rss
Ann Rheum Dis 1999;58:335-341 doi:10.1136/ard.58.6.335
  • Extended reports

Biopsy proven and biopsy negative temporal arteritis: differences in clinical spectrum at the onset of the disease

  1. Pierre Duhauta,c,
  2. Laurent Pinèdea,
  3. Hubert Bornetd,
  4. Sylvie Demolombe-Raguéa,
  5. Charles Dumonteta,
  6. Jacques Nineta,
  7. Roger Loireb,
  8. Jean Pasquier for the GRACG (Groupe de Recherche sur l’Artérite à Cellules Géantes)a
  1. aDepartment of Internal Medicine, Edouard Herriot Hospital, Lyon, France, bDepartment of Pathology, Louis Pradel Hospital, Bron, France, cRECIF (Réseau d’Epidémiologie Clinique International Francophone, Claude Bernard University, Lyon, France), dDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Faculté de Médecine Lyon-Grange-Blanche, Claude Bernard University, Lyon, France
  1. Dr P Duhaut, Department of Internal Medicine, Pavillon H, Edouard Herriot Hospital, 69437 Lyon Cedex 03, France.
  • Accepted 12 February 1999

Abstract

OBJECTIVES To assess the clinical features of biopsy proven and negative biopsy temporal arteritis at the time of diagnosis and during a three year follow up.

METHODS Newly diagnosed cases of giant cell arteritis were included in a prospective, multicentre study. Initial clinical and biological features, season of diagnosis, and cardiovascular events occurring during the follow up were recorded. Biopsy proven and negative biopsy cases were compared.

RESULTS Two hundred and seven biopsy proven, and 85 negative biopsy cases were included from 1991 to 1997. Fifty eight per cent of the biopsy proven cases, compared with 39.29% of the negative biopsy cases, were diagnosed during the autumn or winter (p = 0.003). Visual problems (31.5%,v 19.1%, p = 0.031), blindness (9.7%v 2.38%, p = 0.033), jaw claudication (40.8%, v 28.243%, p = 0.044), and temporal artery palpation abnormalities (61.3%v 29.5%, p = 7.10-7) were more frequent in the biopsy proven than in the negative biopsy group. Less specific symptoms, such as headache (82.5%v 92.9%, p = 0.021), or associated polymyalgia rheumatica (40.1% v 65.9%, p = 9 × 10-5) were more prevalent in the negative biopsy cases. Biological markers of inflammation were significantly more increased in the biopsy proven group. All cases of blindness occurring after treatment belonged to the biopsy proven group.

CONCLUSION Biopsy proven cases seem to be more severe than biopsy negative cases at the time of diagnosis and during follow up. Seasonal difference at diagnosis may suggest a different aetiological pattern.

Footnotes

    This Article

    1. Abstract
    2. Full text
    3. PDF

    Responses

    1. Submit a response
    2. No responses published

    Register for free content

    The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.

    Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.