ArticleRheumatology (Oxford, England)2026
Patient-reported outcomes and disease activity in giant cell arteritis: a longitudinal registry-based study.
Article in Rheumatology (Oxford, England), 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe objective of this registry-based cohort study was to evaluate longitudinal associations between disease activity measures and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in GCA, and to assess whether specific PRO domains reflect clinically active disease.
methodsAmong all GCA patients registered in NorVas up to 12 December 2024, we selected patients who: (i) fulfilled the ACR 1990 classification criteria for GCA, (ii) had two PROs recorded at least once, and (iii) were included in NorVas at the time of diagnosis. HRQoL was assessed by RAND-12, using the physical (PCS) and mental (MCS) composite scores as outcomes. Visual analogue scales were used to assess pain, fatigue and global disease assessment. The association between the PROs and disease activity were evaluated using linear mixed effects models. We assessed the PROs over time and the difference in PROs between active and inactive disease.
resultsWe included 256 patients in the study with a median of three observations each, and a total of 1003 observations. All examined PROs showed a significant difference between active and inactive disease at baseline. Statistically and clinically significant differences were retained during follow-up for RAND-12-PCS (11.19 [95% CI: 5.67, 16.71]), pain (-12.64 [95% CI: -18.58, -6.70]) and global assessment (-9.92 [95% CI: -15.48, -4.35]).
conclusionOur study demonstrates a consistent association between PROs and disease activity in GCA, most pronounced for the physical component of HRQoL, pain and global assessment. Patients with active disease showed statistically and clinically significant differences in PRO scores compared with those in remission, both at baseline and throughout follow‑up. While no single PRO domain can replace formal disease activity assessment, patterns across pain, fatigue and patient global measures may signal active disease and warrant clinical reassessment. Taken together, these findings indicate that selected combinations of PROs may serve as a useful adjunct in the monitoring of GCA.
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.