Lillian Barra1, Tahir Kanji2, Jacqueline Malette2, Christian Pagnoux3. 1. Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, Department of Microbiology and Immunology, The University of Western Ontario, 268 Grosvenor St., London, Ontario N6H 4V2, Canada. Electronic address: lillian.barra@sjhc.london.on.ca. 2. Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, Department of Microbiology and Immunology, The University of Western Ontario, 268 Grosvenor St., London, Ontario N6H 4V2, Canada. 3. Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, Mount Sinai Hospital, 60 Murray St., Toronto, Ontario M5T 3L9, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Early diagnosis of Takayasu's Arteritis (TAK) and detection of disease activity may reduce the risk of vascular complications. The objective of this study was to determine the effectiveness of imaging modalities for the management of TAK. METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for studies of patients undergoing various imaging modalities for TAK diagnosis or to assess disease activity. We excluded case reports, reviews and case series with <10 patients. The methodologic quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2). Random effects meta-analyses with inverse-variance weighting were performed. RESULTS: From the 1126 citations screened, 57 studies met our inclusion criteria. Many of the studies were of small sample size (average N=27), cross-sectional design and low methodological quality. Ultrasound (US) had a lower pooled sensitivity (SN) of 81% (95% CI: 69-89%) than Magnetic Resonance Angiography (MRA) with SN=92% (95% CI: 88-95%) for TAK diagnosis (by clinical criteria and/or X-Ray angiography). Both had high specificities (SP) of >90% for TAK diagnosis. Fewer studies investigated computed tomography angiography (CTA), but SN and SP for TAK diagnosis was high (>90%). The utility of vessel wall thickening and enhancement by MRA and CTA to predict disease activity varied across studies. The pooled SN and SP of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-Positron Emission Tomography (FDG-PET) for disease activity was 81% (95% CI: 69-89%) and 74% (95% CI: 55-86%), respectively. CONCLUSION: US, CTA and/or MRA are effective for the diagnosis of TAK. The utility of these imaging modalities for assessing disease activity remains unclear.
BACKGROUND: Early diagnosis of Takayasu's Arteritis (TAK) and detection of disease activity may reduce the risk of vascular complications. The objective of this study was to determine the effectiveness of imaging modalities for the management of TAK. METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for studies of patients undergoing various imaging modalities for TAK diagnosis or to assess disease activity. We excluded case reports, reviews and case series with <10 patients. The methodologic quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2). Random effects meta-analyses with inverse-variance weighting were performed. RESULTS: From the 1126 citations screened, 57 studies met our inclusion criteria. Many of the studies were of small sample size (average N=27), cross-sectional design and low methodological quality. Ultrasound (US) had a lower pooled sensitivity (SN) of 81% (95% CI: 69-89%) than Magnetic Resonance Angiography (MRA) with SN=92% (95% CI: 88-95%) for TAK diagnosis (by clinical criteria and/or X-Ray angiography). Both had high specificities (SP) of >90% for TAK diagnosis. Fewer studies investigated computed tomography angiography (CTA), but SN and SP for TAK diagnosis was high (>90%). The utility of vessel wall thickening and enhancement by MRA and CTA to predict disease activity varied across studies. The pooled SN and SP of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-Positron Emission Tomography (FDG-PET) for disease activity was 81% (95% CI: 69-89%) and 74% (95% CI: 55-86%), respectively. CONCLUSION: US, CTA and/or MRA are effective for the diagnosis of TAK. The utility of these imaging modalities for assessing disease activity remains unclear.
Authors: Kaitlin A Quinn; Mark A Ahlman; Ashkan A Malayeri; Jamie Marko; Ali Cahid Civelek; Joel S Rosenblum; Armin A Bagheri; Peter A Merkel; Elaine Novakovich; Peter C Grayson Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2018-04-17 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: Dan Pugh; Maira Karabayas; Neil Basu; Maria C Cid; Ruchika Goel; Carl S Goodyear; Peter C Grayson; Stephen P McAdoo; Justin C Mason; Catherine Owen; Cornelia M Weyand; Taryn Youngstein; Neeraj Dhaun Journal: Nat Rev Dis Primers Date: 2022-01-06 Impact factor: 65.038
Authors: Moritz K Jansson; Hilte F Geerdes-Fenge; Antje Kangowski; Christian Kneitz; Emil C Reisinger Journal: Rheumatol Int Date: 2019-01-03 Impact factor: 2.631
Authors: Diana Prieto-Peña; Pilar Bernabeu; Paloma Vela; Javier Narváez; Jesús C Fernández-López; Mercedes Freire-González; Beatriz González-Álvarez; Roser Solans-Laqué; José L Callejas Rubio; Norberto Ortego; Carlos Fernández-Díaz; Esteban Rubio; Salvador García-Morillo; Mauricio Minguez; Cristina Fernández-Carballido; Eugenio de Miguel; Sheila Melchor; Eva Salgado; Beatriz Bravo; Susana Romero-Yuste; Juan Salvatierra; Cristina Hidalgo; Sara Manrique; Carlos Romero-Gómez; Patricia Moya; Noelia Álvarez-Rivas; Javier Mendizabal; Francisco Ortiz-Sanjuán; Iván Pérez de Pedro; José L Alonso-Valdivielso; Laura Perez-Sanchez; Rosa Roldán; Nagore Fernandez-Llanio; Ricardo Gómez de la Torre; Silvia Suarez; María Jesús Montesa Cabrera; Mónica Delgado Sánchez; Javier Loricera; Belén Atienza-Mateo; Santos Castañeda; Miguel A González-Gay; Ricardo Blanco Journal: Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis Date: 2021-06-18 Impact factor: 5.346
Authors: Violetta Opoka-Winiarska; Maria Barbara Tomaszek; Aleksandra Sobiesiak; Aleksandra Rybkowska; Monika Lejman; lIona Jaszczuk; Magdalena Maria Woźniak; Edyta Zielonka-Lamparska; Beata Chrapko Journal: Rheumatol Int Date: 2020-04-01 Impact factor: 2.631