Skip to main content
European Journal of Rheumatology logoLink to European Journal of Rheumatology
. 2020 Feb;7(Suppl 1):S58–S66. doi: 10.5152/eurjrheum.2019.19195

Childhood-onset Takayasu Arteritis

Florence A Aeschlimann 1,2, Marinka Twilt 3,4, Rae S M Yeung 5,6,
PMCID: PMC7004266  PMID: 35929861

Abstract

Childhood-onset Takayasu Arteritis (cTAK) is a rare, large-vessel type of vasculitis seen in children, mainly affecting the aorta and its major branches. Clinical manifestations are often severe and arise as a result of systemic and local inflammation, along with end-organ ischemia. Disease flares are common and the disease burden is high, with a significant rate of morbidity and mortality. Recent advances in understanding the underlying disease pathobiology resulted in the use of pathway-targeting agents, such as TNF- or IL-6 inhibitors with improved disease control. Nonetheless, the prognosis often remains guarded and the accrued damage is significant. This review aims at summarizing the recent evidence and observations regarding this condition, with a focus on pediatric publications.

Keywords: Childhood vasculitis, Takayasu Arteritis, large-vessel vasculitis

Introduction

Takayasu Arteritis (TAK) is the most common form of large-vessel vasculitis in children and is characterized by granulomatous inflammation of the aorta and its major branches. Vessel wall inflammation leads to thickening, stenosis, and thrombus formation, and aneurysms and dissections are also often observed. Symptoms result from systemic inflammation, local inflammatory processes, and organ dysfunction secondary to ischemia. This disease may also be life-threatening. The diagnosis is based on analyzing clinical criteria and angiographic abnormalities, and is supported by laboratory findings. Recent advances in understanding the disease pathobiology have resulted in the use of cytokine-targeting agents and better control of the disease. Although the treatment outcomes seem improved, long-term follow-up is lacking and the prognosis remains guarded.

Since the comprehensive review on TAK in children and adolescents published by Brunner and colleagues in 2010 was published, additional pediatric cohorts have been reported (112). The aim of this article is to provide a review of childhood-onset TAK (cTAK) with a focus on recent pediatric observations.

Epidemiology

TAK was initially described in Japan, and although its incidence rates are higher in Asia, South America, and the Mediterranean basin, the disease is known to occur worldwide. TAK most commonly affects young women between 20–40 years of age, and its onset in childhood is far less frequent. The prevalence depends on the geographic region studied and varies in adults between 4.7 per million in UK to 29 per million in Korea (13, 14).

The epidemiologic data on cTAK are scarce. The annual incidence rate for cTAK was estimated to be 0.4 (CI 0.0, 1.1) per million in Southern Sweden in 2015 (15). The prevalence in Korea varied depending on the age group, between 0.04 (CI 0.00, 0.08) for younger patients and 0.63 (CI 0.36, 0.91) per 100,000 for older children, and seems to have been increasing over the last decade (14). The female preponderance of cTAK is lower than in adult-onset TAK; around 2.5:1 for the pediatric population (18, 10, 11, 16). The peak age of onset in children is around 12 years (111), although cases of early onset in infancy have been described in the literature (3, 6, 8, 10, 11, 1720).

Pathogenesis

The etiology of TAK remains poorly understood, and the current knowledge is extrapolated from adult TAK patients and animal models of large-vessel vasculitis (21). Both the innate and adaptive immune systems seem to be involved in the pathogenesis of TAK (22). The inflammatory process usually involves the vasa vasorum, the adventitia, and the outer part of the media and results in vessel wall damage with laminar necrosis and elastic fiber fragmentation, which is eventually replaced by fibrosis and arterial remodeling (23). Inflammatory infiltrates of the arterial wall consist of macrophages and lymphoid cells (as CD4+ and CD8+ cells, gδ T-cells, NK cells, and B cells) (24). Th1 and Th17 responses seem to play an important role as demonstrated by an increased expression of Th1 and Th17 immunity in TAK-related inflammation that correlates with disease activity (25). Furthermore, recent data have shown a role of the mTORC1 pathway in T-cell activation and development of vascular lesions (26). Insights in these newly recognized pathways that have been implicated in the pathobiology of TAK may guide us toward future therapeutic targeted options.

The involvement of humoral immune mechanisms is evidenced by the presence of circulating anti-endothelial cell antibodies and autoantibody-producing B cells in inflammatory TAK lesions that may cause vascular dysfunction (27, 28). TAK patients have also been shown to generate a significantly large number of plasmablasts, which correlate with disease activity (29). These results lend support to the use of anti B-cell agents in the treatment of TAK.

Proinflammatory cytokines seem to play an important role in the pathogenesis of TAK (30). Elevated serum levels of TNFa, IFNa, IL-6, IL-8, IL17A, and IL-18 have been observed in patients with TAK as compared to controls, with serum IL-6 and IL-18 levels correlating with increased disease activity (25, 31, 32). Identification of key proinflammatory cytokines lead to the use of cytokine-targeting agents, such as TNF or IL-6 inhibitors.

The genetic contribution to disease pathogenesis is supported by the identification of multiple susceptibility loci in various studies. Both HLA classes I and II have been associated with TAK, and most notably, the HLA-B52 allele has been reported across multiple ethnicities (22, 33, 34). Saruhan-Direskeneli et al. (35) identified HLA-B/MICA, HLA-DQB1/HLA-DRB1, and FCGR2A/FCGR3A as susceptibility loci in TAK patients from Turkey and North America. Variants in IL12B were identified as a risk factor for TAK in a GWAS study from Japan (33). TAK was also associated with IL6, RPS9/LILRB3, and an intergenic locus on chromosome 21q22 (36).

In addition, an association between TAK and tuberculosis infection has been recognized for several decades (37). Both tuberculosis and TAK manifest with granulomatous lesions as one of the symptoms (38). A positive tuberculin skin test has been observed in up to 90% of children with TAK (39), with active tuberculosis in up to 20% of TAK patients (38), especially in regions where the prevalence of tuberculosis is high. Molecular cross-reactivity against vascular peptides that mimic mycobacterial antigens has been suggested (40). Furthermore, gene sequences of Mycobacterium tuberculosis were detected in 23 of 33 (70%) aortic tissue samples of TAK patients (41). Finally, the genetic susceptibility may contribute to the disease burden, as variants in FCGR2A/FCGR3A may possibly alter the immune response against infectious agents that may be involved in the pathogenesis of TAK (35). Evidence implicating tuberculosis in disease pathogenesis has accumulated, but its definitive role remains to be elucidated.

Classification

In 1990, the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) developed some classification criteria for TAK based on data from mostly adult TAK patients (42). The new classification criteria for pediatric vasculitis, including TAK, were proposed in 2005 by the vasculitis working group of the Pediatric Rheumatology European Society (PReS) and were endorsed by the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) (43). These criteria incorporated items of the 1990 ACR classification, and required that angiographic abnormalities be included as a mandatory criterion. The criteria were further updated to include not only conventional angiography, but also CT or MRI. Finally, hypertension was added as a new criterion. These classification criteria were eventually validated at the 2008 Ankara consensus conference by the EULAR/PReS and Pediatric Rheumatology International Trials Organization (PRINTO) (44). The only modification to the 2005 EULAR/PReS criteria was the addition of increased acute phase reactants as an extra criterion to emphasize on differentiating TAK from non-inflammatory conditions. The currently used EULAR/PRINTO/PReS classification criteria for cTAK are presented in Table 1, and they demonstrate a sensitivity and specificity of 100% and 99.9%, respectively (44).

Table 1.

Final EULAR/PRINTO/PRES childhood TAK classification criteria.

