: 0315-162X; Online ISSN: 1499-2752
Powered by HighWire