4.0 Article

Management of giant cell arteritis: Recommendations of the French Study Group for Large Vessel Vasculitis (GEFA)

Journal

REVUE DE MEDECINE INTERNE
Volume 37, Issue 3, Pages 154-165

Publisher

ELSEVIER FRANCE-EDITIONS SCIENTIFIQUES MEDICALES ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.revmed.2015.12.015

Keywords

Giant cell arteritis; Recommendations; Diagnosis; Treatment

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose. - Management of giant cell arteritis (GCA, Horton's disease) involves many uncertainties. This work was undertaken to establish French recommendations for GCA management. Methods. - Recommendations were developed by a multidisciplinary panel of 33 physicians, members of the French Study Group for Large Vessel Vasculitis (Groupe d'etude francais des arterites des gros vaisseaux [GEFA]). The topics to be addressed, selected from proposals by group members, were assigned to subgroups to summarize the available literature and draft recommendations. Following an iterative consensus-seeking process that yielded consensus recommendations, the degree of agreement among panel members was evaluated with a 5-point Likert scale. A recommendation was approved when >= 80% of the voters agreed or strongly agreed. Results. - The 15 retained topics resulted in 31 consensus recommendations focusing on GCA nomenclature and classification, the role of temporal artery biopsy and medical imaging in the diagnosis, indications and search modalities for involvement of the aorta and its branches, the glucocorticoid regimen to prescribe, treatment of complicated GCA, indications for use of immunosuppressants or targeted biologic therapies, adjunctive treatment measures, and management of relapse and recurrence. Conclusions. - The recommendations, which will be updated regularly, are intended to guide and harmonize the standards of GCA management. (C) 2016 Societe nationale francaise de medecine interne (SNFMI). Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available