Advertisement

Clinical Rheumatology

, Volume 32, Issue 5, pp 541–546 | Cite as

Advances in the diagnosis, assessment and outcome of Takayasu’s arteritis

  • Fatma Alibaz-OnerEmail author
  • Sibel Zehra Aydin
  • Haner Direskeneli
Review Article

Abstract

Takayasu’s arteritis (TAK) is a rare, chronic large-vessel vasculitis (LVV) that predominantly affects aorta, its major branches, and the pulmonary arteries. Segmental stenosis, occlusion, dilatation, or aneurysm formation may occur in the vessel wall during the course of the disease. The vascular involvement can be shown with different imaging modalities to make the diagnosis of TAK. Conventional angiography, the gold standard method for initial diagnosis, seems to be replaced with the new imaging modalities such as magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) in recent years. The data coming from the new studies support that MRA and FDG-PET are also promising for the assessment of disease activity. Prognosis is possibly getting better with lower mortality in recent years; however, it is difficult to assess the widely different vascular intervention rates among the clinical series. Leflunomide, TNF-α antagonists, and tocilizumab are new options in patients resistant to conventional therapies. There is a clear need to develop a validated set of outcome measures for use in clinical trials of TAK. The OMERACT Vasculitis Working Group has taken on this task and aims to develop a core set of outcomes for LVV.

