Giant cell arteritis: A nationwide, population-based cohort study on incidence, diagnostic imaging, and glucocorticoid treatment

Aim: The study investigated the development over time of the incidence, diagnostic imaging, and treatment of giant cell arteritis (GCA). Method: This nationwide, population-based cohort study was conducted in Denmark using medical and administrative registries. Incident GCA cases from 1996-2018 were defined as patients aged >= 50 years registered with a first-time GCA diagnosis and >= 3 prescriptions for glucocorticoids (GCs) within 6 months after diagnosis. We determined incidence rates of GCA, the proportion of patients still receiving GCs >2 years after diagnosis, the proportion of patients receiving temporal artery biopsies (TAB) and diagnostic imaging including ultrasound, positron emission tomography, magnetic resonance, and/or computed tomography angiography at the time of diagnosis. Results: We identified 9908 incident GCA cases. The incidence rates of GCA remained stable at 19-25 per 100,000 people aged >50 years from 1996-2018. The proportion of GCA patients receiving a TAB remained constant until 2016, after which it promptly declined from 70-80% to 29-39%. In contrast, the proportion of patients receiving diagnostic imaging increased from 2% to 66% from 2000-2018. The proportion of GCA patients remaining in GC treatment has steadily decreased from 1996-2016, but remains high at 64%, 40%, and 34% after 2, 5, and 10 years following the diagnosis, respectively. The cumulative GC dose has remained relatively stable. Conclusion: Incidence rates of GCA have remained stable since 1996 despite increasing use of diagnostic imaging. There is a clear discrepancy between current international GCA treatment guidelines and the clinical practice up to 2018. (C) 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Automated summary

This study investigated the development of giant cell arteritis (GCA) in Denmark from 1996 to 2018, finding stable incidence rates but increasing use of diagnostic imaging. There is a clear discrepancy between current international GCA treatment guidelines and clinical practice up to 2018.