2022 American College of Rheumatology/EULAR classification criteria for giant cell arteritis
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g.
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests


  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

  • Published on:
    • Burak Ince, Rheumatologist Başakşehir Çam ve Sakura City Hospital, Istanbul
    • Other Contributors:
      • Murat İnanç, Rheumatologist

    We read the article “2022 American College of Rheumatology/EULAR Classification Criteria for Giant Cell Arteritis" by Ponte et al. with great interest (1). There was a long-standing need for revision of classification criteria for giant cell arteritis (GCA) due to the insufficient sensitivity of the ACR 1990 criteria in recent studies (2). This could be explained by enrolment of patients with different clinical phenotypes to the cohorts depending on the improvement in the imaging methods in addition to clinician’s assessment over the years. Especially, implementation of cross-sectional imaging including FDG – PET improved the diagnosis of GCA and facilitated the recognition of disease patterns without cranial manifestations. Patients with isolated extra-cranial involvement were reported to have a diagnostic delay up to 5 months compared to classical GCA patients and late recognition of large vessel involvement could cause permanent organ damage (3). Thoracic aorta dilatation / aneurysm has been reported in 15% and large artery stenosis in 30% in patients with proven aortic inflammation (4). The ACR 1990 Criteria were not sufficient to identify this subgroup and patients who participate in clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of further treatment options. The new criteria were expected to fill this gap.

    We implemented new criteria to our single reference center cohort with long-term follow-up consisted of 89 patients with a median follow-up time of 4 years T...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.