Observational studyArthritis care & research2026
Subcutaneous Versus Intravenous Tocilizumab in Aortitis Associated With Giant Cell Arteritis: Multicenter Study of 196 Patients.
Observational study in Arthritis care & research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveAortitis associated with giant cell arteritis (GCA) is a severe manifestation, potentially leading to aneurysms and aortic dissection. Tocilizumab (TCZ) has demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of GCA, both intravenously or subcutaneously administered. However, pivotal studies did not specifically evaluate aortic involvement, and no comparison of intravenous (IV) versus subcutaneous (SC) TCZ has been performed in patients with GCA-related aortitis. The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of TCZ according to the administration route in patients with GCA-associated aortitis under clinical practice conditions.
methodsThis was a multicenter observational study including 196 patients diagnosed with GCA-associated aortitis by imaging and treated with TCZ. Patients were grouped by administration route: IV or SC. GCA was diagnosed following the 1990 American College of Rheumatology criteria, temporal artery biopsy, and/or vascular imaging. Aortitis was identified using
resultsOf 196 patients (148 women; mean age 69.8 ± SD 9.4 years), 110 received IV TCZ and 86 SC TCZ. Baseline clinical characteristics and markers of inflammation were comparable between groups. The glucocorticoid-sparing effect was similar. At 24-month follow-up, EULAR-defined remission was significantly more frequent in the SC group (83.3% vs 80.6%; P < 0.05). However, rates of imaging remission and absence of systemic inflammation were comparable between treatment arms.
conclusionsIn this real-world cohort of GCA-associated aortitis, SC TCZ showed slightly greater effectiveness than IV TCZ in achieving EULAR-defined remission, whereas no significant differences were observed between both routes regarding imaging remission.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.