Criterion Glossary
Angiographic abnormality (mandatory criterion) Angiography (conventional, CT, or MRI) of the aorta or its main branches and pulmonary arteries showing aneurysm/dilatation, narrowing, occlusion, or thickening of the arterial wall not due to fibromuscular dysplasia or similar causes; changes usually focal or segmental
1. Pulse deficit or claudication Lost/decreased/unequal peripheral artery pulse(s)
Claudication: focal muscle pain induced by physical activity
2. Blood pressure (BP) discrepancy Discrepancy of four limb systolic BP having a >10 mm Hg difference in any limb
3. Bruits Audible murmurs or palpable thrills over large arteries
4. Hypertension Systolic/diastolic BP greater than 95th centile for height
5. Acute phase reactant Erythrocyte sedimentation rate >20 mm per first hour or CRP any value above normal (according to the local laboratory)

CT: Computer Tomography; CRP: C-reactive protein; EULAR: European League Against Rheumatism; MRI: Magnetic Resonance Imaging; PRES: Pediatric Rheumatology European Society; PRINTO: Pediatric Rheumatology International Trials Organization.

Clinical features

The clinical spectrum varies greatly according to the localization and extent of the vascular inflammation. Accordingly, a diagnosis of cTAK remains a challenge for clinicians and requires a high index of suspicion. Disease onset is characterized by an acute inflammatory phase with non-specific systemic symptoms, which likely contributes to the diagnostic delay. Although the course of the disease may be monophasic, most patients will experience a relapsing-remitting condition. In some cohorts, up to 1/4th of children are diagnosed during the late, inactive, “burnt-out” phase of the disease, which reflects irreversible sequelae to vascular lesions rather than active vasculitis (1, 3, 4).

General features

Hypertension remains the most common presenting feature in cTAK (73% of patients). Children may also present with dyspnea (32%), fever (29%), headaches (24%), weight loss (19%), or abdominal pain (14%). Musculoskeletal symptoms, including arthritis, are overall rather uncommon in children (24%). However, they are more frequently observed in South American children with TAK, a finding that was consistent with previous reports (2, 11, 45). A summary of clinical data is shown Table 2. Severe and life-threatening presentations due to acute hypertensive crisis, heart failure, or arterial dissection have been described (4649).

Table 2.

Clinical and laboratory characteristics of children with TAK.

Author (REF) Zhu (9) Jales-Neto (11) Szugye (8) Goel (6) Clemente (2) Misra (7) Eleftheriou (3) Feng (5) Aeschlimann (1) Sahin (10) Fan (4) Summary (111) Brunner (12)
Country China Brazil USA India Brazil India UK China Canada Turkey China
Year of publication 2010 2010 2014 2014 2016 2015 2015 2017 2017 2019 2019 2010–2019 2010
Patients (n) 14 17 21 40 71 29 11 11 27 16 101 358 241
Sex F : M 3.7 : 1 1.8 : 1 2.5 : 1 1.9 : 1 2.6 : 1 1.9 : 1 1.8 : 1 1.8 : 1 2.8 : 1 3 : 1 3.2 : 1 2.5 : 1 3.0 : 1
Age at onset, mean (range), years, *median 10.2 (7–16) 16* (1–18) 11.5 (0.1–17) 12.5* (1–16) 9.2 +/− 4.2 SD 13* (IQR 11–15) 11.8 (1–17) 9.4 (1–14) 12.4* (IQR 9.1–14.4) at dx 12.1* (0.5–16.1) 14* (IQR 12–16) 12 (0.1–18) 10 (1–18)
General features, % (summary and Brunner, n (%))
 Fever 29 41 14 45 NRd 55 36 45 19 44 13 82/287 (29) 47/160 (29)
 Weight loss 36 59 48 5 NRd 24e 36 NR 30 19 4 53/276 (19) 44/199 (22)
 Headache 64 47 14 53 NRd 21 36 27 33 38 1 70/287 (24) 66/210 (31)
 Malaise NR NR NR 53 NRd 24e NR NR 48 50 9 58/213 (27)
 LAD NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 11 NR NR 3/27 (11)
 Arthritis/arthralgia 43 41 14 3 65 14e 9 NR NR 44 2 77/320 (24) 33/230 (14)
 Carotidynia NR 18 5 NR NR 3 NR NR NR NR 4 9/168 (5)
 Dyspnea 21 NR 19 28 54 NR 27 9 15 NR 30 94/296 (32) 49/210 (23)
 Hypertension 93 65 57 73 85 76 73 100 56 63 70 262/358 (73) 199/241 (83)
 Abdominal pain NR 29 10 23 NRd NR 9 36 15 31 4 34/244 (14) 33/199 (17)
 Syncope 14 35 5 15 NRd 7 NR NR 11 19 10 33/265 (12) 4/199 (2)
 Skin features NR NR 0 8 NR 14 9 9 NR NR NR 9/91 (10) 12/230 (5)
 Vomiting 64 NR NR NR NRd NR NR 45 19 NR NR 19/52 (37) 40/199 (20)
 Cough NR NR NR NR NR NR NR 9 NR NR 12 13/112 (12) 15/199 (8)
 Palpitations 50 NR 5 NR NR NR NR 9 NR NR 9 18/147 (12) 29/199 (15)
Organ-specific features, % (summary and Brunner, n (%))
 Decreased pulse 71 59 62 63 86 79 18 27 59 75 38 213/358 (59) 30/230 (13)
 Bruits 21 59 57 47 75 48 45 27 56 88 52 200/358 (56) 38/230 (17)
 Claudication NR 59 14 40 37 41 9 NR 22 38 23 103/333 (31) 32/241 (13)
 BP discrepancy NR 65 71 NR 68 55 18 45 67 75 55 183/304 (60) NR
 Stroke 0 18 0 8 NRd 7 18 NR 11 13 6 21/276 (8) 39/230 (17)
 Cardiac disease 21a 18b 5 20c 18d 14e 27f 18 NR 6g 25h 63/331 (19) 52/230 (23)
 Ocular disease 21 29b 10 18c 21 21e 9 NR 15 13 38 83/347 (24) 12/230 (5)i

BP: Blood pressure; F: Female; IQR; Interquartile range; LAD: Lymphadenopathy; M: Male; NR: Not reported; SD: Standard Deviation.

a

Chest pain in n=3 (21%), cardiac murmurs n=5 (36%), congestive heart failure=4 (29%), pericardial effusion and cardiomyopathy n=1 (7%) each. Bruits over subclavian artery and abdominal aorta n=3 (21%) each

b

Cardiac disease reported as “myocardial infarction” in n=1 (6%) and “heart failure” in n=3 (18%) patients, ocular disease reported as “visual complaints”.

c

Reported as cardiomyopathy and severe aortic regurgitation in n=1 (3%) patient, ocular disease reported as “visual blurring”.

d

“Constitutional symptoms” (fever, asthenia and weight loss) in n=55 (78%) patients, “neurological symptoms” (headache, stroke, syncope) in n=50 (70%), “gastrointestinal symptoms” (abdominal pain, diarrhea, vomiting) in n=41 (58%) patients. Cardiac disease reported as “heart failure”.

e

Malaise and weight loss reported as one item, arthralgia/myalgia reported in n=4 (14%), arthritis in n=1 (3%) patient, “cardiac disease” reported as congestive heart failure, “ocular disease” reported as “blurring of vision”

f

“Cardiac disease” reported as ischemic cardiac pain in n=2 (18%), as cardiomyopathy in n=3 (27%), as congestive cardiac failure in n=2 (18%), as valvular heart disease in n=1 (9%) and as pericarditis in n=1 (9%) patients.

g

Reported as “heart failure” and “visual complaints”.

h

“Cardiac disease” was reported as heart failure in n=25 (25%) and myocardial infarction/ischemia in n=3 (3%) patients.

i

Reported as “uveitis”.

