Intravenous or Oral Glucocorticoids as Initial Therapy for Transient and Permanent Visual Changes in Giant Cell Arteritis: A Retrospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives Guidelines for the treatment of giant cell arteritis-associated vision changes (GCAVCs) recommend the use of intravenous over oral glucocorticoids to improve visual outcomes. These recommendations are based on limited data. We assessed the impact of oral or intravenous glucocorticoids on visual outcomes in a real-world cohort of individuals with GCAVCs. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study of individuals from a tertiary healthcare facility in Ontario, Canada between December 2017 and November 2023. Individuals included in the cohort were aged 50 or older and assigned a validated diagnostic code for GCA during an inpatient, outpatient, or emergency department visit. Diagnoses of GCA were based on the final diagnosis of the treating clinician and were required to be supported by histology, imaging findings suggestive of inflammatory vasculopathy, and/or the presence of increased inflammatory markers. GCAVCs were confirmed by the treating rheumatologist, ophthalmologist, or internist. Results were described using summary statistics. The impact of intravenous (IV) or oral glucocorticoids on visual improvement as documented by either the patient’s rheumatologist or ophthalmologist visual outcomes was assessed using multivariable logistic regression (adjusted for age, sex, and time from symptom onset to treatment). A subgroup analysis was performed in patients who had GCAVCs associated with permanent visual loss (ischemic optic neuropathy and retinal artery occlusion). Results The cohort included 289 patients with a diagnosis of GCA, of whom 77 (26.6%) experienced GCAVCs. GCAVCs included 51 cases of ischemic optic neuropathy, 6 of amaurosis fugax, 5 retinal artery occlusions, and 15 others. Individuals with transient and permanent GCAVCs were treated with oral (72.7% and 50.0% respectively) or intravenous and oral (25.0% and 50.0% respectively) glucocorticoids. Eight individuals with ischemic optic neuropathy or retinal artery occlusion had visual improvement including 5 of 27 (18.5%) who received oral glucocorticoids and 3 of 25 (12.0%) who received intravenous glucocorticoids. Complete data was available for 31 of 77 (40.3%) of cohort participants due to lack of data concerning date of glucocorticoid initiation; logistic regression was performed both including and excluding time from symptom to glucocorticoid initiation. Neither analysis demonstrated an association between the use of IV glucocorticoids and improved visual outcomes (p values 0.12-0.99) (Table). Table: results of multivariable logistic regression assessing intravenous versus oral glucocorticoids for visual improvement as judged by the treating ophthalmologist and/or rheumatologist. Results are expressed as odds ratios with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals, n reflects the sample size either including or excluding data concerning the interval between symptom onset and treatment. Conclusion Our cohort demonstrated that IV glucocorticoids, compared to oral glucocorticoids, were not associated with visual improvement in individuals who experienced GCAVCs. Conclusions are limited by the small number of events and observational nature of the data.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".