Evidence Hub

Steroid-sparing effect of anakinra in giant-cell arteritis: a case series with clinical, biological and iconographic long-term assessments

S. Deshayes, K. Ly, V. Rieu, G. Maigné, N. M. Silva, A. Manrique, J. Monteil, H. de Boysson et al.

Rheumatology, 2021

6 participants · 32 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

The treatment of giant cell arteritis (GCA) relies on corticosteroids but is burdened by a high rate of relapses and adverse effects. Anti-interleukin-6 treatments show a clear benefit with a significant steroid-sparing effect, but late relapses occur after treatment discontinuation. In addition to interleukin-6, interleukin-1 also appears to play a significant role in GCA pathophysiology. We report herein the efficacy of anakinra, an interleukin-1 receptor antagonist, in 6 GCA patients exhibiting corticosteroid dependence or resistance, specifically analyzing the outcome of aortitis in 4 of them.

METHODS

This retrospective study analyzed the cases of all GCA patients treated with anakinra from the French Study Group for Large Vessel Vasculitis.

RESULTS

After a median duration of anakinra therapy of 19 [18-32] months, all 6 patients exhibited complete clinical and biological remission. Among the 4 patients with large-vessel involvement, 2 had a disappearance of aortitis under anakinra, and 2 showed a decrease in vascular uptake. After a median follow-up of 56 [48-63] months, corticosteroids were discontinued in 4 patients, and corticosteroid dosage could be decreased to 5 mg/day in 2 patients. One patient relapsed 13 months after anakinra introduction in the context of increasing the daily anakinra injection interval to every 48 hours. Three patients experienced transient injection-site reactions, and 1 patient had pneumonia.

CONCLUSION

In this short series,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 6 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free