4.4 Review

Outcome measures for Takayasu's arteritis

期刊

CURRENT OPINION IN RHEUMATOLOGY
卷 27, 期 1, 页码 32-37

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/BOR.0000000000000129

关键词

disease assessment; outcome measures; Takayasu's arteritis

资金

  1. Merck Sharp Dohme
  2. Pfizer
  3. Abbvie
  4. Actelion
  5. Bristol Myers Squibb
  6. Celgene
  7. Genentech/Roche
  8. Glaxo Smith Kline
  9. Roche
  10. UCB

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose of reviewTakayasu's arteritis (TAK) is a large-vessel vasculitis with a chronic, indolent course affecting the aorta and its main branches. This review will describe the recent studies to develop validated outcome measures to assess TAK.Recent findingsTAK is traditionally assessed with a physician's global assessment including symptoms and signs of inflammation and vascular insufficiency, acute-phase reactants (APRs), and imaging including conventional digital subtraction angiography, computerized tomographic, and magnetic resonance angiography, and recently 18-FDG-PET. Recent attempts to develop a validated tool for disease assessment include the Indian Takayasu Clinical Activity Score (ITAS2010), which incorporates clinical signs and symptoms with APRs in a simplified and weighted adoption of the Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score. Among biomarkers to assess clinical activity, pentraxin-3 is perhaps the most promising, but its validity and superiority against APRs in clinical practice need to be demonstrated. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly recognized as of substantial importance to measure in clinical trials; in addition to so-called generic' tools such as the SF-36 or measures of fatigue, disease-specific instruments would likely help capture aspects of TAK not measured by generic quality-of-life assessments or physician-based tools.SummaryAlthough outcome measures for TAK are not sufficiently validated, progress in the assessment of TAK is reflected in recent studies with new tools such as ITAS2010, new biomarkers, and a variety of PROs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据