Keywords

Disease assessment Outcome Takayasu’s arteritis 

Notes

Disclosures

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Kerr GS, Hallahan CW, Giordano J, Leavitt RY, Fauci AS, Rottem M et al (1994) Takayasu arteritis. Ann Intern Med 120(11):919–929PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bıcakcıgil M, Aksu K, Kamali S, Ozbalkan Z, Ates A, Karadag O et al (2009) Takayasu’s arteritis in Turkey—clinical and angiographic features of 248 patients. Clin Exp Rheumatol 27:S59–S64PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arent WP, Michel BA, Bloch DA, Hunder GG, Calabrese LH, Edworthy SM et al (1990) The American College of Rheumatology 1990 criteria for the classification of Takayasu arteritis. Arthritis Rheum 33:1129–1134Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Grayson PC, Tomasson G, Cuthbertson D, Carette S, Hoffman GS, Khalidi NA, Vasculitis Clinical Research Consortium et al (2012) Association of vascular physical examination findings and arteriographic lesions in large vessel vasculitis. J Rheumatol 39(2):303–309PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Maffei S, Di Renzo M, Bova G, Auteri A, Pasqui AL (2006) Takayasu’s arteritis: a review of the literature. Intern Emerg Med 1:105–112PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mason JC (2010) Takayasu arteritis—advances in diagnosis and management. Nat Rev Rheumatol 6(7):406–415, ReviewPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Maksimowicz-McKinnon K, Clark TM, Hoffman GS (2007) Limitations of therapy and a guarded prognosis in an American cohort of Takayasu arteritis patients. Arthritis Rheum 56:1000–1009PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lee SK (2006) Anti-endothelial cell antibodies and antiphospholipid antibodies in Takayasu’s arteritis: correlations of their titers and isotype distributions with disease activity. Clin Exp Rheumatol 24(suppl 41):S10–S16PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Noris M, Daina E, Gamba S, Bonazzola S, Remuzzi G (1999) Interleukin-6 and RANTES in Takayasu arteritis: a guide for therapeutic decisions? Circulation 100:55–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tripathy NK, Sinha N, Nityanand S (2004) Interleukin-8 in Takayasu’s arteritis: plasma levels and relationship with disease activity. Clin Exp Rheumatol 22:S27–S30PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ishihara T, Haraguchi G, Tezuka D, Kamiishi T, Inagaki H, Isobe M (2012) Diagnosis and assessment of Takayasu arteritis by mul- tiple biomarkers. Circ J, [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yoshida S, Akiba H, Tamakawa M, Yama N, Takeda M, Hareyama M et al (2001) The spectrum of findings in supra-aortic Takayasu’s arteritis as seen on spiral CT angiography and digital subtraction angiography. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 24:117–121PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Choe YH, Han BK, Koh EM, Do YS, Lee WR (2000) Takayasu’s arteritis: assessment of disease activity with contrast enhanced MRA imaging. Am J Roentgenol 175:505–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jiang L, Li D, Yan F, Dai X, Li Y, Ma L (2012) Evaluation of Takayasu arteritis activity by delayed contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Int J Cardiol 155(2):262–267PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Andrews J, Al-Nahhas A, Pennell DJ, Hossain MS, Davies KA, Haskard DO et al (2004) Non-invasive imaging in the diagnosis and management of Takayasu’s arteritis. Ann Rheum Dis 63:995–1000PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fuchs M, Briel M, Daikeler T, Walker UA, Rasch H, Berg S et al (2012) The impact of 18F-FDG PET on the management of patients with suspected large vessel vasculitis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 39(2):344–353PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tso E, Flamm SD, White RD, Schvartzman PR, Mascha E, Hoffman GS (2002) Takayasu arteritis: utility and limitations of magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosis and treatment. Arthritis Rheum 46:1634–1642PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    De Leeuw K, Bijl M, Jager PL (2004) Additional value of positron emission tomography in diagnosis and follow-up of patients with large vessel vasculitides. Clin Exp Rheumatol 22:S21–S26PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kobayashi Y, Ishii K, Oda K, Nariai T, Tanaka Y, Ishiwata K et al (2005) Aortic wall inflammation due to Takayasu arteritis imaged with 18F-FDG PET coregistered with enhanced CT. J Nucl Med 46:917–922PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tezuka D, Haraguchi G, Ishihara T, Ohigashi H, Inagaki H, Suzuki J et al (2012) Role of FDG PET-CT in Takayasu arteritis: sensitive detection of recurrences. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 5(4):422–429PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Walter MA, Melzer RA, Schindler C, Muller-Brand J, Tyndall A, Nitzsche AU (2005) The value of [18F]FDG-PET in the diagnosis of large-vessel vasculitis and the assessment of activity and extent of disease. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 32:674–681PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lee KH, Cho A, Choi YJ, Lee SW, Ha YJ, Jung SJ et al (2012) The role of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography in the assessment of disease activity in patients with Takayasu arteritis. Arthritis Rheum 64(3):866–875. doi: 10.1002/art.33413 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Arnaud L, Haroche J, Malek Z, Archambaud F, Gambotti L, Grimon G et al (2009) Is (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography scanning a reliable way to assess disease activity in Takayasu arteritis? Arthritis Rheum 60(4):1193–1200PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Karapolat I, Kalfa M, Keser G, Yalcin M, Inal V, Kumanlioglu K, Parildar T, Aksu K (2012) Comparison of F18 FDG PET/CT findings with current clinical disease status in patients with Takayasu’s arteritis. Clin Exp Rheumatol, in pressGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Raninen RO, Kupari MM, Pamilo MS, Taavitsainen MJ, Poutanen VP, Pajari RI et al (2000) Ultrasonography in the quantification of arterial involvement in Takayasu’s arteritis. Scand J Rheumatol 29:56–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Park SH, Chung JW, Lee JW, Han MH, Park JH (2001) Carotid artery involvement in Takayasu’s arteritis: evaluation of the activity by ultrasonography. J Ultrasound Med 