Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The performance of the 2022 ACR/EULAR classification criteria for Takayasu’s arteritis as compared to the 1990 ACR classification criteria in a Chinese population

  • Research
  • Published:
Clinical and Experimental Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this study, we studied the performance of the 2022 American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/ European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) classification criteria for Takayasu's arteritis (TAK) as compared to the 1990 ACR classification criteria in a Chinese population. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, accuracy and the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC) of the above two criteria were compared. The sensitivity (92.6%), positive predictive value (95.6%), negative predictive value (94.6%), accuracy (95.0%) and AUC (0.981) of the 2022 criteria were superior to those of the 1990 criteria (45.7%, 91.5%, 70.5%, 75.0% and 0.874, respectively), and the difference of AUC was statistically significant (Z = 5.362, P < 0.001). In addition, we included new imaging modalities in the 1990 criteria, whose sensitivity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, accuracy and AUC were significantly improved, but still lower than those of the 2022 criteria, the difference in AUC was also statistically significant (Z = 2.023, P = 0.043). The 2022 criteria for TAK exhibited superior performance compared with the 1990 criteria and may be more appropriate for the Chinese population. Incorporating additional imaging modalities could enhance the classification performance of the 1990 criteria even further.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Numano F, Okawara M, Inomata H, Kobayashi Y. Takayasu’s arteritis. Lancet. 2000;356:1023–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Vanoli M, Daina E, Salvarani C, et al. Itaka Study Group. Takayasu's arteritis: A study of 104 Italian patients. Arthritis Rheum. 2005, 53, 100–107.

  3. David S, Mathieu V, Patrice C. Medium- and large-vessel vasculitis. Circulation. 2021;143:267–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Richards BL, March L, Gabriel SE. Epidemiology of large-vessel vasculidities. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2010;24:871–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Cong XL, Dai SM, Feng X, et al. Takayasu’s arteritis: clinical features and outcomes of 125 patients in China. Clin Rheumatol. 2010;29:973–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kaymaz-Tahra S, Alibaz-Oner F, Direskeneli H. Assessment of damage in Takayasu’s arteritis. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2020;50:586–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Souza AWSD, Carvalho JFD. Diagnostic and classification criteria of Takayasu arteritis. J Autoimmun. 2014;48:79–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Seeliger B, Sznajd J, Robson JC, et al. Are the 1990 American college of rheumatology vasculitis classification criteria still valid? Rheumatology. 2017;56:1154–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Grayson PC, Ponte C, Suppiah R, et al. American college of rheumatology/EULAR classification criteria for Takayasu arteritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2022;81:1654–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Arend WP, Michel BA, Bloch DA, et al. The American college of rheumatology 1990 criteria for the classification of Takayasu arteritis. Arthritis Rheum. 1990;33:1129–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Sugiyama K, Ijiri S, Tagawa S, Shimizu K. Takayasu disease on the centenary of its discovery. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2009;53:81–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Fatma A-Ö, Zehra AS, Haner D. Recent advances in Takayasu’s arteritis. European J Rheumatol. 2015;2:24–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Arnaud L, Haroche J, Mathian A, Gorochov G, Amoura Z. Pathogenesis of Takayasu’s arteritis: a 2011 update. Autoimmun Rev. 2011;11:61–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ishikawa K. Diagnostic approach and proposed criteria for the clinical diagnosis of Takayasu’s arteriopathy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1988;12:964–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Sharma BK, Jain S, Suri S, Numano F. Diagnostic criteria for Takayasu arteritis. Int J Cardiol. 1996;54:S141-147.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kieffer E, Chiche L, Bertal A, et al. Descending thoracic and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm in patients with Takayasu’s disease. Ann Vasc Surg. 2004;18:505–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Cheng F, Shao Z, Lu QS, et al. Aneurysms in Takayasu’s arteritis: a retrospective study of Chinese patients. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2020;124:42–7.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Dejaco C, Ramiro S, Duftner C, et al. EULAR recommendations for the use of imaging in large vessel vasculitis in clinical practice. Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77:636–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Sinha D, Mondal S, Nag A, Ghosh A. Development of a colour Doppler ultrasound scoring system in patients of Takayasu’s arteritis and its correlation with clinical activity score (ITAS 2010). Rheumatology. 2013;52:2196–202.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Svensson C, Eriksson P, Zachrisson H. Vascular ultrasound for monitoring of inflammatory activity in Takayasu arteritis. Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 2020;40:37–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Oura K, Yamaguchi Oura M, Itabashi R, Maeda T. Vascular imaging techniques to diagnose and monitor patients with Takayasu arteritis: a review of the literature. Diagnostics. 2021;11(11):1993.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Keser G, Aksu K, Direskeneli H. Takayasu arteritis: an update. Turk J Med Sci. 2018;48:681–97.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This research was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 8207071016).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Ruijie Cao and Zhongqiang Yao have contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Rheumatology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, 100191, People’s Republic of China

    Ruijie Cao & Zhongqiang Yao

  2. Department of Rheumatology, The Fourth Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, 050011, People’s Republic of China

    Ruijie Cao & Pengqing Jiao

  3. Department of Ultrasound Medicine, Peking University Third Hospital, 49 Garden North Road, Beijing, 100191, People’s Republic of China

    Zhuohua Lin & Ligang Cui

Authors
  1. Ruijie Cao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zhongqiang Yao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zhuohua Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Pengqing Jiao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ligang Cui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization contributed by RJC and ZQY; methodology contributed by LGC; software contributed by PQJ; validation contributed by ZQY, and LGC; formal analysis contributed by ZHL; investigation contributed by PQJ; resources contributed by ZQY; data curation contributed by ZHL; writing—original draft preparation contributed by RJC; writing—review and editing contributed by ZQY; visualization contributed by LGC; supervision contributed by ZHL; project administration contributed by LGC; funding acquisition contributed to LGC. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ligang Cui.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the ethics committee of the Fourth Hospital of Hebei Medical University.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cao, R., Yao, Z., Lin, Z. et al. The performance of the 2022 ACR/EULAR classification criteria for Takayasu’s arteritis as compared to the 1990 ACR classification criteria in a Chinese population. Clin Exp Med 23, 5291–5297 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10238-023-01140-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10238-023-01140-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation