ArticleRheumatology international2025
A feasible treatment strategy for tapering subcutaneous tocilizumab in giant cell arteritis: a 24-month multi-center retrospective study.
Article in Rheumatology international, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The characteristics of giant cell arteritis patients that went blind in spite of treatment: case based narrative literature review.Rheumatology international · 2026Review
- Uncovering the New Biology of Giant Cell Arteritis to Guide Therapeutic Strategies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To examine whether extending tocilizumab (TCZ) intervals is a feasible treatment strategy in giant cell arteritis (GCA). This multicenter retrospective study included patients with GCA who started subcutaneous TCZ at five Japanese hospitals between January 2008 and July 2021. We collected clinical data and monitored relapses for up to 24 months following the initiation of TCZ. The treatment regimen, including TCZ intervals and glucocorticoid (GC) dosage, was evaluated every 6 months. Of 56 eligible patients, 44 (79%) initiated TCZ weekly, and 12 (21%) every two weeks. The GC dosage consistently decreased after initiating TCZ; GC discontinuation was achieved in 87.5% at month 24. The number of patients extending TCZ intervals increased over time. Among the 32 patients who were followed at month 24, 5 (15.6%) continued weekly TCZ; the TCZ interval was every two weeks in 13 (40.6%), every three weeks in 7 (21.9%), and every four weeks or longer in 5 (15.6%), and 2 (6.3%) discontinued TCZ due to well-controlled disease. During 24-month follow-up, 10 (31.3%) extended TCZ intervals by two weeks or more from the starting dose. Three patients experienced relapses after extending TCZ intervals for well-controlled GCA, and all improved by shortening TCZ intervals. Gradually extending TCZ intervals by one week each is a feasible treatment strategy for well-controlled GCA patients after achieving GC-free status. While some patients may experience relapses following the extension of TCZ intervals, these relapses might be potentially managed by adjusting only the TCZ intervals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39924612What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.