Organ-specific features

Organ-specific manifestations reflect ischemia secondary to vascular stenosis. Blood pressure discrepancy (60%), decreased peripheral pulses (59%), and bruits over large arteries (56%) are frequently found; they underscore the necessity of a thorough clinical exam. A third of children present with claudication of extremities, which results from decreased blood supply; abdominal claudication may occur secondary to the involvement of the abdominal aorta or the intestinal vessels. Secondary cardiac involvement, including cardiomyopathy and ischemic heart disease, is reported in 19% of children. Neurologic manifestations such as headache, stroke, or seizures are commonly described (3, 7, 8). Carotidynia (5%) is less frequent in children as compared to adults (16), and this might be related to a reporting bias in the pediatric population. Skin disease is rare in children (10%), but nodules, erythema nodosum, and pyoderma gangrenosum have been described (5052). Ocular diseases, such as retinal vasculitis, are uncommon (5254) and lymphadenopathy is rarely reported in children (1).

TAK has been associated with inflammatory bowel disease, spondylarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, and sarcoidosis (52, 5557). A pediatric case of concomitant TAK, pyoderma gangrenosum, and chronic recurrent multifocal osteomyelitis has also been reported (50).

Laboratory features

To date, a specific biomarker for TAK does not exist. In pediatric cohorts, biologic inflammation is commonly reflected by the elevation of acute phase reactants such as C-reactive protein (CRP) and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) (3, 6). However, their sensitivity to reflect active disease remains uncertain, and in addition, they lack specificity as well. Anemia and thrombocytosis have been reported secondary to chronic inflammation. Autoantibodies, such as the antinuclear antibody or antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody, are usually absent.

Research on novel laboratory markers is ongoing. In adult TAK patients, pentraxine-3, a soluble pattern recognition receptor produced at sites of inflammation, has been reported to be significantly higher in patients with vascular inflammation and is detectable on radiographic imaging (58). However, the role of pentraxin-3 as a biomarker for disease activity in TAK remains unclear because contradictory results originated from a Turkish study with 94 adult TAK patients, which did not find any correlation between pentraxine-3 levels and disease activity (59). Further, IL-2, IL-3, IL-4, IL-6, IL-8, TNFa, IFNg, MMPs, TIPM1, VCAM, and RANTES have been associated with increased TAK activity (60). However, none of them have yet been validated or implemented in clinical practice.

Imaging

Vascular imaging is required for the diagnosis and management of cTAK. Imaging modalities include conventional angiography, magnetic resonance angiography (MRA), computer tomography angiography (CTA), Doppler ultrasound (US), and more recently, fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (PET) (18F-FDG-PET).

Efforts to characterize the distinct angiographic patterns of TAK are ongoing (6167). In children with TAK, the thoracic and abdominal aorta are the most frequently involved vessels, followed by the renal, subclavian, and carotid arteries (1, 2, 5, 12). Stenosis is the most common vascular lesion, and vessel wall thickening (which is typically concentric), aneurysms, and occlusion may also be seen (24, 8). Arterial dissection is a potentially severe complication (46).

Conventional angiography (CA; intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography) remains the gold standard to study the arterial lumen (68). Its strengths include good spatial resolution and visualization of the extent of collateralization. However, CA is invasive and is associated with radiation exposure and potential procedural complications. In addition, there is no visualization of the arterial wall, therefore, other diseases causing vascular narrowing, such as chronic wall fibrosis, are indistinguishable by CA (12). Due to its limitations and the wide availability of MRA, the use of CA is restricted to very few, specific indications in children with TAK (i.e. angiographic imaging prior to revascularization procedures) (69).

MRA has become the most popular imaging modality in cTAK, and the recent EULAR recommendations on the imaging modalities of large-vessel vasculitis propose the use of MRA as the first imaging test for suspected TAK (69). Lack of invasiveness and radiation makes this imaging modality particularly appealing for repeated evaluations in children (68). In addition to the visualization of the arterial lumen, MRA provides valuable information on vessel wall lesions and disease extent in various vascular territories. Generally, T1-weighted imaging demonstrates arterial wall lesions (such as thickening), T2-weighted imaging depicts inflammatory edema and contrast-enhanced T-1 weighted imaging with late-contrast enhancement, which is suggestive of active inflammation in the arterial wall. Although the disease activity on contrast-enhanced MRA has been shown to correlate with clinical findings and acute phase reactants in some patients (70, 71), it remains difficult to differentiate the state of the disease (active or inactive) on MRA, as neither the presence of vessel wall edema nor post-contrast arterial enhancement are specific features of an active disease state (72, 73). Thus, the debate of whether MRA is a useful modality to assess TAK disease activity continues to date.

CTA provides information similar to what is obtained from the MRA; it depicts the anatomy of the vascular lumen and wall, and assesses the post-contrast enhancement and extent of vessel involvement (74, 75). In addition, CTA may better visualize the coronary artery involvement in very young children with rapid heart rates (76). In children, MRA is preferred over CT, since CTA is associated with non-negligible radiation exposure.

Doppler US is inexpensive, non-invasive, and lacks radiation exposure. It is useful for the visualization of the arterial wall, measurement of intima-media thickness, and for the anatomic study of vascular stenosis or aneurysms (77, 78). Furthermore, it may help in the detection of TAK in a pre-stenotic phase (78). Its limitations include the investigator-dependent quality of the exam and the fact that only certain vessels are accessible for US assessment.

18F-FDG-PET has a limited role in the management of cTAK, mainly because of its significant radiation exposure if it is combined with CT and the high costs of the scan. In adults, 18F-FDGPET has been widely used and shown to accurately assess disease activity in the vascular wall (18F-FDG uptake by metabolically active cells) and visualize anatomic abnormalities (68, 79). However, a poor correlation between 18F-FDG uptake and disease activity markers has also been described (80). Accordingly, the definite role of 18F-FDG-PET in the management of TAK has yet to be determined. The utility of novel imaging modalities, such as MR-PET or diffusion-weighted whole-body imaging with background body signal suppression (DWIBS), has yet to be validated (68, 81).

Differential diagnosis

Given the rarity of the disease and the wide spectrum of non-specific symptoms, various other disorders have to be considered in the differential diagnosis of a child with suspected TAK. Infections, such as tuberculosis and syphilis, may cause aortitis and in children with a more acute clinical presentation, microorganisms such as staphylococcus aureus, streptococcus, and salmonella may be found (8284).

Other primary vasculitides (Behcet’s disease, Kawasaki disease, and panarteritis nodosa) and vasculitides secondary to SLE, spondylarthritis, or sarcoidosis may mimic the features of TAK. The differential diagnosis also includes non-inflammatory disorders, such as aortic coarctation, Williams syndrome, Marfan’s or Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, and fibromuscular dysplasia (FMD). FMD is not an inflammatory disease, however, differentiating TAK from FMD in the chronic non-inflammatory phase may be challenging because, in contrast to adults, the characteristic angiographic ‘string of beads’ pattern is rarely seen in childhood-onset FMD (85).

Treatment

Immunosuppressive therapy

The majority of children with TAK suffer from a progressive or relapsing type of disease and require immunosuppressive therapy to control vascular inflammation. The diagnostic delay, which is often significant in children, remains a major challenge, as irreversible vascular damage and secondary organ dysfunction may occur in the pre-diagnostic phase of the illness. Furthermore, therapeutic management is challenging, because biomarkers for disease activity have not yet been identified. Finally, the disease may progress on repeat imaging due to sub-clinical disease activity (86).

High-level evidence, including randomized controlled trials, to guide the treatment of cTAK is lacking, and treatment recommendations are often extrapolated from adult TAK studies. Corticosteroids remain the mainstay for the induction of remission (87, 88). However, relapses are high if patients are treated with corticosteroids alone (89), and the side effects of long-term high-dose corticosteroids may be devastating and amplified in children. Therefore, the use of corticosteroid-sparing agents upfront has been recommended (87, 88, 90). Among second-line agents, conventional DMARDs, such as methotrexate (MTX), azathioprine (AZA), mycofenolate mofetil (MMF), and cyclophosphamide (CYC) have been used with success for inducing remission and facilitating the maintenance-phase treatment (88, 90). CYC is traditionally initiated in children with extensive or life-threatening disease or those with critical organ perfusion, while MTX, AZA, and MMF are used in less severe cases.

Increased knowledge of the disease pathophysiology has resulted in the identification of key inflammatory mediators and the use of cytokine-targeting agents, such as TNF or IL-6 inhibitors (31, 32). Several studies have reported beneficial effects of biologic agents on the clinical and laboratory response in children with TAK (91, 92), and their use was included in the recent European consensus-based recommendations for the treatment of childhood vasculitis (88). When considering the toxicity profile, biologic agents may be favored over CYC in children.

In his study, Filocamo reported four children with TAK, who were treated with anti-TNF agents for refractory disease or as the first-line agents for two patients in remission and to elicit a partial response in two others (92). In a retrospective case series from Canada, children treated with biologic agents (TNF-inhibitors and tocilizumab) had higher flare-free survival rates and were more likely to exhibit an inactive disease state at the last follow-up, than those treated with conventional DMARDs (1). Mekinian et al. (93) documented equivalent efficacy and safety of TNF-inhibitors and tocilizumab (TCZ) in 49 adult TAK patients who were refractory to non-biologic therapies. In summary, the data on TNF-inhibition in TAK are encouraging and anti-TNF agents seem to be an effective therapeutic strategy in some patients, but high-quality evidence for the same is lacking. Reports originate from retrospective case series that combine anti-TNF agents with various mechanisms and other classes of therapeutic agents. Furthermore, controversy emerges from reports of patients who developed TAK while they were being treated with an anti-TNF agent for inflammatory bowel disease (1).

Good efficacy and safety profiles of IL-6 inhibitors have been reported in several pediatric and adult retrospective case series of patients with TAK (91, 9499). Batu et al. (91) described four children with TAK (three of the four with disease refractory to DMARDs) who showed a good response to TCZ and experienced no adverse events. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of TAK patients who had recently relapsed did not find a statistically significant difference between patients receiving TCZ and those on placebo, although patients receiving TCZ trended toward showing a reduction in the time to relapse (100). Among the 36 enrolled patients, six children older than 12 years were included (four receiving TCZ, two placebo) and there were no new safety concerns (100). In a recent retrospective study of 46 mostly DMARD-refractory adult TAK patients, event-free survival was significantly better with TCZ as compared to conventional DMARDs (99). Although results in TAK patients treated with TCZ seem promising, not all TAK patients have been found to respond to TCZ and the disease progression during the treatment has been described (101103). In addition, the assessment of disease activity is even more challenging in TAK patients treated with TCZ, as biologic inflammation may be suppressed and disease activity scores that include acute phase reactants may not be sensitive enough for accurate detection (104, 105).

Various other biologic agents have been used with limited success in adult TAK patients. Increased evidence of a pathogenic role of B cells in TAK provided a rationale for the use of Rituximab as a therapeutic agent (29). In adults, retrospective case reports have demonstrated the potential effect of Rituximab in refractory TAK patients (29, 106). Data on pediatric cases are lacking, although its use has been described previously (3). Genome-wide association studies have determined IL12B as a susceptibility gene for TAK (33). Based on these findings, Ustekinumab, a monoclonal antibody against IL-12/IL-23, has been used in few refractory TAK patients with good clinical and laboratory response, although imaging evidence did not support any improvement (107). Finally, the T-cell co-stimulation inhibitor, abatacept, failed to reduce relapse rate at the 12-month follow-up in a randomized, placebo-controlled trial in adult TAK patients (108).

Overall, recent data support the use of biologic pathway-targeting agents, such as TNF or IL-6 inhibitors, for children with critical organ perfusion or end-organ damage at diagnosis and for those showing severe, refractory disease.

Vascular interventions

Endovascular interventions or vascular surgery is often required to treat symptomatic organ ischemia or life-threatening vascular lesions, such as aneurysms or dissection (23, 46, 109, 110). Ideally, they should be performed during the inactive phase of the disease (23). In children, revascularization procedures (percutaneous transluminal renal angioplasty, kidney auto-transplant, and arterial bypass surgery) are performed mainly for TAK-associated renal artery stenosis; a beneficial outcome has been reported in about half of the patients, and the length of the vascular lesion seems to correlate with the clinical success (109, 110). In adult TAK patients, the most common indications for surgery are renal artery stenosis, aortic disease (coarctation, ascending aortic dilatation, and aortic valve regurgitation), ischemic heart disease, supra-aortic vessel involvement with cerebral ischemia, mesenteric ischemia, severe limb claudication, and aneurysm repair (23).

Disease activity and disease damage

Assessment of disease activity and outcome is challenging in TAK, especially in the pediatric population, and the current tools insufficiently reflect disease activity and management decisions (111). The Pediatric Vasculitis Activity Score (PVAS) is a disease activity measurement tool based on the modifications of the Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score; it captures clinical manifestations resulting from active vasculitis (112). Although it has been validated in childhood vasculitis, only six out of 63 children with systemic vasculitis suffered from TAK, and the PVAS may not be the optimal disease activity measurement tool for large-vessel vasculitis (112). The Indian TAK Clinical Activity Score (ITAS 2010 and ITAS-A, which includes acute phase reactants) has specifically been developed to assess disease activity in TAK, however, has been validated only in adult TAK patients of Indian origin (113). Both the disease activity scores measured disease activity, including signs and symptoms that had newly occurred, had worsened over the past 4 weeks, or had persisted for less than 3 months (112, 113). The Disease Extent Index in TAK (DEI.TAK) is a clinical scoring tool used to assess the disease activity and progression in TAK (114), but it has not been validated for use in children.

The most commonly used criteria to define active disease in TAK were initially proposed and used in a study from the US National Institute of Health (NIH) (86, 115). According to these criteria, a patient shows an active disease state in the presence of constitutional symptoms, new bruits, elevated acute phase reactants, or new angiographic findings (86).

To date, a validated tool for assessment of disease damage in children with TAK does not exist. The Pediatric Vasculitis Damage Index has been modified from the adult Vasculitis Damage Index and has been made to incorporate features present for more than 3 months (116). The Takayasu Arteritis Damage Score (TADS) has been developed specifically for TAK and considers features present for more than 6 months (117). Although TADS has been used for study purposes, it has not yet been validated for clinical use (117). Damage scores may help to assess cumulative damage over time, however, discriminating between disease- and treatment-related damage is difficult (111).

Outcome

Recent advances in early recognition and in therapeutic strategies have shown a decreased rate of morbidity and mortality in cTAK (1, 3). In a retrospective case series from Canada, children being treated with biologic agents had a significantly higher 2-year flare-free survival and higher rates of inactive disease at the last follow-up as compared to children who were treated with non-biologic therapies (1). However, the disease burden remains high and children often accrue significant damage over time, both from the progressing disease and the treatment-related adverse effects (1, 3, 6). Stroke, high CRP at disease onset, lower BMI, and younger age at admission have been associated with poor outcomes (4). In addition, the young age at onset and high scoring of permanent damage have been identified as independent risk factors of mortality in cTAK (3). The mortality rate varied between 0% and 27% in a recent pediatric case series (111). This variability might be explained by factors such as study region, recruitment bias, era effect, and access to medication, among others.

Conclusion

Childhood-onset TAK is a rare, severe, and potentially life-threatening disease that is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The etiology of TAK remains poorly understood, but both the innate and adaptive immune systems play a role in the disease pathogenesis. Recent data on cTAK have helped in better defining the clinical features of this rare disease. Treatment recommendations are mostly at evidence level 3 and are based on descriptive adult studies. While corticosteroids remain the mainstay of the induction regimen, biologic agents such as TNF- or IL-6 inhibitors are increasingly being used, especially for severe and refractory cases. Large international collaborative efforts are required to conduct multicenter pediatric clinical trials to determine the efficacy of the current treatment regimens, to provide disease assessment tools that address the multiple facets of cTAK, and to better define the long-term outcomes of pediatric TAK.

Main Points.

  • Despite increasing literature on childhood-onset Takayasu Arteritis, most of the available evidence is derived from adult observational cohorts.

  • Early diagnosis and effective treatment using biologic agents can reduce morbidity and mortality in childhood Takayasu Arteritis.

  • Acute phase reactants have limited utility, and novel biomarkers are required to distinguish between active inflammation and non-inflammatory lesions in Takayasu Arteritis.

  • Non-invasive and non-irradiating imaging techniques, such as MR angiography, should be preferred for diagnosis and follow-up evaluation of affected children.

  • International collaborative efforts are required to improve assessment tools for disease activity in childhood Takayasu Arteritis and to better define the therapeutic management and long-term outcomes.

Footnotes

Peer-review: Externally peer-reviewed.

Author Contributions: Concept - F.A.A., M.T., R.S.M.Y.; Design - F.A.A., M.T., R.S.M.Y.; Supervision - F.A.A., M.T., R.S.M.Y.; Literature Search - F.A.A., M.T., R.S.M.Y.; Writing Manuscript - F.A.A., M.T., R.S.M.Y.; Critical Review - F.A.A., M.T., R.S.M.Y.

Conflict of Interest: The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Financial Disclosure: The authors declared that this study has received no financial support.

