External validation of the 2022 ACR/EULAR classification criteria in patients with suspected giant cell arteritis in a Dutch fast-track clinic

• Published in: Rheumatic & musculoskeletal diseases open Vol. 9; no. 3; p. e003080
• Main Authors: van Nieuwland, Marieke, van Bon, Lenny, Vermeer, Marloes, Brouwer, Elisabeth, Alves, Celina
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England EULAR 01.07.2023; BMJ Publishing Group LTD; BMJ Publishing Group
• Series: Original research
• Subjects: Biopsy; Classification; Clinical medicine; Cohort analysis; Decades; Epidemiology; Giant Cell Arteritis; Medical imaging; Patients; Rheumatology; Systemic vasculitis; Tomography; Ultrasonic imaging; Validation studies; Variables; Vasculitis; Vein & artery diseases; Systemic vasculitis; Epidemiology; Giant Cell Arteritis
• ISSN: 2056-5933; 2056-5933
• DOI: 10.1136/rmdopen-2023-003080

ObjectiveRecently the Diagnostic and Classification Criteria in Vasculitis Study group developed and published new American College of Rheumatology/EULAR classification criteria for giant cell arteritis (GCA). To test robustness in a different clinical setting and inform clinicians on performance in clinical practice, we aim to externally validate them in patients with a suspicion of GCA referred to our GCA fast-track clinic.MethodsPatients with suspected GCA from the Hospital Group Twente Early GCA in Twente prospective cohort were included. The clinical diagnosis of GCA verified after 6 months of follow-up made by the treating rheumatologist was used as a reference standard. A cut-off score of ≥6 was tested as described in the original article. Area under the receiver operating characteristics curve, sensitivity and specificity were calculated.ResultsIn total, 133 patients with suspected GCA were included, of whom 53 were diagnosed with GCA and 80 patients were not diagnosed with GCA. The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.96 (95% CI 0.92 to 0.98). Using the proposed cut-off score of≥6, we found that sensitivity was 98.0% (95% CI 89.9% to 100%) and specificity was 57.5% (95% CI 45.9% to 68.5%). The majority of misclassified patients without GCA had classification scores of 6 and 7 as clinical and/or laboratory criteria were often present in our non-GCA population.ConclusionOur results showed an excellent AUC and sensitivity with a moderate specificity for classification of GCA patients. Considering our relevant study population, we found that the new classification criteria might also be useful for diagnostic purposes, albeit with careful interpretation.