Statin Use in Giant Cell Arteritis: A Retrospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: (1) To examine the association between statin use and giant cell arteritis (GCA); (2) to compare the clinical features and disease course of GCA among statin users and nonusers. METHODS: For this retrospective study, we reviewed the medical records of all patients with biopsy-positive GCA diagnosed between 1998 and 2008. Using a case-control design, we compared the frequency of statin use in GCA patients to non-GCA population-based subjects who were randomly selected and individually matched by sex, age, and calendar year to the GCA cases. Statin use at diagnosis or index date and during followup was abstracted. In subjects with GCA, clinical information at diagnosis and followup was collected. RESULTS: We included 594 patients, 297 with GCA (73% female), mean age at diagnosis 75 years. The rate of statin exposure at index date was 18.1% for GCA patients versus 33.3% for controls (p < 0.001). Patients using statins were less likely to develop GCA compared with patients not using statins (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.15-0.6, p < 0.001), even after adjustment for cardiovascular risk factors. Among patients with GCA, the presenting clinical features and acute-phase reactants were similar in patients receiving statins compared to those not on statin therapy. These 2 groups were also similar with regard to relapse rate, prednisone tapering, and overall survival. CONCLUSION: Patients using statins may be less likely to develop GCA compared to patients who are not using statins. Statin use does not appear to modify the clinical presentation or the course of the disease.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".