References

  • 1.Aeschlimann FA, Eng SWM, Sheikh S, Laxer RM, Hebert D, Noone D, et al. Childhood Takayasu arteritis: disease course and response to therapy. Arthritis Res Ther. 2017;19:255. doi: 10.1186/s13075-017-1452-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Clemente G, Hilario MO, Len C, Silva CA, Sallum AM, Campos LM, et al. Brazilian multicenter study of 71 patients with juvenile-onset Takayasu’s arteritis: clinical and angiographic features. Rev Bras Reumatol Engl Ed. 2016;56:145–51. doi: 10.1016/j.rbr.2015.09.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Eleftheriou D, Varnier G, Dolezalova P, McMahon AM, Al-Obaidi M, Brogan PA. Takayasu arteritis in childhood: retrospective experience from a tertiary referral centre in the United Kingdom. Arthritis Res Ther. 2015;17:36. doi: 10.1186/s13075-015-0545-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Fan L, Zhang H, Cai J, Yang L, Liu B, Wei D, et al. Clinical course and prognostic factors of childhood Takayasu’s arteritis: over 15-year comprehensive analysis of 101 patients. Arthritis Res Ther. 2019;21:31. doi: 10.1186/s13075-018-1790-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Feng Y, Tang X, Liu M, Zhou J, Zhao X, Li Q. Clinical study of children with Takayasu arteritis: a retrospective study from a single center in China. Pediatr Rheumatol Online J. 2017;15:29. doi: 10.1186/s12969-017-0164-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Goel R, Kumar TS, Danda D, Joseph G, Jeyaseelan V, Surin AK, et al. Childhood-onset Takayasu arteritis -- experience from a tertiary care center in South India. J Rheumatol. 2014;41:1183–9. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.131117. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Misra DP, Aggarwal A, Lawrence A, Agarwal V, Misra R. Pediatric-onset Takayasu’s arteritis: clinical features and short-term outcome. Rheumatol Int. 2015;35:1701–6. doi: 10.1007/s00296-015-3272-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Szugye HS, Zeft AS, Spalding SJ. Takayasu Arteritis in the pediatric population: a contemporary United States-Based Single Center Cohort. Pediatr Rheumatol Online J. 2014;12:21. doi: 10.1186/1546-0096-12-21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Zhu WH, Shen LG, Neubauer H. Clinical characteristics, interdisciplinary treatment and follow-up of 14 children with Takayasu arteritis. World J Pediatr. 2010;6:342–7. doi: 10.1007/s12519-010-0234-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Sahin S, Hopurcuoglu D, Bektas S, Belhan E, Adrovic A, Barut K, et al. Childhood-onset Takayasu arteritis: A 15-year experience from a tertiary referral center. Int J Rheum Dis. 2019;22:132–9. doi: 10.1111/1756-185X.13425. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Jales-Neto LH, Levy-Neto M, Bonfa E, de Carvalho JF, Pereira RM. Juvenile-onset Takayasu arteritis: peculiar vascular involvement and more refractory disease. Scand J Rheumatol. 2010;39:506–10. doi: 10.3109/03009741003742730. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Brunner J, Feldman BM, Tyrrell PN, Kuemmerle-Deschner JB, Zimmerhackl LB, Gassner I, et al. Takayasu arteritis in children and adolescents. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2010;49:1806–14. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keq167. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Watts R, Al-Taiar A, Mooney J, Scott D, Macgregor A. The epidemiology of Takayasu arteritis in the UK. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2009;48:1008–11. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kep153. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Jang SY, Seo SR, Park SW, Kim DK. Prevalence of Takayasu’s arteritis in Korea. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2018;36(Suppl 111):163–4. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Mossberg M, Segelmark M, Kahn R, Englund M, Mohammad AJ. Epidemiology of primary systemic vasculitis in children: a population-based study from southern Sweden. Scand J Rheumatol. 2018;47:295–302. doi: 10.1080/03009742.2017.1412497. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Aeschlimann FA, Barra L, Alsolaimani R, Benseler SM, Hebert D, Khalidi N, et al. Presentation and disease course of childhood-versus adult-onset Takayasu Arteritis. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71:315–23. doi: 10.1002/art.40690. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Higaki R, Miyazaki A, Tajiri Y, Shoji M, Saito S, Yoshimura SI, et al. Continuous infusion of lipoprostaglandin E1 for Takayasu’s arteritis with heart failure in an 11-month-old baby: a case report. J Med Case Rep. 2018;12:266. doi: 10.1186/s13256-018-1769-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Liu H, Sun L, Upadhyaya RS, Chen Y, Ajoje OO. Case report: Takayasu arteritis in a 3-monthold Chinese girl. Medicine (Baltimore) 2018;97:e12637. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000012637. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Singh N, Hughes M, Sebire N, Brogan P. Takayasu arteritis in infancy. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2013;52:2093–5. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/ket109. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Piskovsky T, Hladik M, Kosnovska L, Cermakova J, Miklosova K. Takayasu arteritis in a 10-monthold boy. Vasa. 2013;42:134–8. doi: 10.1024/0301-1526/a000258. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Tombetti E, Mason JC. Takayasu arteritis: advanced understanding is leading to new horizons. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2019;58:206–19. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/key040. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Terao C. Revisited HLA and non-HLA genetics of Takayasu arteritis--where are we? J Hum Genet. 2016;61:27–32. doi: 10.1038/jhg.2015.87. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Mason JC. Surgical intervention and its role in Takayasu arteritis. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2018;32:112–24. doi: 10.1016/j.berh.2018.07.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Inder SJ, Bobryshev YV, Cherian SM, Lord RS, Masuda K, Yutani C. Accumulation of lymphocytes, dendritic cells, and granulocytes in the aortic wall affected by Takayasu’s disease. Angiology. 2000;51:565–79. doi: 10.1177/000331970005100705. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Saadoun D, Garrido M, Comarmond C, Desbois AC, Domont F, Savey L, et al. Th1 and Th17 cytokines drive inflammation in Takayasu arteritis. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2015;67:1353–60. doi: 10.1002/art.39037. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Maciejewski-Duval A, Comarmond C, Leroyer A, Zaidan M, Le Joncour A, Desbois AC, et al. mTOR pathway activation in large vessel vasculitis. J Autoimmun. 2018;94:99–109. doi: 10.1016/j.jaut.2018.07.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Chauhan SK, Tripathy NK, Nityanand S. Antigenic targets and pathogenicity of anti-aortic endothelial cell antibodies in Takayasu arteritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2006;54:2326–33. doi: 10.1002/art.21921. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Wang H, Ma J, Wu Q, Luo X, Chen Z, Kou L. Circulating B lymphocytes producing autoantibodies to endothelial cells play a role in the pathogenesis of Takayasu arteritis. J Vasc Surg. 2011;53:174–80. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2010.06.173. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Hoyer BF, Mumtaz IM, Loddenkemper K, Bruns A, Sengler C, Hermann KG, et al. Takayasu arteritis is characterised by disturbances of B cell homeostasis and responds to B cell depletion therapy with rituximab. Ann Rheum Dis. 2012;71:75–9. doi: 10.1136/ard.2011.153007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Arnaud L, Haroche J, Mathian A, Gorochov G, Amoura Z. Pathogenesis of Takayasu’s arteritis: a 2011 update. Autoimmun Rev. 2011;11:61–7. doi: 10.1016/j.autrev.2011.08.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Park MC, Lee SW, Park YB, Lee SK. Serum cytokine profiles and their correlations with disease activity in Takayasu’s arteritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2006;45:545–8. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kei266. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Noris M, Daina E, Gamba S, Bonazzola S, Remuzzi G. Interleukin-6 and RANTES in Takayasu arteritis: a guide for therapeutic decisions? Circulation. 1999;100:55–60. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.100.1.55. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Terao C, Yoshifuji H, Kimura A, Matsumura T, Ohmura K, Takahashi M, et al. Two susceptibility loci to Takayasu arteritis reveal a synergistic role of the IL12B and HLA-B regions in a Japanese population. Am J Hum Genet. 2013;93:289–97. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2013.05.024. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Sahin Z, Bicakcigil M, Aksu K, Kamali S, Akar S, Onen F, et al. Takayasu’s arteritis is associated with HLA-B*52, but not with HLA-B*51, in Turkey. Arthritis Res Ther. 2012;14:R27. doi: 10.1186/ar3730. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Saruhan-Direskeneli G, Hughes T, Aksu K, Keser G, Coit P, Aydin SZ, et al. Identification of multiple genetic susceptibility loci in Takayasu arteritis. Am J Hum Genet. 2013;93:298–305. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2013.05.026. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Renauer PA, Saruhan-Direskeneli G, Coit P, Adler A, Aksu K, Keser G, et al. Identification of Susceptibility Loci in IL6, RPS9/LILRB3, and an Intergenic Locus on Chromosome 21q22 in Takayasu Arteritis in a Genome-Wide Association Study. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2015;67:1361–8. doi: 10.1002/art.39035. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Pantell RH, Goodman BW., Jr Takayasu’s arteritis: the relationship with tuberculosis. Pediatrics. 1981;67:84–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Mwipatayi BP, Jeffery PC, Beningfield SJ, Matley PJ, Naidoo NG, Kalla AA, et al. Takayasu arteritis: clinical features and management: report of 272 cases. ANZ J Surg. 2005;75:110–7. doi: 10.1111/j.1445-2197.2005.03312.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Hahn D, Thomson PD, Kala U, Beale PG, Levin SE. A review of Takayasu’s arteritis in children in Gauteng, South Africa. Pediatr Nephrol. 1998;12:668–75. doi: 10.1007/s004670050526. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Aggarwal A, Chag M, Sinha N, Naik S. Takayasu’s arteritis: role of Mycobacterium tuberculosis and its 65 kDa heat shock protein. Int J Cardiol. 1996;55:49–55. doi: 10.1016/0167-5273(96)02660-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Soto ME, Del Carmen Avila-Casado M, Huesca-Gomez C, Alarcon GV, Castrejon V, Soto V, et al. Detection of IS6110 and HupB gene sequences of Mycobacterium tuberculosis and bovis in the aortic tissue of patients with Takayasu’s arteritis. BMC Infect Dis. 2012;12:194. doi: 10.1186/1471-2334-12-194. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Arend WP, Michel BA, Bloch DA, Hunder GG, Calabrese LH, Edworthy SM, et al. The American College of Rheumatology 1990 criteria for the classification of Takayasu arteritis. Arthritis Rheum. 1990;33:1129–34. doi: 10.1002/art.1780330811. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Ozen S, Ruperto N, Dillon MJ, Bagga A, Barron K, Davin JC, et al. EULAR/PReS endorsed consensus criteria for the classification of childhood vasculitides. Ann Rheum Dis. 2006;65:936–41. doi: 10.1136/ard.2005.046300. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Ozen S, Pistorio A, Iusan SM, Bakkaloglu A, Herlin T, Brik R, et al. EULAR/PRINTO/PRES criteria for Henoch-Schonlein purpura, childhood polyarteritis nodosa, childhood Wegener granulomatosis and childhood Takayasu arteritis: Ankara 2008. Part II: Final classification criteria. Ann Rheum Dis. 2010;69:798–806. doi: 10.1136/ard.2009.116657. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Morales E, Pineda C, Martinez-Lavin M. Takayasu’s arteritis in children. J Rheumatol. 1991;18:1081–4. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Aeschlimann FA, Grosse-Wortmann L, Benseler SM, Laxer RM, Hebert D, Yeung RS. Arterial dissection in childhood Takayasu Arteritis: not as rare as thought. Pediatr Rheumatol Online J. 2016;14:56. doi: 10.1186/s12969-016-0115-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.An X, Han Y, Zhang B, Qiao L, Zhao Y, Guo X, et al. Takayasu arteritis presented with acute heart failure: case report and review of literature. ESC Heart Fail. 2017;4:649–54. doi: 10.1002/ehf2.12174. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Fan L, Zhang H, Cai J, Ma W, Song L, Lou Y. Middle aortic syndrome because of pediatric Takayasu arteritis admitted as acute heart failure: clinical course and therapeutic strategies. J Hypertens. 2018;36:2118–9. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0000000000001847. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Yang MC, Yang CC, Chen CA, Wang JK. Takayasu arteritis presenting with acute heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61:1302. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2012.09.070. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Vettiyil G, Punnen A, Kumar S. An Unusual Association of Chronic Recurrent Multifocal Osteomyelitis, Pyoderma Gangrenosum, and Takayasu Arteritis. J Rheumatol. 2017;44:127–8. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.160491. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Barrera-Vargas A, Granados J, Garcia-Hidalgo L, Hinojosa-Azaola A. An unusual presentation of Takayasu’s arteritis in two Mexican siblings. Mod Rheumatol. 2015;25:802–5. doi: 10.3109/14397595.2013.844384. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Clemente G, Silva CA, Sacchetti SB, Ferriani VPL, Oliveira SK, Sztajnbok F, et al. Takayasu arteritis in childhood: misdiagnoses at disease onset and associated diseases. Rheumatol Int. 2018;38:1089–94. doi: 10.1007/s00296-018-4030-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Matalia J, Kasturi N, Anaspure HD, Shetty BK. Tonic pupil, anterior ischemic optic neuropathy in a teenager with Takayasu arteritis. Can J Ophthalmol. 2013;48:e159–63. doi: 10.1016/j.jcjo.2013.07.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Wu SY, Chen CH, Cheng CC, Fan HC. Takayasu’s Arteritis Presenting as Monocular Visual Loss. Pediatr Neonatol. 2015;56:435–8. doi: 10.1016/j.pedneo.2015.04.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Betancourt BY, Ahlman MA, Grayson PC. Clinical Images: Sarcoidosis concomitant with Takayasu arteritis, identified by advanced molecular imaging. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019;71:990. doi: 10.1002/art.40847. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Guzel Esen S, Armagan B, Atas N, Ucar M, Varan O, Erden A, et al. Increased incidence of spondyloarthropathies in patients with Takayasu arteritis: a systematic clinical survey. Joint Bone Spine. 2019;86:497–501. doi: 10.1016/j.jbspin.2019.01.020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Sy A, Khalidi N, Dehghan N, Barra L, Carette S, Cuthbertson D, et al. Vasculitis in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases: A study of 32 patients and systematic review of the literature. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2016;45:475–82. doi: 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2015.07.006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Tombetti E, Di Chio MC, Sartorelli S, Papa M, Salerno A, Bottazzi B, et al. Systemic pentraxin-3 levels reflect vascular enhancement and progression in Takayasu arteritis. Arthritis Res Ther. 2014;16:479. doi: 10.1186/s13075-014-0479-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Ozen S, Batu ED. Vasculitis Pathogenesis: Can We Talk About Precision Medicine? Front Immunol. 2018;9:1892. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2018.01892. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Arnaud L, Haroche J, Toledano D, Cacoub P, Mathian A, Costedoat-Chalumeau N, et al. Cluster analysis of arterial involvement in Takayasu arteritis reveals symmetric extension of the lesions in paired arterial beds. Arthritis Rheum. 2011;63:1136–40. doi: 10.1002/art.30240. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Aeschlimann FA, Eng S, Grosse-Wortmann L, Benseler SM, Laxer RM, Hebert D, et al. Patterns of vascular involvement in childhood Takayasu Arteritis (Abstract) Arthritis Rheumatol. 2015;67(suppl 10) [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Lupi-Herrera E, Sanchez-Torres G, Marcushamer J, Mispireta J, Horwitz S, Vela JE. Takayasu’s arteritis. Clinical study of 107 cases. Am Heart J. 1977;93:94–103. doi: 10.1016/S0002-8703(77)80178-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Ishikawa K. Natural history and classification of occlusive thromboaortopathy (Takayasu’s disease) Circulation. 1978;57:27–35. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.57.1.27. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Moriwaki R, Noda M, Yajima M, Sharma BK, Numano F. Clinical manifestations of Takayasu arteritis in India and Japan--new classification of angiographic findings. Angiology. 1997;48:369–79. doi: 10.1016/S0167-5273(96)02813-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Tombetti E, Godi C, Ambrosi A, Doyle F, Jacobs A, Kiprianos AP, et al. Novel Angiographic Scores for evaluation of Large Vessel Vasculitis. Sci Rep. 2018;8:15979. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-34395-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Hata A, Noda M, Moriwaki R, Numano F. Angiographic findings of Takayasu arteritis: new classification. Int J Cardiol. 1996;54(Suppl):S155–63. doi: 10.1016/S0167-5273(96)02813-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Tombetti E, Mason JC. Application of imaging techniques for Takayasu arteritis. Presse Med. 2017;46:e215–e23. doi: 10.1016/j.lpm.2017.03.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Dejaco C, Ramiro S, Duftner C, Besson FL, Bley TA, Blockmans D, et al. EULAR recommendations for the use of imaging in large vessel vasculitis in clinical practice. Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77:636–43. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2017-212649. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Jiang L, Li D, Yan F, Dai X, Li Y, Ma L. Evaluation of Takayasu arteritis activity by delayed contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Int J Cardiol. 2012;155:262–7. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2010.10.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.John RA, Keshava SN, Danda D. Correlating MRI with clinical evaluation in the assessment of disease activity of Takayasu’s arteritis. Int J Rheum Dis. 2017;20:882–6. doi: 10.1111/1756-185X.12967. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Kato Y, Terashima M, Ohigashi H, Tezuka D, Ashikaga T, Hirao K, et al. Vessel Wall Inflammation of Takayasu Arteritis Detected by Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Association with Disease Distribution and Activity. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0145855. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0145855. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Tso E, Flamm SD, White RD, Schvartzman PR, Mascha E, Hoffman GS. Takayasu arteritis: utility and limitations of magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosis and treatment. Arthritis Rheum. 2002;46:1634–42. doi: 10.1002/art.10251. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Park JH. Conventional and CT angiographic diagnosis of Takayasu arteritis. Int J Cardiol. 1996;54(Suppl):S165–71. doi: 10.1016/S0167-5273(96)88785-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Yamada I, Nakagawa T, Himeno Y, Numano F, Shibuya H. Takayasu arteritis: evaluation of the thoracic aorta with CT angiography. Radiology. 1998;209:103–9. doi: 10.1148/radiology.209.1.9769819. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Soto ME, Melendez-Ramirez G, Kimura-Hayama E, Meave-Gonzalez A, Achenbach S, Herrera MC, et al. Coronary CT angiography in Takayasu arteritis. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2011;4:958–66. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2011.04.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Schmidt WA. Technology Insight: the role of color and power Doppler ultrasonography in rheumatology. Nat Clin Pract Rheumatol. 2007;3:35–42. doi: 10.1038/ncprheum0377. quiz 59. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Schmidt WA, Nerenheim A, Seipelt E, Poehls C, Gromnica-Ihle E. Diagnosis of early Takayasu arteritis with sonography. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2002;41:496–502. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/41.5.496. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Tezuka D, Haraguchi G, Ishihara T, Ohigashi H, Inagaki H, Suzuki J, et al. Role of FDG PET-CT in Takayasu arteritis: sensitive detection of recurrences. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012;5:422–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jcmg.2012.01.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Arnaud L, Haroche J, Malek Z, Archambaud F, Gambotti L, Grimon G, et al. Is (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography scanning a reliable way to assess disease activity in Takayasu arteritis? Arthritis Rheum. 2009;60:1193–200. doi: 10.1002/art.24416. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Oguro E, Ohshima S, Kikuchi-Taura A, Murata A, Kuzuya K, Okita Y, et al. Diffusion-weighted Whole-body Imaging with Background Body Signal Suppression (DWIBS) as a Novel Imaging Modality for Disease Activity Assessment in Takayasu’s Arteritis. Intern Med. 2019;58:1355–60. doi: 10.2169/internalmedicine.1792-18. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Lopes RJ, Almeida J, Dias PJ, Pinho P, Maciel MJ. Infectious thoracic aortitis: a literature review. Clin Cardiol. 