20:371–378PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kerr GS, Hallahan CW, Giordano J, Leavitt RY, Fauci AS, Rottem M, Hoffman GS (1994) Takayasu arteritis. Ann Intern Med 120(11):919–929PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mukhtyar C, Lee R, Brown D, Carruthers D, Dasgupta B, Dubey S et al (2009) Modification and validation of the Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score (version 3). Ann Rheum Dis 68:1827–1832PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Aydin SZ, Yilmaz N, Akar S, Aksu K, Kamali S, Yucel E et al (2010) Assessment of disease activity and progression in Takayasu’s arteritis with disease extent index- Takayasu. Rheumatology (Oxford) 49:1889–1893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sivakumar MRM, Bacon PA (2005) The Indian perspective of Takayasu arteritis and development of a disease extent index (DEI.Tak) to assess Takayasu arteritis. Rheumatology 44:iii6–iii7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ureten K, Oztürk MA, Onat AM, Oztürk MH, Ozbalkan Z, Güvener M et al (2004) Takayasu’s arteritis: results of a university hospital of 45 patients in Turkey. Int J Cardiol 96:259–264PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Magnani L, Versari A, Salvo D, Casali M, Germanò G, Meliconi R et al (2010) Disease activity assessment in large vessel vasculitis. Arthritis Rheum 62(suppl 10):1290Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mishra R, Danda D, Jayaseelan L, Sivakumar R, Lawrence A, Bacon PA (2008) ITAS & DEI.TAK—scores for clinical disease activity and damage extent in Takayasu’s aortoarteritis (TA). Rheumatology 47:ii:101Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Direskeneli H, Aydin SZ, Kermani TA, Matteson EL, Boers M, Herlyn K et al (2011) Development of outcome measures for large-vessel vasculitis for use in clinical trials: opportunities, challenges, and research agenda. J Rheumatol 38(7):1471–1479PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Exley AR, Bacon PA, Luqmani RA, Kitas GD, Gordon C, Savage CO, Adu D et al (1997) Development and initial validation of the Vasculitis Damage Index for the standardized clinical assessment of damage in the systemic vasculitides. Arthritis Rheum 40(2):371–380PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Akar S, Can G, Binicier O, Aksu K, Akinci B, Solmaz D et al (2008) Quality of life in patients with Takayasu’s arteritis is impaired and comparable with rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis patients. Clin Rheumatol 27:859–865PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Abularrage CJ, Slidell MB, Sidawy AN, Kreishman P, Amdur RL, Arora S (2008) Quality of life of patients with Takayasu’s arteritis. J Vasc Surg 47:131–136, discussion 136-7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Fatma Alibaz-Oner, Meryem Can, Haner Direskeneli (2012) Presence of fibromyalgia and fatigue is not increased in patients with Takayasu’s arteritis. Presented at annual European congress of rheumatology (EULAR), Berlin, Germany, 6–9 June 2012Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Seo P, Jayne D, Luqmani R, Merkel PA (2009) Assessment of damage in vasculitis: expert ratings of damage. Rheumatology (Oxford) 48:823–827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Omma A, Erer B, Karadag O, Yilmaz N, Alibaz-Oner F, Yildiz F, Kiraz S, et al (2012) Cross sectional assessment of damage in Takayasu arteritis with a validated tool. Presented at annual European congress of rheumatology (EULAR), Berlin, Germany, 6–9 June 2012Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Phillip R, Luqmani R (2008) Mortality in systemic vasculitis: a systematic review. Clin Exp Rheumatol 26(suppl 51):S94–S104PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Park MC, Lee SW, Park YB, Chung NS, Lee SK (2005) Clinical characteristics and outcomes of Takayasu’s arteritis: analysis of 108 patients using standardized criteria for diagnosis, activity assessment, and angiographic classification. Scand J Rheumatol 34:284–292PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Karageorgaki ZT, Bertsias GK, Mavragani CP, Kritikos HD, Spyropoulou-Vlachou M, Drosos AA, Boumpas DT, Moutsopoulos HM (2009) Takayasu arteritis: epidemiological, clinical, and immunogenetic features in Greece. Clin Exp Rheumatol 27(1 Suppl 52):S33–S39PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Fields CE, Bower TC, Cooper LT, Hoskin T, Noel AA, Panneton JM et al (2006) Takayasu’s arteritis: operative results and influence of disease activity. J Vasc Surg 43:64–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Park MC, Lee SW, Park YB, Lee SK, Choi D, Shim WH (2006) Post-interventional immunosuppressive treatment and vascular restenosis in Takayasu’s arteritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 45:600–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ohigashi H, Haraguchi G, Konishi M, Tezuka D, Kamiishi T, Ishihara T et al (2012) Improved prognosis of Takayasu arteritis over the past decade—comprehensive analysis of 106 patients. Circ J 76(4):1004–1011PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Koening CL, Langford CA (2006) Novel therapeutic strategies for large vessel vasculitis. Rheum Dis Clin N Am 32(1):173–186, xiCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    De Souza A, Da Silva M, Machado L, Oliveira A, Pinheiro F, Sato E (2012) Short-term effect of leflunomide in patients with Takayasu arteritis: an observational study. Scand J Rheumatol 41(3):227–230PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Molloy ES, Langford CA, Clark TM, Gota CE, Hoffman GS (2008) Anti-tumour necrosis factor therapy in patients with refractory Takayasu arteritis: long-term follow-up. Ann Rheum Dis 67:1567–1569PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Salvarani C, Magnani L, Catanoso M, Pipitone N, Versari A, Dardani L et al (2012) Tocilizumab: a novel therapy for patients with large-vessel vasculitis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 51(1):151–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Clinical Rheumatology 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fatma Alibaz-Oner
    • 1
    • 3
    Email author
  • Sibel Zehra Aydin
    • 2
  • Haner Direskeneli
    • 1
  1. 1.Rheumatology Department, School of MedicineMarmara UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Rheumatology Unit, Goztepe Training and Research HospitalMedeniyet UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  3. 3.IstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations