Turkish Society for Rheumatology recommendations for the diagnosis, follow-up and management of giant cell arteritis

dc.contributor.authorAlibaz-Oner, F.
dc.contributor.authorKara, M.
dc.contributor.authorEsatoglu, S. N.
dc.contributor.authorKenar, G.
dc.contributor.authorUzun, G. S.
dc.contributor.authorUnlu, B.
dc.contributor.authorAksu, K.
dc.date.accessioned2026-09-08T07:14:03Z
dc.date.issued2026
dc.departmentFırat Üniveristesi
dc.description.abstractObjective To integrate evidence-based data with expert opinion to provide guidance for the diagnosis, follow-up and treatment of giant cell arteritis (GCA). Methods A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. To structure the key clinical questions, the task force employed the Population, Intervention, Comparison Outcome (PICO) format. The Oxford system was subsequently applied to grade the quality of the evidence and determine the strength of each recommendation. Results This guideline provides 16 recommendations. We recommend the use of methotrexate in addition to glucocorticoids as first-line treatment in all patients with GCA without ischaemic symptoms. We recommend leflunomide, azathioprine and mycophenolate mofetil as alternatives in these patients if methotrexate is not tolerated. We recommend tocilizumab in GCA patients with ischaemic symptoms or with refractoriness to at least one conventional immunosuppressive. We also recommend upadacitinib as an alternative to tocilizumab in patients with low cardiovascular risk. To our knowledge, our recommendations are the first recommending upadacitinib as an alternative treatment option for the treatment of GCA. Conclusion The large RCTs assessing and comparing new effective options are still required in GCA. Assessment of the value of conventional immunosuppressives, which are more cost-effective options compared to biologic agents, is another research area in GCA treatment especially for developing countries. Upadacitinib seems to be a promising option in GCA. However, more real-life experience is needed to assess the safety of upadacitinib in the elderly population with especially high cardiovascular risk.
dc.identifier.endpage662
dc.identifier.issn0392-856X
dc.identifier.issn1593-098X
dc.identifier.issue4
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0002-3443-3117
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0002-2260-4660
dc.identifier.pmid41930660
dc.identifier.startpage647
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11508/65695
dc.identifier.volume44
dc.identifier.wosWOS:001779353700009
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ2
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Science
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMed
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherClinical & Exper Rheumatology
dc.relation.ispartofClinical and Experimental Rheumatology
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanı
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.snmzKA_WOS_20250903
dc.subjectGiant Cell Arteritis
dc.subjectRecommendations
dc.titleTurkish Society for Rheumatology recommendations for the diagnosis, follow-up and management of giant cell arteritis
dc.typeArticle

Dosyalar