2009;32:488–90. doi: 10.1002/clc.20578. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Schwartz SB, Fisher D, Reinus C, Shahroor S. Infectious aortitis: a rare cause of chest pain in a child. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2011;27:654–6. doi: 10.1097/PEC.0b013e318222561f. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Bayhan GI, Ece I, Oner AF. Brucellar Aortitis and Meningoencephalitis in an Adolescent. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2016;35:1368–70. doi: 10.1097/INF.0000000000001260. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Tullus K. Renovascular hypertension--is it fibromuscular dysplasia or Takayasu arteritis. Pediatr Nephrol. 2013;28:191–6. doi: 10.1007/s00467-012-2151-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Kerr GS, Hallahan CW, Giordano J, Leavitt RY, Fauci AS, Rottem M, et al. Takayasu arteritis. Ann Intern Med. 1994;120:919–29. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-120-11-199406010-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Mukhtyar C, Guillevin L, Cid MC, Dasgupta B, de Groot K, Gross W, et al. EULAR recommendations for the management of large vessel vasculitis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2009;68:318–23. doi: 10.1136/ard.2008.088351. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.de Graeff N, Groot N, Brogan P, Ozen S, Avcin T, Bader-Meunier B, et al. European consensus-based recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of rare paediatric vasculitides - the SHARE initiative. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2019;58:656–71. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/key322. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Kotter I, Henes JC, Wagner AD, Loock J, Gross WL. Does glucocorticosteroid-resistant large-vessel vasculitis (giant cell arteritis and Takayasu arteritis) exist and how can remission be achieved? A critical review of the literature. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2012;30(1 Suppl 70):S114–29. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Ozen S, Duzova A, Bakkaloglu A, Bilginer Y, Cil BE, Demircin M, et al. Takayasu arteritis in children: preliminary experience with cyclophosphamide induction and corticosteroids followed by methotrexate. J Pediatr. 2007;150:72–6. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2006.10.059. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Batu ED, Sonmez HE, Hazirolan T, Ozaltin F, Bilginer Y, Ozen S. Tocilizumab treatment in childhood Takayasu arteritis: Case series of four patients and systematic review of the literature. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 2017;46:529–35. doi: 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2016.07.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Filocamo G, Buoncompagni A, Viola S, Loy A, Malattia C, Ravelli A, et al. Treatment of Takayasu’s arteritis with tumor necrosis factor antagonists. J Pediatr. 2008;153:432–4. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2008.04.049. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Mekinian A, Comarmond C, Resche-Rigon M, Mirault T, Kahn JE, Lambert M, et al. Efficacy of Biological-Targeted Treatments in Takayasu Arteritis: Multicenter, Retrospective Study of 49 Patients. Circulation. 2015;132:1693–700. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.114.014321. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Abisror N, Mekinian A, Lavigne C, Vandenhende MA, Soussan M, Fain O, et al. Tocilizumab in refractory Takayasu arteritis: a case series and updated literature review. Autoimmun Rev. 2013;12:1143–9. doi: 10.1016/j.autrev.2013.06.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Bravo Mancheno B, Perin F, Guez Vazquez Del Rey Mdel M, Garcia Sanchez A, Alcazar Romero PP. Successful tocilizumab treatment in a child with refractory Takayasu arteritis. Pediatrics. 2012;130:e1720–4. doi: 10.1542/peds.2012-1384. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Goel R, Danda D, Kumar S, Joseph G. Rapid control of disease activity by tocilizumab in 10 ‘difficult-to-treat’ cases of Takayasu arteritis. Int J Rheum Dis. 2013;16:754–61. doi: 10.1111/1756-185X.12220. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Nishimoto N, Nakahara H, Yoshio-Hoshino N, Mima T. Successful treatment of a patient with Takayasu arteritis using a humanized anti-interleukin-6 receptor antibody. Arthritis Rheum. 2008;58:1197–200. doi: 10.1002/art.23373. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Yamazaki K, Kikuchi M, Nozawa T, Kanetaka T, Hara R, Imagawa T, et al. Tocilizumab for patients with takayasu arteritis in childhood refractory to conventional therapy. Pediatric Rheumatology. 2013;11(Suppl 2):O24. doi: 10.1186/1546-0096-11-S2-O24. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Mekinian A, Resche-Rigon M, Comarmond C, Soriano A, Constans J, Alric L, et al. Efficacy of tocilizumab in Takayasu arteritis: Multicenter retrospective study of 46 patients. J Autoimmun. 2018;91:55–60. doi: 10.1016/j.jaut.2018.04.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Nakaoka Y, Isobe M, Takei S, Tanaka Y, Ishii T, Yokota S, et al. Efficacy and safety of tocilizumab in patients with refractory Takayasu arteritis: results from a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial in Japan (the TAKT study) Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77:348–54. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2017-211878. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 100.Liebling EJ, Peterson R, Victoria T, Burnham JM. Aortic ulceration in a tocilizumab-treated patient with Takayasu arteritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019;78:e116. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2018-214191. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 101.Muratore F, Salvarani C. Aortic dilatation in a patient with Takayasu arteritis treated with tocilizumab. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019 Apr 16; doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-215459. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-215459. [Epub ahead of print]. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 102.Sanchez-Alvarez C, Koster M, Duarte-Garcia A, Warrington KJ. Disease progression of Takayasu arteritis in two patients treated with tocilizumab. Ann Rheum Dis. 2018 Dec 8; doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2018-214642. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2018-214642. [Epub ahead of print]. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 103.Dikkes A, Aschwanden M, Imfeld S, Glatz K, Messerli J, Staub D, et al. Takayasu arteritis: active or not, that’s the question. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2017;56:1818–9. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kex213. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 104.Xenitidis T, Horger M, Zeh G, Kanz L, Henes JC. Sustained inflammation of the aortic wall despite tocilizumab treatment in two cases of Takayasu arteritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2013;52:1729–31. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/ket107. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 105.Pazzola G, Muratore F, Pipitone N, Crescentini F, Cacoub P, Boiardi L, et al. Rituximab therapy for Takayasu arteritis: a seven patients experience and a review of the literature. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2017. Jul 18, [Epub ahead of print]. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 106.Terao C, Yoshifuji H, Nakajima T, Yukawa N, Matsuda F, Mimori T. Ustekinumab as a therapeutic option for Takayasu arteritis: from genetic findings to clinical application. Scand J Rheumatol. 2016;45:80–2. doi: 10.3109/03009742.2015.1060521. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 107.Langford CA, Cuthbertson D, Ytterberg SR, Khalidi N, Monach PA, Carette S, et al. A Randomized, Double-Blind Trial of Abatacept (CTLA-4Ig) for the Treatment of Giant Cell Arteritis. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2017;69:837–45. doi: 10.1002/art.40044. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 108.Ladapo TA, Gajjar P, McCulloch M, Scott C, Numanoglu A, Nourse P. Impact of revascularization on hypertension in children with Takayasu’s arteritis-induced renal artery stenosis: a 21-year review. Pediatr Nephrol. 2015;30:1289–95. doi: 10.1007/s00467-015-3049-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 109.Zhu G, He F, Gu Y, Yu H, Chen B, Hu Z, et al. Angioplasty for pediatric renovascular hypertension: a 13-year experience. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2014;20:285–92. doi: 10.5152/dir.2014.13208. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 110.Aydin SZ, Merkel PA, Direskeneli H. Outcome measures for Takayasu’s arteritis. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2015;27:32–7. doi: 10.1097/BOR.0000000000000129. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 111.Dolezalova P, Price-Kuehne FE, Ozen S, Benseler SM, Cabral DA, Anton J, et al. Disease activity assessment in childhood vasculitis: development and preliminary validation of the Paediatric Vasculitis Activity Score (PVAS) Ann Rheum Dis. 2013;72:1628–33. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2012-202111. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 112.Misra R, Danda D, Rajappa SM, Ghosh A, Gupta R, Mahendranath KM, et al. Development and initial validation of the Indian Takayasu Clinical Activity Score (ITAS2010) Rheumatology (Oxford) 2013;52:1795–801. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/ket128. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 113.Aydin SZ, Yilmaz N, Akar S, Aksu K, Kamali S, Yucel E, et al. Assessment of disease activity and progression in Takayasu’s arteritis with Disease Extent Index-Takayasu. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2010;49:1889–93. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keq171. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 114.Direskeneli H, Aydin SZ, Kermani TA, Matteson EL, Boers M, Herlyn K, et al. Development of outcome measures for large-vessel vasculitis for use in clinical trials: opportunities, challenges, and research agenda. J Rheumatol. 2011;38:1471–9. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.110275. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 115.Exley AR, Bacon PA, Luqmani RA, Kitas GD, Gordon C, Savage CO, et al. Development and initial validation of the Vasculitis Damage Index for the standardized clinical assessment of damage in the systemic vasculitides. Arthritis Rheum. 1997;40:371–80. doi: 10.1002/art.1780400222. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 116.Rajappa SM. Outcome of vascular interventions in Takayasu arteritis using the Takayasu arteritis damage score (Abstract) Arthritis Rheum. 2011;63(Suppl 10):588. [Google Scholar]

Articles from European Journal of Rheumatology are provided here courtesy of AVES

RESOURCES